A respondent to my post below (see Rosemary's comment to the post) about an editorial of Gerald Bray in The Churchman raises several important points which I would like to respond to, not least because with the points comes a charge that I (and people reading Paul like me) are undermining the integrity with which Paul wrote.
Here are the important points:
"... if I’m not to trust the plain meaning of Paul on that matter, what other matter can I not trust him on? Salvation? Eternal Life? He wrote quite a bit about the necessity of people being able to trust in his integrity .. and yet you’re telling me that he’s not to be trusted in this particular case. The implication is that I can’t trust him on any other issue either ... [and] ...no, just continue to make sure you uphold the apparent justice issue, and continue to lack trust in Jesus actions and undermining the authority of Paul ..." That is, (1) what is the 'plain meaning' of Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-15?
"... the devil has convinced us that we must hold upfront positions in order to be equal, we must seek leadership in order to be fulfilled. In fact that service can ONLY be seen in those roles." That is, (2) the church today is deceived into thinking that equality of women with men requires the ordination of women.
"... Rather downputting of so many women who don’t see their roles that way isn’t it Peter? But don’t concern yourself about them ..." That is, (3) the goal of ordaining women, and the continuing upholding of that goal is at the expense of women who do not seek ordination as a validation of the ministry they do have.
Here I will not attempt a long answer for which I can refer to some posts on Anglican Down Under I made some time ago, here, here, here, here and there. So, some brief responses:
(1) on the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the question is whether any exegete understands the 'plain meaning' because there is vigorous scholarly debate over (a) the meaning of the word, authentein, in 2:12 (to have authority or to usurp authority), and (b) the meaning in 2:15 of 'being kept safe, or being saved through childbirth, or by bearing children, or by bearing The Child.' In my view the difficulties in 2:15 raise the serious question whether the prohibition in 2:12 is not only concerned with female usurpers of authority but also with the content of their teaching as doctrinally unsound because it involved denial of the inherent goodness of our sexuality (see also 1 Timothy 4:3).
My argument is that, in the light of the positive affirmations of women in ministry leadership elsewhere in Paul's writings, these uncertainties mean we cannot be confident that we understand the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to be a universal prohibition for all time of all women who might be ordained to the priesthood or episcopacy (which ministries normally include teaching and leadership). I accept, of course, that many Christians believe they read Paul in 2:11-15 plainly and have excellent grounds for rejecting the ordination of women. This belief necessarily includes a confidence in understanding authentein and the tricky questions concerning salvation in 2:15 which I (and other esxegetes) do not share.
Incidentally I am not at all satisfied that engaging with Paul's writings by asking questions of it should incur charges of 'not trusting' him. Plenty of questioning of Paul goes on in the evangelical wing of the church, let alone within the whole church. Is it trusting or not trusting Paul, for example, to downplay or even deny the validity of speaking in tongues or exercising spiritual gifts such as words of knowledge (1 Corinthians 12, 14) as many evangelicals do?
(2)It is quite possible, indeed probable that in some places in the church people are deceived into thinking that equality of women with men requires the ordination of women. (Intriguingly this could mean that many Protestants have been deceived by the devil but all of the Roman and Eastern churches have withstood the devil's wiles!!) But arguments for the ordination of women do not require a linkage with 'equality'. Speaking personally (i.e. not trying to second guess the arguments of others) I support the ordination of women as a recognition of calling, gifts, and abilities of women the church discerns as able to fulfil the role of deacon, priest or bishop. In my view the church should not ordain women as a matter driven primarily by justice considerations but foremost as a matter of responding to the discernment of the will of God.
(3) I am well aware that in various parts of the church there is an unfortunate clericalism whereby the earthly glory and praise for ministry roles goes primarily to the ordained with lay ministers being ignored, taken for granted, or generally overlooked when ministry is commended - a clericalism which has simply extended its scope with the ordination of women. This post, for example, bears witness to that fact.
But I fail to see any necessary linkage between ordaining women and putting down the ministry of women who are not ordained. Speaking personally I make it my aim not to glorify ordained ministry, especially not in comparison to lay ministry. Speaking from the Diocese of Nelson where lay and ordained ministry, of men and of women, mingles side by side, and where lay and ordained ministers are welcomed and encouraged to participate in our annual Leadership Conference, I humbly assert that it is possible to affirm the ordination of women and to affirm the ministry of women who are not ordained, without anyone being put down.
On history’s eradication of memory
1 month ago
".. I support the ordination of women as a recognition of calling...the church should not ordain women as a matter driven primarily by justice considerations but foremost as a matter of responding to the discernment of the will of God."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, when people begin to realise that this is all about God and nothing to do with making accommodations to the prevailing culture the better. Why those who support women's ordination are always accused of succumbing to social mores, I do not know.
It is faulty reasoning.
I am reading Fee at the moment on this very issue in a book called 'Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics'.
G Fee
'The so-called women's issue is a hermeneutical question, and we will have differences here. But those differences are not questions of the authority of scripture (namely Paul's authority in Rosemary's comment). They are questions of interpretation...' p.20
and Fee again
'Unfortunately, in an area where hermeneutics is in fact the key issue, some have taken a rigid stance on the basis of their own hermeneutics that they have accused others of believing in an errant Bible because they do not hold to the same interpretation.' (p.2)
Whenever I see arguments based on one party proclaiming to have the 'plain' reading, I think of Fee's words.
Is not the universal principle of 1 Tim 2 11-15 more to do with the fact that anyone teaching false doctrines (whether they be male or female), having usurped established authority is to be corrected, no, indeed, silenced? This is what we should concern ourselves with. If the devil has anything to do with it, he has succeeded indeed in having us all preoccupy ourselves with worldly antagonisms to offices and titles and gender, when it is those teaching an anti-gospel that we should be concerned about.
Fee is a fine commentator!
ReplyDeleteFirst Peter, I sincerely apologise for the sarcasm of my response in the comments section of your first piece.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, [with regard to your summary point 1], I appreciate the point, although you haven't made it clearly, that because this is a second order issue, like that of tongues or the delineation of spiritual gifts, we can talk about the issue, perhaps even disagree. However, you have not answered my main point, [or Gerald Brays], which is that Jesus did not ordain women as pastor/teachers. So my main point is that Paul is only confirming that we are taught this from .. as he puts it .. creation and the fall. No doubt because I'm not an exegete, I see no need to turn myself inside out trying to find an explanation for the word 'authentein' until or unless someone can show me from Genesis that God called women to 'name the animals' for example .. or that Jesus called women to teach and therefore have authority over men. Jesus is renowned for being counter cutural, why not here? I'm asking you to demonstrate from either Genesis or Jesus, that women are called into that role. I have a very strong desire to be obedient to God's calling.
With regard to your summary point two, that the church today is deceived into thinking that equality of women with men requires the ordination of women. If you do NOT see equality as having any link with the demands of women to be accepted into ordination as deacons, priest or bishops, then will you please explain it to me, particularly from Genesis. As I understand it, my ministry is that of 'helpmeet' and that role has few if any restrictions. I can quite see that the church might wish to ordain a woman as a deacon in her role as 'helpmeet' to her local fellowship, but how do you jump from that to overseer? From 'helpmeet' to instructor? What is the scriptural justification from God?
Lastly, your summary third point .. the goal of ordaining women, and the continuing upholding of that goal is at the expense of women who do not seek ordination as a validation of the ministry they do have. If you could also furnish me with a scriptural defense of the importance/necessity/worth/integrity of the role of lay women, I would be obliged .. I don't see it anywhere.
Rachel, perhap you could tell me a bit about your calling. Which scriptures convinced you that God was calling you into a teaching ministry?
ReplyDeleteHi Rosemary
ReplyDeleteThanks for the apology.
Please give me a day or three to carefully work on the questions you have put here ... I must clear some other things off my to do list!
O/T here, but woth noting that Paul Helm has made another response to Wright on justification in which he says Wright has misunderstood imputed righteousness and is himself a 'legalist'. Haven't read his yet so can't comment yet on this war of words.
ReplyDeletehttp://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/
Thanks for that link!
ReplyDelete"In my view the church should not ordain women as a matter driven primarily by justice considerations but foremost as a matter of responding to the discernment of the will of God."
ReplyDeleteTrue enough. But as Father Jack (in 'Father Ted') once said, 'That would be an ecumenical matter.'
I agree with your remarks condemning clericalism. But one problem has been that WO has largely destroyed the older style of women's diaconal ministry among Anglicans.
That women ministered to and taught women and children is very evident in the New Testament, indeed it's foundational to the NT Church.
But for a woman to lead men - well, it simply means she has to become like a man. Think of Katharine Schori.
You have to consider the special emphases and dynamics of leadership. Being a father is not the same as being a mother. To use a crude stereotype, mothers nurture and father seek to form a backbone, at least in their sons, to toughen them up for an unforgiving world. Or at least, that's how the old stereotype went. Nowadays too many boys don't have fathers when they grow up. Feminism and male fecklessness have wrecked all this, but still the old God-given human nature cries out for it.
Or to extend the now despised image, women create the home, men defend the borders. Women in ministry are essentially nurturing pastors, gifted with maternal sympathy.
But the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Peter and the Johannine epistles all seem to speak from the perspective of fathers addressing families.
A church led by women will become inevitably a sympathetic 'nurturing' place - and (I believe) more liberal and doctrinally indifferent. 'Caring' is in, preaching is out. IOW, the Church becomes more like a rest home than a military training camp (to invoke nother hated metaphor). This has certainly happened in the US and the UK, as well as NZ.
The upshot of all this: you can't talk about WO without having some idea of how a Christian family should fucntion.
Always good to have some reflection on the difference between men and women ... we could add to the mix that men seem more prone to bullying, etc ... but either way, I would want to emphasise the importance of team leadership in ministry so that no one sex dominates (though in the end the team leader will be male or female) ...
ReplyDeleteI'm all for team leadership in ministry - but in the end, are the implications of my assertions true:
ReplyDelete- that Christian men need to be led by Christian men?
- that churches led by women become more feminized in style and don't appeal to most men?
- or that churchgoing fathers will more likely make churchgoing boys?
- that feminized religion/preaching is more usually 'liberal' or 'inclusive'?
Oh Rosemary,
ReplyDeleteHere we go again. Maybe I have to prove myself to you to but it's so not what I want to be about.
We're all called.
About 'calling', biblically, all believers are “called to ministry”. We are all priests (1 Peter 2:9), all “preachers” (Mt. 28:19), all servants (Acts 2:18, Rev. 1:1), all “called” (Eph. 4:1, 2 Thes. 1:11, Heb. 3:1, 2 Peter 1:10).
Paul has much to say about gifts...
oh flips, I'm stopping there.
Rosemary, you know as much as I do what it feels like to have this desire to be God's co-worker and help bring his Kingdom in.
I have tested this 'thing', whatever I call it, it will be used against me, within the church who are happy to train me up to serve the Church. I rest. I'll struggle too, no doubt but ultimately, I rest in this.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteIt's good for Christian men to be led by Christian men - the vicar's husband could usefully head up the organising of the men's breakfast and lead a busload of men down to Promise Keepers!
I do not know in general if women led churches become more feminized in style etc - in our Diocese we have female vicars whose congregations have good appeal to men.
There is a lot of evidence that churchgoing fathers are very important in having churchgoing boys and, I thought also, churchgoing girls. But if one argues from that that vicars ought to be men to appeal to churchgoing fathers then that is a pragmatic argument for male ordained leaders rather than a theological argument against female ordained leaders.
Feminized religion/preaching is more usually 'liberal' or 'inclusive': probably true, but it does not rule out the possibility that ordained women may be orthodox and preach evangelically (as they do in our Diocese, and elsewhere)!
It may be worth recalling that the 'anti-WO' argument is normally an argument against women being priests full-stop and not an argument against women being vicars. Are you for women being priests but not vicars, or simply against women as priests?
I'm sorry Rachel, I didn't mean at all that you should prove yourself in any way. I asked out of interest, but if you're busy .. no problem. I also wasn't asking in a generic sense, asking that you provide me with a wee bible study, I was asking in a personal sense. A calling seems to me to require words, we can't build a relationship with the "Word made flesh," without His communicating with us in Word as He has so well since time immemorial. I also wasn't asking about the general call we all receive, I was asking about the specific call to be a teacher.
ReplyDeleteI have a clear memory of the time my husband felt such a calling on his life. It happened over a period of time, during our daily bible study and prayer, and in part during his study at the local bible college. It didn't make him a happy chappy. I remember him saying to me most sternly, "I am NOT going into full time ministry, I am NOT going to be a pastor." I can also remember the specific texts, in fact in the way of our gracious and communicative God, those texts came up again and again at times of great moment. Needless to say, those same texts did not have the same influence on my life, but others did .. and I wish I'd been more obedient to them. However, that's neither here nor there, just please be assured that I was not asking you to prove anything, nor 'test this thing' as you put it. It was one Christian to another, asking for more words from the Word, to elucidate for me, the path of another.
"It may be worth recalling that the 'anti-WO' argument is normally an argument against women being priests full-stop and not an argument against women being vicars. Are you for women being priests but not vicars, or simply against women as priests?"
ReplyDeleteCatholics say that women *ontologically* can't be priests because the priest (presbuteros) represents Christ iconically in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is the central point of the Church's existence.
Evangelicals reject this sacramental theology because the function of the presbuteros is to rule the Church by teaching and discipline. For evangelicals there is no essential connection between the presbyterate and the Eucharist. If you accept women presbyters, logically you should accept lay celebration.
There are Catholics who say women can be priests (some (even many) anglo-catholics, some Roman Catholics); there are evangelicals (Anglican evangelicals) for whom there is an essential connection between the presbyterate and the eucharist.
ReplyDeleteI was referring to the official Catholic magisterium. Doubtles there exist Catholics who believe anything.
ReplyDeleteI have never met an evangelical Anglican who believes there is an 'essential connection between the presbyterate and the eucharist', but I imagine they exist. I hope these 'evangelicals' will never imperil their souls by receiving communion from non-espicopally ordained 'clergy'! :)
Rosemary - woops - I apologise. Wow - I sounded defensive!
ReplyDeleteYiex - sorry. I think i may have been engaging in too much blogging this week on the issue of women as teachers particularly. I've been in a fair few conversations on 1 Tim 2 11-15 and I read you with the wrong tone with an emphasis on 'teaching'.
My journey with God is pretty much catalogued at Re vis.e Re form at Looking back parts 1-4, left hand column sample posts. More recent experiences are recorded at angelutterances.blogspot.com. I haven't really had time to write up yet about the whole selection conference thing but I will at some point.
Sorry to have read you wrong - always the danger with writing and not speaking, I guess.
A church led by women will become inevitably a sympathetic 'nurturing' place - and (I believe) more liberal and doctrinally indifferent. 'Caring' is in, preaching is out. IOW, the Church becomes more like a rest home than a military training camp (to invoke nother hated metaphor).
ReplyDeleteThe above quotation was supposed to have a comment with it...will try and rewrite it....arrghhh
ReplyDeleteAs a woman training for ordained ministry i find this quotation strangely alien in it's description of Ordained Women
1) sympathetic and nurturing: sadly I could be much more caring, sympathetic and nurturing...I come out as J on myers briggs so your assertion here just doesn't fit...sorry
2. Liberal: Nope...I couldn't be more orthodox. It took me much Bible study, prayer and study to realise that the Complementarian Con Evangelical position had many flaws biblically. I HAD to be able to justify my decision to follow God's call biblically BEFORE I could even consider doing anything about it. I all other respects my position on matters of faith is conservative evangelical....
3. Doctrinally indifferent??? WHAT????
Witrhout sound doctrine the church will crumble, ditto preaching. I preach Christ crucified and will ALWAYS do so...
Is it just possible that the only reason there are so many libersl ordained women is becauser the complementarian teaching of so many evangelical chruches discourages them from following their actual calling?? It certainly did with me for many years...I'm not sure we'll be doing much in the way of army assault courses in my church but it will be much more of a training camp than a rest home, of that I am certain!!!
In conclusion; Have I made myself like I am? Passionate about preaching the gospel, having an inate desire to uphold sound doctrine and to teach people to be Jesus disciples?? No..In his wisdom...God has...
Hi Gill
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification.
A lot hangs on that word 'inevitably' ... just the other day I heard a lovely testimony of a parish in which the minister is a woman and there are lots of men, lots of families, and lots of children in the Sunday School ... a few days before that I heard of a female minister leading her parish into renewed growth, and kick-starting a neighbouring parish into life again ... but some people think it 'inevitable' that these things do not happen when a woman is placed in charge of a parish!
It saddens me greatly that this is the view of so many. The other week I preached on Ephesians 4. In it Paul speaks of the church as the body of Christ and hi-lights the gifts that we have each been given. I was struck by the importance of each part of the body and how vital it was for the body to work effectively that each part did its job. My challenge to the congregation was to ask them to not be put off from following their calling or they would end up disabling the body by their inactivity. If then a woman has been made by God to lead, to teach and to be ordained, then the church disables itself when it stops her from following her true calling...How many women in these churches are unable to fulfil their destiny, and how much is the whole churches effectiveness hampered as a result??
ReplyDeleteHi Gill
ReplyDeleteWe can be thankful that the reality of Anglican women being denied expression of their calling and gifting in ministry which the church might affirm through ordination is in a minority of provinces and dioceses in the Communion - just a few dioceses in the Western world do not ordain women, and in Africa an increasing number of provinces are accepting women for ordination.