Women's Ordination

[holly3278]

Hi everyone. I am curious about what the defenses are women's ordination. Doesn't the Bible say that women must be silent and can not have authority over men? How do you get around this? Is it merely a cultural thing that at the time of the apostles, this was a cultural thing where women should not speak in church or have authority over men? What are some other reasons for women's ordination?

[srigdon]

On this question, you'll get a lot of different answers from us. Some Episcopalians, of course, will agree that this is a huge problem!

First, I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant. So I think it's perfectly possible the people who wrote the sexist stuff in the Bible were just wrong. Now, of course once that such a concession is officially made, one could argue that the floodgates are open - who are we to 'pick and choose'? I would argue that one is forced to pick and choose because the text contradicts itself. (Again, some people on this board will disagree with that.) But right off, I hope you can see that there's a much bigger issue here: how do we read scripture? (More on that below.)

Second, the portion of 1 Corinthians 14 which says women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church is an obvious forgery in as far as I'm concerned. The statement is out of context: Paul is talking about prophecy, suddenly goes on an anti-female rant for a couple of verses with a tone he pretty much never uses, and then gets back to prophecy. These two verses are missing in some ancient manuscripts and their placement is not consistent. Sounds to me like somebody with an agenda inserted it later. Also, 'Paul' arguably contradicts something he said earlier about women doing prophecy.

The Pastoral Epistles are the most well-known for sexist bias. There, if I recall correctly, the writer says that HE does not allow a woman to have authority over a man. Well, does that mean the rest of us must do that? If so, why didn't he say so directly that he spoke for the Lord? We don't know what specifically the letter was addressing - maybe he was simply giving a recommendation. (And remember that Paul is known to do this sort of thing: he recommends celibacy to everybody who can handle it but clearly states in 1 Cor 7 that it's not a requirement.)

So, back to the bigger issue here of: what is the Bible and what is the proper way to use and interpret it? We don't have any of the original manuscripts of Bible books, and the existing copies disagree in many places. So scholars have to make educated guesses about what the text originally said in order to tell us modern folk what the 'Bible' actually says. I find it very difficult to put the Bible on the pedestal that we do, given the textual problems it has.

Nowadays any time somebody asks me how to justify the Episcopal Church's "unbiblical" position on gays, women, or whatever, I just point out Deut 23:19, which appears permanently in my signature line below. It condemns the collection of interest on loans to fellow believers. I'm guessing most believing Christians collect interest on their checking accounts. How do they justify this? In all likelihood, of course, they've never even heard of this because churches don't talk about it much.

They might respond by saying that that's the Old Testament and we haven't been bound by that since Jesus - to which the answer is: then why did the Catholic Church believe that commandment was in force until 1850? Isn't the church 'picking and choosing?' What else in the Old Testament are we entitled to dump?

So in sum, the notion that the Episcopal Church 'picks and chooses' scripture any more than anybody else is a joke. I argue that everybody does it in some way and develops all sorts of arcane theology to justify it.

I hope Canadian Phil responds to your post, as he holds scripture up more highly than I do, and yet I think he is okay with the ordination of women. He can offer a perhaps more orthodox way of thinking about the women's ordination questions.

One final comment. It would be a mistake to say that I dismiss the biblical statements on women, or even gays. There are reasons these texts emerged from history: the experience of generations has shown them to be meaningful. If we don't consider carefully why so many generations found them so, we're missing out on understanding part of the experience of our ancestors. Frankly, I fully understand how the men writing the Bible might have been opposed to female leadership, because I've seen a number of bad women priests, and I think the question of whether women are, on average, capable of pastoral leadership deserves airing. It's not a slam dunk for the feminists.

[holly3278]

srigdon said:

On this question, you'll get a lot of different answers from us. Some Episcopalians, of course, will agree that this is a huge problem!

First, I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant. So I think it's perfectly possible the people who wrote the sexist stuff in the Bible were just wrong. Now, of course once that such a concession is officially made, one could argue that the floodgates are open - who are we to 'pick and choose'? I would argue that one is forced to pick and choose because the text contradicts itself. (Again, some people on this board will disagree with that.) But right off, I hope you can see that there's a much bigger issue here: how do we read scripture? (More on that below.)

Second, the portion of 1 Corinthians 14 which says women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church is an obvious forgery in as far as I'm concerned. The statement is out of context: Paul is talking about prophecy, suddenly goes on an anti-female rant for a couple of verses with a tone he pretty much never uses, and then gets back to prophecy. These two verses are missing in some ancient manuscripts and their placement is not consistent. Sounds to me like somebody with an agenda inserted it later. Also, 'Paul' arguably contradicts something he said earlier about women doing prophecy.

The Pastoral Epistles are the most well-known for sexist bias. There, if I recall correctly, the writer says that HE does not allow a woman to have authority over a man. Well, does that mean the rest of us must do that? If so, why didn't he say so directly that he spoke for the Lord? We don't know what specifically the letter was addressing - maybe he was simply giving a recommendation. (And remember that Paul is known to do this sort of thing: he recommends celibacy to everybody who can handle it but clearly states in 1 Cor 7 that it's not a requirement.)

So, back to the bigger issue here of: what is the Bible and what is the proper way to use and interpret it? We don't have any of the original manuscripts of Bible books, and the existing copies disagree in many places. So scholars have to make educated guesses about what the text originally said in order to tell us modern folk what the 'Bible' actually says. I find it very difficult to put the Bible on the pedestal that we do, given the textual problems it has.

Nowadays any time somebody asks me how to justify the Episcopal Church's "unbiblical" position on gays, women, or whatever, I just point out Deut 23:19, which appears permanently in my signature line below. It condemns the collection of interest on loans to fellow believers. I'm guessing most believing Christians collect interest on their checking accounts. How do they justify this? In all likelihood, of course, they've never even heard of this because churches don't talk about it much.

They might respond by saying that that's the Old Testament and we haven't been bound by that since Jesus - to which the answer is: then why did the Catholic Church believe that commandment was in force until 1850? Isn't the church 'picking and choosing?' What else in the Old Testament are we entitled to dump?

So in sum, the notion that the Episcopal Church 'picks and chooses' scripture any more than anybody else is a joke. I argue that everybody does it in some way and develops all sorts of arcane theology to justify it.

I hope Canadian Phil responds to your post, as he holds scripture up more highly than I do, and yet I think he is okay with the ordination of women. He can offer a perhaps more orthodox way of thinking about the women's ordination questions.

One final comment. It would be a mistake to say that I dismiss the biblical statements on women, or even gays. There are reasons these texts emerged from history: the experience of generations has shown them to be meaningful. If we don't consider carefully why so many generations found them so, we're missing out on understanding part of the experience of our ancestors. Frankly, I fully understand how the men writing the Bible might have been opposed to female leadership, because I've seen a number of bad women priests, and I think the question of whether women are, on average, capable of pastoral leadership deserves airing. It's not a slam dunk for the feminists.

You know, I fully agree with you. I also didn't know that that one part of that verse might have been added later. Thanks for enlightening me on that.

Also, do we have any ancient examples of women being ordained that simply aren't well known or something because the Catholic Church has hidden it or whatever?

[srigdon]

Also, do we have any ancient examples of women being ordained that simply aren't well known or something because the Catholic Church has hidden it or whatever?

The only example that I've heard of that might qualify is the example of Junia/Junias. This is someone "well known among the apostles" mentioned by St. Paul. There's a big debate over whether it's a woman or a man. If you want a taste of what it's about, click here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia

[holly3278]

srigdon said:

Also, do we have any ancient examples of women being ordained that simply aren't well known or something because the Catholic Church has hidden it or whatever?

The only example that I've heard of that might qualify is the example of Junia/Junias. This is someone "well known among the apostles" mentioned by St. Paul. There's a big debate over whether it's a woman or a man. If you want a taste of what it's about, click here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia

Oh okay thanks!

Now don't get me wrong, I am all for women's ordination but how can we support it if there were no ancient ordinations of women? I mean, shouldn't we be doing what the early Church did?

[srigdon]

Are you assuming that the lack of evidence of ordained women early on means it wasn't done?

Are you taking for granted that the early church did not 'ordain' women because of theological principle? (Is it possible women didn't become priests simply because they were totally illiterate and had no leadership skills?)

(Note that the celibacy rule in the Catholic Church is not a theological principle - it is merely a long (very long!) standing policy. Early priests were married - famously so.)

Do you take it as a matter of theological principle that the early church got everything right? Should we do everything the way they did?

I forgot to mention St. Thecla, a companion of St. Paul. She doesn't appear in the New Testament (wonder why?) but does appear to have been a historical figure. Was she a 'priest'? Who knows? There are apocryphal ancient texts about her which aren't in scripture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thecla

[holly3278]

srigdon said:

Are you assuming that the lack of evidence of ordained women early on means it wasn't done?

Are you taking for granted that the early church did not 'ordain' women because of theological principle? (Is it possible women didn't become priests simply because they were totally illiterate and had no leadership skills?)

(Note that the celibacy rule in the Catholic Church is not a theological principle - it is merely a long (very long!) standing policy. Early priests were married - famously so.)

Do you take it as a matter of theological principle that the early church got everything right? Should we do everything the way they did?

I forgot to mention St. Thecla, a companion of St. Paul. She doesn't appear in the New Testament (wonder why?) but does appear to have been a historical figure. Was she a 'priest'? Who knows? There are apocryphal ancient texts about her which aren't in scripture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thecla

No, I am not assuming that the lack of evidence means it wasn't done. I honestly didn't mean to offend anyone by my post. I was just asking questions. However, I did read a web page that was very interesting. I'll link you to it.

www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm

The link shows women clergy in the Bible and in other early Christian writings. I found it to be very interesting.

[srigdon]

No problem - I wasn't offended. Just thought I'd take a different approach in addressing your thoughts with my last post.

[holly3278]

srigdon said:

No problem - I wasn't offended. Just thought I'd take a different approach in addressing your thoughts with my last post.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

[comanche250]

My problem with female priests centers on feminism. Many, many feminists hate men, period. I'm afraid a female clergy would gradully subvert the Christian story, and eliminate Jesus from the equation. I fear feminism, as a result of working for years with many women who positively loathe men, especially strongly masculine men. I guess I don't trust the clergy to feminists. Sorry.

[christian]

Feminists, to the extent that they substitute feminism for the Gospel, are not suited for the ministry. But there are certainly some pastoral roles for which women are better suited than men. Perhaps ministering to these man haters is one. Certainly children's ministry is well suited to women although some men are able practitioners thereof.

To the extent that the sex of the pastor or priest becomes an issue the gospel is not supported. The problem with feminists is that they think that because they are women they have a right to be priests. They therefore preach the gospel of feminism rather than the gospel of Jesus.

[comanche250]

I couldn't agree more.

[srigdon]

My problem with female priests centers on feminism. Many, many feminists hate men, period. I'm afraid a female clergy would gradully subvert the Christian story, and eliminate Jesus from the equation. I fear feminism, as a result of working for years with many women who positively loathe men, especially strongly masculine men. I guess I don't trust the clergy to feminists. Sorry.

I understand your position, but isn't it just as easy for the gay movement to substitute their political agenda for the gospel? What makes you any more trusting of them? Besides, isn't there a significant overlap between those 'women who hate men' and 'lesbians'?

[nini]

After Jesus spoke to the woman at well, he told her to go and tell others--doesn't that make her also an apostle--while the customs precluded Jewish women from speaking to men not in the family, they certainly could witness to other women--so they too were disciples!

[wtxdaddy]

As for folks thinking that women should not have authority over men, just ask a sampling of married men and you'll find, there are millions of American men, who are under the authority of women! And I am one of them!!

I got no problem with ordination of women. To a certain extent, I think some of the Bible was written in ways so as not to offend the particular cultures, to whom the Epistles were written. Since it is not important what the sex of the priest is, I reckon they figured, it just didn't matter to incorporate some of the culture of the populations converted. Basically, I figure, some of the stuff in the Bible was rather political in nature, written in a way to sooth worrying Roman & Jewish authorities about this upstart religion. And we must also realize, Yeshua was not a political savior, much to the chagrin of zealots. He did not come to save us from each other, but rather from sin & eternal death. The unjust things our human societies do to each other would vanish, if we truly followed the teachings of Yeshua.