RSS
Home
A Look at Women's Ordination
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
A controversy that has caused no small degree of division among Presbyterians in recent decades is the issue of women’s ordination to the ministry. This is not a “cut and dry” issue, as both sides tend to appeal to Scripture to back up their respective opinions.
Within the Presbyterian tradition, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), as well as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, take the more liberal stance of ordaining women to all offices of the church—deacon, elder, and pastor. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church do not ordain women to any office of the church. Holding somewhat of a middle ground position, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church lets each local Presbytery determine for itself whether or not to permit women to be ordained as elders. It is the conviction of this writer that it is Scripturally unwarranted to ordain women to the offices of pastor or elder, though it’s difficult to see any solid case against female deacons.
Background of the Controversy
From a historical viewpoint, it’s noteworthy that the debate about women’s ordination is a new one, coinciding somewhat with the feminist movement of the 19th century. Some who are cynical would argue that churches that now ordain women are doing nothing more than taking their cues from the surrounding culture, whereas the churches that do ordain women would say that their practice is based on Scripture, not a shallow desire to conform to the culture. At any rate, the sheer newness of the practice is enough to cause one to pause and give the matter plenty of thought. If women’s ordination is right, then the first 19 centuries of the church were wrong on the matter—a bold claim to make, indeed.
The 19th century feminist movement was, in retrospect, a mixture of good and bad. It was very right (and very Biblical) in affirming the equal personhood and inherent dignity of women. The fact that women today can vote is a testament to the efforts of the early feminists. However, it was very wrong in advocating that there are no morally relevant differences between the sexes. The confusion of roles between men and women has contributed to the breakdown of the family, as well as to a renewed debate about the lawfulness of homosexuality.
To say that it is morally irrelevant whether a man or a woman represents God to the people in a church service, C.S. Lewis believed, is the same thing as saying it’s irrelevant whether we think of God as our Father in heaven or as our Mother in heaven. It’s noteworthy, also, that mainline denominations who have begun ordaining women in recent decades are the same ones that are revising their hymnals, removing gender-specific descriptions of God. Explore the current official PCUSA hymnal, for example.
Some would say that the current debate about whether to ordain homosexuals to the ministry is intricately linked to the debate, a generation ago, about whether to ordain women. It is unfair to say that the two issues stand or fall together, as many who support women’s ordination do not support the normalization of homosexuality. Pentecostals, who cannot at all be accused of liberalism, have long been ordaining women as ministers, citing the Baptism of the Holy Spirit upon both men and women as the rationale for the practice.
Now would be a good time to deal with some of the common objections, raised by proponents of women’s ordination, against churches that ordain only men:
- Churches that do not ordain women are sexist, implying that men have more worth or value than women.
The PCA, and others who take the same stance, would deny this charge. Women themselves who are members of the PCA generally agree with their church’s prohibition of ordaining women, and it could be asserted that surely such women are not being sexist against themselves. However, the fact that one can find women who disbelieve in women’s ordination does not, in and of itself, prove that the position isn’t sexist—in the 19th century, one could find the occasional women who disbelieved in female suffrage.
It has been said that if men are the spiritual leaders of families (as Scripture says they are to be), and the church fundamentally consists of groups of families, it would seem natural that men would occupy the authoritative teaching roles in the church.
Within the Godhead, all members—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are constitutionally equal, and yet there is a hierarchy within the Trinity itself, as the Son submits to the Father. Submission, according to Christianity, does not imply inferiority—if it did, it would be impossible to maintain that the Son is equal to the Father. If the husband being the head of the wife meant he were “better than” her, this would also imply that the Father being head of the Son means that the Father is “better than” the Son.
On a side note, it's important to highlight the fact that, in Paul's writings, it's not that women, in general, are called to submit to men, in general. Women are not obligated, in Scripture, to submit to any man besides their husband. Men have no inherent "authority" over women in any general sense, and to imply that they do is sexist and displays an unChristlike attitude.
Paul himself, in 1 Corinthians, elaborates on the role of women in the church in such a way that does no damage to the dignity of women or to the value of their gifts within the church. The two main passages may seem irreconcilable at first, but upon closer investigation, one can see how the two harmonize. In chapter 14, verses 34-37, he says:
“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.”
The second passage is 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, which says:
“But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.”
For the moment, the important thing isn’t to delve into why Paul mandates head coverings for women, or to what extent such instructions apply to this time and culture. The important thing is that Paul is proscribing how women are to pray and prophesy in public. Granted, the words “in public” are not used in the passage, but the clear implication is that Paul is setting out guidelines for how corporate worship services are to be conducted. Besides, the notion of “prophesying” (proclaiming God’s word) privately (giving a sermon in a closet) seems untenable. What does this mean? It means that, whatever Paul meant about women being silent in chapter 14, this is no way contradicts the fact that women were to prophesy and pray in the public assembly.
Acts 2:17-18 says, “And it shall be in the last days,” God says, “that I will pour forth of my Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. Even on my bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” Women can prophesy, according to this passage of Joel, quoted on the day of Pentecost by Peter. In a similar vein, Acts 21:9 tells us that Phillip the evangelist “had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.” The two were not contradictory in the apostles’ mind. “Silent” can’t, therefore, literally mean that women can’t utter a word—it refers, instead, to authoritative teaching.
The hospitality of women is mentioned throughout the Gospel of Luke, as well as the book of Acts, showing the important contributions women made to the early church. For example, when Peter is released from prison by the angel, he goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where the saints were gathered praying (Acts12:12).
The most oft quoted passage to show that Christianity affirms the equal personhood, worth, and dignity of males and females is Galatians 3:27-28:
“For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Along these same lines, in 1 Peter 3:7, the apostle instructs husbands to treat their wives with honor “as a fellow heir of the grace of life.”
Though Christ’s 12 apostles were men, many women were included in the larger group of his disciples—Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, and Mary Magdalene, to name a few. Women were the first eye witnesses of the resurrection. Clearly, Christ valued the importance of women and their contributions to advancing the kingdom of God.
All of these passages are cited simply to demonstrate that just because a Church doesn’t ordain women, this doesn’t imply sexism on that church’s part. Males and females are equal, but it is God’s prerogative to give certain gifts and roles to certain people. If God doesn’t call women to be pastors, this in no way detracts from their inherent dignity as persons. C.S. Lewis pointed out that even the Virgin Mary, arguably held in higher esteem by Christendom than any other mere mortal that has ever lived, is never described as having held a pastoral office.
