The first group, traditionalists, have a great heritage of Christian thinking behind them. Neither the Orthodox nor Roman Catholics permit women to be ordained. Historically, Anglicans have agreed with this position, and only recently – as recently as the 1960’s – have some branches of the Anglican Communion begun ordaining women to the priesthood. Many Protestant groups also refuse to ordain women, although they do so on Scriptural rather than traditional grounds, and I will consider their objections in a moment.

Traditionalists argue as follows: In the Old Testament only men were priests. Jesus chose only men as his Apostles. These Apostles became the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament priesthood. They in turn ordained only men to follow them. It is likely that these early Christians believed that only a male could truly image Jesus Christ to the world, and hence a woman priest would have been a contradiction in terms. Women are permitted to exercise all sorts of ministries within the church; but ordination – with its central role as chief celebrant at the Eucharist – is denied them. Precedent, tradition, and logical consistency imply that the ordained ministry of the church should be reserved for those who, because of gender as well as calling, can walk in the steps of the Apostles.

Scriptural conservatives argue their objections to women’s ordination differently from traditionalists, but come to much the same conclusion. They begin by recognizing a radical discontinuity between the Old Testament priesthood and the New Testament ministry. The first had primary a sacerdotal role and the second has primarily a pastoral and teaching role. They also point out that Jesus called only men, sent out only men, and seemed to live comfortably within a social structure in which men had a distinct and divinely-given headship role.

More even than Jesus’ implicit support for an all-male ministry to some scriptural conservatives are the explicit teachings of St. Paul on the role of women in the churches he founded. In several passages he reinforced the primary leadership role of men. These passages [e.g. 1 Tim. 2:9-15; 1 Cor. 14:33-40] indicate that the Apostle was troubled by the apparent encroachment of some women into key positions of authority over men, and wrote to curtail the trend. For some this settles the matter. Just as certain trends within the churches threatened to undermine the leadership of godly men in the First Century, so men today are undermined by aggressive and pushy women who have forgotten that theirs is to be a supportive role and not a headship one. Male headship is here to stay. It is, in fact, part of the order of creation. [Gen.2:18; 3;16]

ASSESSING THE OBJECTIONS

These two perspectives, then, the traditional one and the scripturally conservative one, seem to settle the matter for a great number of sincere Christians. They believe with all their hearts that they are following our Lord and seeking to be faithful to his Word and will.

I have great respect for those who hold these positions, even though I disagree with them as I will go on to show. I believe that there will always be those who object to the ordination of women, and their position will continue to be respected among faithful, orthodox Christians. Furthermore, I deplore any effort to force these believers to change their views. Recent actions by two General Conventions (1997, 2000) indicate that respect for their position has drastically eroded within the Episcopal Church. Gradual reception of women’s ordination is not to be permitted. Instead some form of coercion appears to be the order of the day. Despite the strong recommendation of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, which significantly was backed by several women bishops, that no member Province of the Anglican Communion force women clergy on dioceses that are opposed to them, the Episcopal Church seems bound and determined to act otherwise. This is an ill-advised, and deeply regrettable strategy.

Having said that, I would like to set out my own views on the ordination of women, and state why I believe that these views are not only compatible with Scripture, but actually called for once the true development of scriptural thought is grasped.

Of course, “development” is a key concept, and I must say right here that an attempt to ground the ordination of women on specific biblical texts cannot be supported. Instead, I would argue that it is consistent with the development of the roles and ministries of women found in Scripture. Development is a key concept in the Scripture. Even the most conservative of biblical interpreters accepts the idea of progressive revelation as scriptural. By the same token, I would argue that the whole idea of an ordained ministry as we know it, while present in embryonic form in the New Testament, is an extension of biblical patterns rather than something firmly fixed in Scripture itself.

EARLY PATTERNS

In New Testament days the Apostles went around appointing leaders in various locations to ensure the proper oversight of young believers. Some of these were deacons, people who took care of the practical needs of the believing community, while others were presbyters or bishops (episcopoi) people given general oversight of local congregations.

There is no evidence that the deacons we find in the New Testament were what we now call “transitional deacons,” people, that is, who are ordained for a short testing period, and then advanced to the priesthood. Nor is there any clear evidence that the bishops were meant to be “pastors to the pastors,” people given authority over the ministries in an entire region. As far as we can tell bishops were “primus inter pares,” that is, first among equals. They were local pastors who were honored for their seniority, wisdom, and leadership gifts. They may have looked after other congregations in their areas, but of this we cannot be absolutely sure if we rely on New Testament evidence alone.

As for a ministry order called “priests,” we hear absolutely nothing in the New Testament. The word for priest in the New Testament refers only to Jesus Christ, whose offering of himself is “hapax,” Greek meaning once for all and therefore unrepeatable, [Heb. 9:25-28; 10:12] and to the whole people of God, who are now a “nation of priests” offering sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. [I Pet. 2:9] Most Anglicans are quick to point out that the New Testament word “presbyter,” or “elder” has been transliterated into English as “priest,” and hence our meaning of priesthood is not so much that of a sacrificing priesthood, like that found in the Old Testament, but of an elder who presides at the Lord’s Table in place of Christ. The Anglican priest stands before the people as a representative of the Lord and before God as a representative of the people. But this sort of thinking, however sincerely held, is a development from patterns of ministry implicit in Scripture, and cannot be said to be a direct derivation from the scriptural text itself. What we do know about New Testament presbyters is that they were primarily leaders, people gifted by the Holy Spirit with charisms of teaching, preaching, guiding congregations, and the maintenance of good order and sound faith.

If development is, then, a part of virtually every doctrine of the ministry, just as it is of our gradual understanding of God as Scripture unfolds, what developments do we observe in the place and role of women throughout the course of salvation history?

WOMEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

From Genesis we learn that women were created alongside of man – as one commentator pointed out, “not out of man’s head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be ruled by him, but from his side, to stand alongside of him as a partner and helper in the task of exercising dominion over creation.” Women bore the image of God equally with men [Gen. 1:27] and are seen as “very good.” [Gen. 1:31]

From the Fall [Gen.3] we see a new relationship between men and women emerge. Deception enters in, both man and woman participating in that deception, coupled with a yearning for dominance leading to shame and fear. The end result is that both man and woman are banished by the Lord from the Garden, and the relationship between them is altered. “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” [Gen. 3:16]

Throughout the Old Testament it is not surprising that we see the unraveling of this distortion in male-female relations. Men gain the distinct upper hand, and women often become willing complicitors in a culture that relegates them to second class status. Rebekah’s duplicitous role in securing the blessing for Jacob, followed by Rachel’s deception of her father Laban, then Zipphorah’s strange rejection of the leadership of her husband Moses and finally a succession of various femmes fatale like Jezebel, Athaliah, Gomer and the wife of long-suffering Job seem to perpetuate the image of women as morally unreliable.

But that is not the whole story. Some Old Testament women demonstrate unique gifts of godliness and leadership: Deborah who leads the armies of Israel to victory, Abagail, Hannah, even Rahab, Esther, Ruth, and the redoubtable woman of Proverbs 31 all stand out as playing a key role in the unfolding of salvation history, and in several cases doing things that one might expect only men to do.

WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

In the ministry of Jesus we see something else unfold. Here we see women drawn into the inner circle of the Apostles and given responsible roles that seem far advanced for women of the day. Some travel around with Jesus and his band, taking care of their physical needs. Others, like Mary Magdalene and Mary and Martha of Bethany appear to play larger roles, earning them special honors like being told that their reputation would live on for all of history and being commissioned as the first witness of the resurrection. [Mk. 14:9; Mt. 28:1ff] The dignity Jesus shows to the Woman at the Well indicates that he is prepared to transgress social barriers and speak with women as freely as he does to men.

By the time the young church emerges on the scene, we see women being given even more significant roles. The Holy Spirit is bestowed on both men and women regardless of age, rank, or social position. [Acts 2:17, 41] A woman is the first convert in Europe. [Acts 16:14] Leading women become key to the spread of the Gospel in Greek society [Acts 17:4, 12] Priscilla and her husband (B.T.W., Priscilla is almost always mentioned in Scripture before him) are given the responsibility by the Spirit for instructing the eloquent Apollos in “the way of God more accurately.” [Acts 18:26]

In his epistles Paul mentions a number of women who are exercising some sort of leadership in the infant church. Phoebe [Rom.16:1], Mary [Rom. 16:6], Priscilla (often called by the diminutive and familiar ‘Prisca’ comes in for several mentionings); Euodia and Syntche although temporarily out of sorts with each other are nevertheless “fellow laborers in the Gospel” with Paul [Phil. 4:2]; Nympha who has a church “in her house” [Col. 4:15], and perhaps most significantly, Junia who is said to be “of note” among the apostles [Rom. 16:7] Junia is often translated Junius (KJV, RSV) by translators who then add the word “men” to the Greek text. But this is widely seen to be an interpolation by later editors who have difficulty believing that a woman could have been included in the larger group of apostles. Dr. Whitacre in his thoughtful paper against the ordination of women, I believe, glosses over the true significance of this inclusion, by failing to see that for a woman to be so mentioned indicates that at least one woman clearly had an honored position of leadership among the first generation of Christian ministers. Dr. Whitacre links Junia with Priscilla and Aquilla, and thinks her ministry to be of the same nature as theirs. However, never are they mentioned in the same breath as “apostles” the way Junia is.

We are also left wondering who precisely the “elect lady” of 2 John 1 is. Is she an unnamed woman with a church that met in her house, or is she a euphemism for the church as a whole? If the former, then one would have evidence that in the absence of men, women were given responsibility for whole congregations.

Finally, there is the mention of what appears to be a group of people within the early church that exercised the office, or at least the ministry, of prophets. [Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:28] Among these there are women functioning as both true and false prophets. [Acts 21:9; Rev. 2:20]

ASSESSING THE DEVELOPMENT

At this point we should pause to marvel at the development that has taken place in the place and role of women. From almost near obscurity in large parts of the Old Testament, they have risen to prominence in the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles way beyond what might be expected given the culture of the day. They are equipped with the Holy Spirit, sent on missions, at the center of congregational life, called to instruct unenlightened preachers, given prophetic messages, and commissioned to be a primary witness to the resurrection. [Mt. 28:7]

Moreover, women are addressed as people bearing full responsibility for their own spiritual lives alongside of men. They are not a subset of the male community, but are called to holiness of life even when their husbands do not demonstrate genuine faith or the fruit of the Spirit. [1 Cor. 7:13ff; Eph. 5:22; I Pet. 3:1ff] In several of these contexts wives are mentioned before their husbands, indicating perhaps that their spirituality could be counted on to point the way.

The reader might at this point ask the question: “Yes, women are important, even vital, to the young church. But what does that tell us about the ordained ministry?” In response, I would again speak of development. Just as the ordained ministry is a development from biblical patterns, so the role of women is a developing pattern within the Scriptural revelation. I will return to this theme in a moment.

THE NEW TESTAMENT PROHIBITIONS

But what, then, are we to make of the various prohibitions of women’s leadership roles within the several churches to which the Epistles are addressed? Opponents of women’s ordination make much of these passages, and they must be considered carefully by all sides in this debate. However, there are various ways in which we can view them.

They can be seen as rules for all time, or they can be seen as governing principles for churches set in the context of first century Roman and Jewish culture, where women’s roles were severely restricted. Consider the latter possibility with this example in mind. How much do we make today of Paul’s instruction that women are not to be seen in church with their heads uncovered? [1 Cor.11:6] Why is this so? Is it because the Apostle did not feel deeply about the matter, or is it rather because the issues that prompted his instructions at that time have changed in our day? Take another example: should we fault the Apostle for not having railed against the First Century practice of slavery? For him to have openly attacked slavery would have brought the infant church into direct conflict with the entire social order of his time. Rather his strategy appears to be that of subtly undermining slavery by treating all men and women, whether slave or free, as potentially brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am aware that others will fault the position I am outlining by arguing that, given my assumptions, homosexuality should be accorded the same contextualized treatment. In other words, if times have so radically changed, and if there is development in the place and role of women, and in the status of slaves, mutates mutandi should not homosexuals be given full rights and honor within the body of Christ? In response, I would point out that this line of reasoning ignores the fact that homosexual behavior is universally condemned throughout Scripture, and that even those most adept at “reinterpreting” biblical texts have failed to establish development in the Bible’s view of it.

When Paul says that he does not permit women to have authority over men or speak in church” [1 Tim. 2:9-15] he follows this with a passage that reminds his readers of woman’s greater susceptibility to deception. But what Paul “permits” and what Paul “preaches” may be two different things. It is conceivable that Paul intends his words to be taken absolutely? Few would say so. In order for women’s total silence to be secured, we would have to eliminate women Sunday School teachers, women missionaries, women Bible teachers, and women who give testimony in church. Are we not rather dealing with a situation where some women have taken over, advanced themselves, and undermined the men in the congregation? The advice in this same context for women not to adorn themselves extravagantly and immodestly hints that we are dealing with a situation in which some women have taken unwarranted liberties in the name of Christian freedom. In the context of First Century Jewish and Roman society a female takeover would have been scandalous.

Paul’s teaching in the Pastoral Epistles that deacons and presbyters (or episcopoi, bishops) should be “the husband of one wife” [1 Tim. 3:2,12; Tit. 1:5] is cited as implying an exclusively male ministry. But this passage could also imply that no unmarried men should be advanced to leadership within the church. Or, it could mean that divorced (and remarried) men should not be raised up as leaders to the flock. Which of these three possibilities is the correct one remains open to debate.

MALE HEADSHIP

What, then, of the concept of male headship? Dr. Whitacre believes that this is grounded in the creation itself, and is not a result of the Fall. While the connection between headship and authority has been challenged by several writers who see headship more associated with responsibility than rulership, the fact remains that man was created before woman (rather than the two simultaneously) and woman’s role is that of a “helper.” Does this mean it was God’s intention forever after that no woman should ever exercise leadership over men? Clearly the story of redemption does not bear this up, any more than do Scripture, tradition or reason. Why do we have the stories of Deborah, Abagail, Priscilla, and Esther in Scripture? Each in their own contexts exercised some leadership over men. Moreover, history is filled with the stories of godly women who have exercised leadership in a wide variety of spheres from Joan of Arc to Florence Nightingale to Mother Theresa.

Also, the creation stories clearly indicate that women as well as men are to “have dominion” [Gen. 1:26] over the created order, are both held accountable for their moral choices, and are both jointly judged for their transgression. Again, woman is not a subset of man, but is a fully responsible moral creature with a relationship with God that is all her own.

HIERARCHY

I confess to having great difficulty with Dr. Whitacre’s concept of hierarchy. He sees it as rooted in the Trinity (which undoubtedly it is), and expressed in human terms in the submission of woman to man (a concept I find more questionable). The fact that Adam “names” Eve “woman” does express authority (perhaps in the sense of priority); but the naming of animals and the exercising of dominion appear to be logically separable, for while Adam alone names the animals, Adam and Eve together “exercise dominion.” My problem with applying the hierarchy that exists within the Trinity (wherein Son and Spirit submit to Father) to male/female relations is that it manifestly overlooks the fact that both men and women throughout Scripture are called to submit to God. Our submission to God’s hierarchy is expressed in our joint submission to God and our mutual submission to one another. In fact, St. Paul even applies that mutual submission to husbands and wives, indicating that even within the marital relationship hierarchy is expressed through our common reverence for Christ. [Eph. 5:21]

We have seen, then, that the relationship between male and female within the Garden of Eden, that is from creation itself, is one of mutuality, joint responsibility, shared dominion, and co-equal reflection of the image of God. True Adam has priority over Eve, but it is not clear that priority includes dominance, authority, oversight, rulership, or ultimate responsibility. To ground the headship of the male over the female in Genesis raises as many questions as it answers.

It is quite true that since the Fall the relations between male and female, at least within the bond of marriage, are dramatically altered. From that fateful moment onwards, woman is subject to man as a fact of life. This is not held up as a virtue, although it serves as a guideline for harmonious marriage. [Eph. 5:22 ff] History bears up that women have, in general, been subject to men for a variety of reasons. Someone has to lead. Another reason is the advancement of the race. Women are needed to bear and rear children, while men are needed to provide. A final reason is sheer physical strength. Most men are stronger than most women.

ORDER OF CREATION

Almost all societies have reflected this “order of creation” – and here I use the term creation to refer to the period after the Fall. Roman society, as well as First Century Jewish society, was based on an agrarian, domestic, hierarchical model. It was within that model that Jesus grew up, exercised his ministry, and sent forth his disciples to announce the arrival of the Kingdom.

However, while he did not challenge this model head-on, for obvious reasons, he did not merely acquiesce in it either. His redefinition of the family [Mt. 12:48], his crossing of social barriers to include women in his inner circle, [John 4:7-38] his unwillingness to let men speak for women [John 8:2-11], his commissioning of a woman to be the bearer of the resurrection message [Mt. 28:7], even his particular sensitivity to women’s health problems [Lk. 13:10-17; Mt. 8:14-17; Mk. 5:25-34] all show a desire to draw women into hitherto largely male territory, and to think outside the box of Jewish patriarchy.

Although St. Paul is usually thought of as the Bible’s misogynist par excellence, this typecasting overlooks the many ways in which he, following his Master, reached out to women and included them as full partners in the cause of the Gospel. I have already pointed out various texts that illustrate this. But one text remains, and for the argument of this paper, it is key.

ORDER OF REDEMPTION

Galatians 3:28 is set in the context of the believer’s release from the control of custodians. St. Paul’s argument is that the Law was a custodian, restraining us from sin, until the time of the gospel had come. Since the arrival of the gospel it is not outer restraint but inner constraint that will lead us into the freedom that is ours in Christ – a freedom that bids us conform to the image of Christ, not because of threat but because of the prospect of enjoying the full promises of the new age.

In this context, St. Paul says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This must have been something of a bombshell in the world of the First Century, and its implications are still being grasped two thousand years later.

What we are looking at is a whole new ordering of human relationships. It is an ordering governed not by external restraints, nor by societal norms, but by the new freedom that is ours in the Gospel. In distinction to the “order of creation” we might call this the “order of redemption.”

As a full pattern for relationships the promise of Galatians 3:28 lay far in the future. Slavery continued for centuries, and while Christians were in the forefront of its eradication, it took a long time before Christian thinking came in line with biblical revelation. Moreover, the barrier between Jew and Gentile, even within the Body of Christ, is not totally healed as we can see in the persistence of messianic congregations of Jewish believers. Jewish conversion is still largely seen in terms of assimilation, although this is far from what the Apostle Paul had in mind. [Eph. 2:14] And, thirdly, the relations of men and women, both within the Christian community and within Christian families, have a long way to go to catch up with this vision.

PROMISE AND FULFILLMENT

We are looking at an eschatological promise, that is a promise of the end times. The day will come when full equality is realized because of the gracious work of Christ. In the kingdom we can expect all male supremacy to have vanished – along with the institution of marriage itself. [1 Cor. 8:5,6; 15:27,28] But the situation for now is different. We live, as theologians are fond of saying, between the already and the not yet. We already have a foretaste of the kingdom to come, but we are not yet able to see it fully realized even within the Christian community.

However, we do receive hints of the coming kingdom. These are in the form of the arrabon the Greek word for “foretaste,” or “downpayment” which is the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives and within the church. [2 Cor. 1:21; see Eph.4:30] Other hints are the mighty works that God does in and through believers, beginning with the dramatic healings we see in the Gospels, in the early church, and throughout the ages. Another hint is the measure of unity that is ours, as witnessed by the amazing oneness that characterizes the church across cultures, races, languages, and social structures – especially when the church permits the gospel free reign, and lives in obedience to that gospel. But, and this is my point, it is also seen in the breaking down of hostility between the sexes. “There is neither male nor female.” This radical breakthrough is not fully ours, but it is the direction in which God’s kingly rule would have us move.

OUR CHANGING CONTEXT

In our day we have seen a number of societal breakthroughs that have led to the emancipation of women from traditional roles. Contraception, technology, government aid to families, affluence, urbanization have all contributed to a new environment in which the church can once again contemplate what it might mean for there to be “no male or female.”

Many men work under women in the workforce: in education, in charitable organizations, in hospitals, in business, in government. Is this something to be lamented, or celebrated? Does it lead to the breakdown of marriage and the family, or to its strengthening? Unquestionably, the growing awareness of women’s rights has put a strain on male-female relationships in every sphere. But it need not, if both men and women realize that these new breakthroughs, like all societal breakthroughs, offer both promise and challenge, and lead to new forms of sin as well as new opportunities for grace.

I am led, therefore, to think that our age, as no age before, has an opportunity to look afresh at the biblical promise that “there is neither male nor female.” We are given a glimpse of what society might become, and one day – in the kingdom – will become. This is the order of redemption, and will only be ours as Christ’s kingly rule is incarnated in our human relationships. Sin will persist, and in many parts of the world the “order of creation” is the appropriate way to maintain stability. In those settings the signs of a new order coming will be few and far between. But that should not stop Christians from being in the forefront of welcoming what God has promised.

GOD’S CALL TO A GODLY WOMAN

Should godly women, who sense a true call to the ordained ministry, and whose call has been tested by others in leadership and proven genuine, be ordained and sent forth to serve, to preach and to lead? Most certainly yes. They, as well as men, bear the image of God, newly recreated in us through the atoning work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit. They too have been gifted by the Holy Spirit. They have received a sense of call similar to the one men have received through the ages. They have already done everything on the mission field that men have done, and since the West has become a new mission field, have gifts needed in the context of our secular society.

Will a woman’s presidency at the Lord’s Table undermine the male role within the family? Not unless it is exercised in a way that emasculates men and reestablishes the age-old tension between the sexes. Will a woman’s leadership of a congregation cause men to withdraw and to vanish? Not if that leadership bears the true marks of grace and manifests the fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Will children grow up incapable of imagining God as Father, because the person at the Lord’s Table is a woman? Not if the father’s role in the home is exemplary, and if the woman pastor herself is manifestly submitted to her heavenly Father. Will a woman bishop wreck havoc within the diocese, undermining men’s roles and inhibiting the development of healthy mens’ ministries? No, for all the same reasons that apply above.

Let me close with a final word. Scripture, it seems, points to the coming of a new age in which the traditional roles of men and women are altered, and in which – under the headship of Jesus Christ – a new order is to be realized. This new order cannot be established by following the world’s agenda, nor by advancing women into leadership roles in the church just because they are women. God is not governed by our views of affirmative action. But there are godly women who have a genuine call, who are truly submitted to our Lord, who have abundant gifts, and who sense a call within themselves. It would be a shame to withhold from them the anointing that comes when the church sets a person apart for the full range of ministry: pastoral, teaching, and sacramental. It would be an especial shame to do so on the basis of an order that for centuries has served society fairly well, but that has outlived its day. And it would be a shame to do so in the light of the reality that will one day be ours.

----Peter C. Moore is the former President and Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, PA. He is now theologian in residence at St. Michael's Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC