I would disagree with your first argument since there were no English speakers there to select. There were, however, women there
OK, pick a different example–why were none of the Twelve Gentiles? Of course, we know from later Biblical teaching that the Jew-Gentile distinction is abolished in Christ. But one passage (Galatians 3:28) applies this same logic to male and female. The main point I’m making, though, is that the fact that Jesus chose Twelve men is clearly not explicitly and obviously a statement that women can’t be ordained. We know that there are many characteristics shared by all the Twelve which are not binding criteria for ordination. That’s all I’m saying.
When you start speculating as to why women weren’t included among the Twelve, you’re on much shakier ground. In particular, people who make this argument frequently argue that Jesus wouldn’t have been affected by His culture, which is, I think, Docetist. Jesus was a real first-century Jew who participated in His culture in all the ways that didn’t involve sin. Ironically, the “Jesus would have chosen women if He could have” argument implies a more feminist stance than I hold, even though it’s in support of a more “conservative” position.
and it is pretty clear biblically that the male has the leadership role in all aspects of life because God is a He in Judeo/Christian religion
The Fathers are pretty clear that the use of masculine pronouns does not mean that God is male. It is heresy, in fact, to say that the divine nature is literally either male or female. If you start distinguishing between male and masculine, then you’re getting into very nebulous territory where a lot more work is needed.
and He created man to be servant leaders.
That is the interpretation of modern “complementarians.” It is not the only way to interpret Scripture, and of course the concept of “servant leadership” is a vague one which can mean many things. Mostly, in my experience, it doesn’t mean much.
I think the problem with today’s society is that if you are not the “leader” or don’t have the “prestige of office”, you are no one. (Jesus dealt with a group that felt that way. I think they were called the Pharisees.) And we are so bent on equality and women being just like men that we forget that God made us distinctly for different roles. It reminds me of the apostles wondering who was the “greatest.” Christianity is not about vain ambition and seeking the “leadership” position because it’s not about ME. But we today have not gotten any farther than Adam & Eve. Tell me what it is that I can’t have and I will desire that more than anything.
It always seems funny to me that conservatives are so hung up on the supposed power-hunger of those who advocate for women’s ordination, while those who hang on to male privilege get a free pass.
But I agree that the arguments for women’s ordination have been overly political, and this obscures the real issues, which are theological. Christologically, the pro-women’s position seems
more orthodox to me. Jesus saves all humanity, not just men. Since he saves humanity by assuming human nature, He clearly assumes a nature common to all human beings for the purpose of our salvation, not some specific “male” nature (for which there isn’t a good basis in traditional Christian thought anyway, from what I can tell–Aquinas and other classic theologians thought that male was more perfect than female, and in the absence of this view the anti-women’s-ordination position lacks an adequate theological anthropology). I see no basis Christologically or anthropologically for saying that anyone who can be baptized is incapable of receiving ordination. But as I said, I recognize that I’m fallible.
Edwin
