Category Image Women and the Priesthood


So I was asked why I had an issue with women and the priesthood. Here is my response:

The first principle, always, is the one of Tradition.  I have a significant problem about not adhering to that which was passed down without first seeking to understand why it was passed down.  Paul tells us to hold fast to the Traditions.  Jude refers to the faith once held by all.  The Church Fathers are also unanimous in this.  In fact, one of the great defenses against the various heretical sects  - in particular the gnostic ones, who claimed to hold some secret knowledge that they had from the Apostles, was to point them to all of the Churches founded by the Apostles and point out that all of these Churches were teaching the same thing - and not this "secret" knowledge.  In other words, they were adhering to the Traditions passed down to them.  I should point out at this point that the only "Christian" groups who had women priests at this point were the gnostic ones.  This wasn't the basis of why they were declared heretical - that basis was the various doctrines they held which were at odds with the Church, and their failure to be obedient to the Church itself.  However, its interesting to note that an outcome of this failure to adhere to the doctrines of the Church leads to women in the priesthood.

The assumption has become that the no women in the priesthood was merely the outcome of a misogynist culture amongst both the Jews, Greeks, etc. etc.  Not to deny that there were, even amongst the Fathers at times, a view of women as weak and frail and generally not capable.  However, I sometimes question what some of these Fathers were after (most notably St. Chrysostom), because at the same time, if you get him started on the qualities of some of the various martyrs, virgins, etc. in the Church he portrays them in a different light.

So we start with the case that Jesus doesn't appoint any women as apostles.  A review of the Gospels tells you immediately that there were women who were clearly more devout than any of the apostles.  So somebody decided that Jesus didn't want to appoint women as apostles because of concerns with the prevailing views of Jewish society.  To be blunt, this view comes at a time in Christianity where Jesus' status as God is frankly not fully believed any more.  This warrants an entire discussion.  It also flies in the face of Jesus' constant violation of social norms.  So we should be left wondering why he didn't appoint any one of a number of his female followers as Apostles.

We move on to Paul and see the pattern continue, and then some.  Keep in mind that, like Christ, the most devout and knowledgeable people that Paul worked with were women.  He was apparently in the habit of sending converts off to certain women for training.  However, he never appoints any of them priests or bishops.  That he reserves for men.  The accusations that get made against Paul are laughable.  He gets accused of having an abiding dislike of women, of creating a new theology (N.T. Wright handily addresses this), etc.  He interestingly allows women to teach converts (Acts 18:26 ), and to have leadership roles amongst the laity, but he does not allow them to teach in Church (1 Tim. 2:12 )(most understand his restriction on them teaching as referring to a formal Church role - aka priesthood, not a general restriction.  This, of course is not true for certain protestant denominations, who, lacking the Tradition of the Church, figure it out on their own).  We certainly can't accuse Paul of trying to conform to society.  He was beaten, imprisoned, and stoned too many times for doing the contrary.  So again, we are left wondering why no women in the priesthood.

There is a distinct theology in Scripture surrounding gender, and gender roles.  John Paul II probably explored this the best in a series of audiences that were ultimately published as a book called the Theology of the Body .  Basically, though, skipping the starting point that John Paul II starts with - namely the Sermon on the Mount and the Creation account it points to, we can jump to Paul's explanation that the Church is the bride (female) to Christ (male).  We see in the male/female marriage relationship an icon of this relationship.  Due to the relationship, the male literally transforms the flesh of the female to bring about new life.  That is how things work (in a general sense) in the marriage relationship, which reflect the way things work in the Church - the groom(Christ) transforms the flesh of the bride (the Church - and more particularly its members).  And this all was prefigured itself in the very incarnation, where Christ transforms humanity itself.  So these male/female relationships are important.  This leads, itself, to an entire discussion on the other major point of contention in the ECUSA, homosexuality and homosexual behavior.  Its interesting to note that when women were first admitted to the priesthood, there were those who said that this was going to lead to an acceptance of homosexuality.  No surprise that this is where we are at now.

At any rate, the priesthood is not simply a job as the leader of a group of Christians.  This is not accepted by many in the ECUSA, as Anglicanism in general, has drifted farther and farther away (beginning with the Reformation to be sure) from the historic faith.  However, if you stick with Christianity as it has always been (for which you need to look toward Orthodoxy or perhaps Rome - although they have done their own drifting ever since the great schism), then you understand that the priest has a more significant job (that there is something significant about the Christian priesthood is hinted at in the NT, but not fully explored, as for instance in Jude 1:11 ).  That job is to share in Christ's priesthood.  The priest stands as the very icon of Christ in our worship.  To be an icon is to share in the reality of what you symbolize at some level.  Since the maleness of Christ is significant, the maleness of the priest must be significant as well.

I think, at times, that one of the problems that has led to the great priesthood debate has been Rome's insistance on a celibate priesthood.  In the Eastern Church, there are Presbyters (Priests) and Presbytera's (Priest's wives).  In the Russian Church, the term is Matushka, but the same job.  And it really is a job.  A priest's wife is a significant part of any parish.  In the West, with the adoption of a celibate priesthood, you tended to remove a significant role for women within the Church.  At the same time, I have to admit that many of the women priests whom I met seem to have more of a call to the monastic life - a life of prayerful service.    Since monasticism is all but dead in Anglicanism, these women are left with little in this area but to seek out the priesthood.

Well, this was awfully longwinded, and probably didn't really scratch the surface in some regards.  The fundamental problem is that protestantism in general, and Anglicanism in particular, has drifted away from the Historic Faith.  They do not adhere to Tradition, so they are left to try to figure it out on their own.  Once that door was opened, which it was several hundred years ago, ultimately anything can go.  It all depends on your interpretation of Scripture.  A brief survey of protestantism shows you that this interpretation can be all over the map.

Posted: Saturday - March 18, 2006 at 10:52 AM          

©