Vineyard Churches Move Toward Women Pastors

According to a report from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the national board of directors of the Vineyard churches denomination has adopted a set of guidelines opening the door for female pastors. The Vineyard is the largest third wave charismatic group, founded by John Wimber in 1984.

The guidelines ask Vineyard members, including those who reject gender egalitarianism, to "bless" the ministry of women in the role of senior pastor in Vineyard churches. Theologian Wayne Grudem, a former member of the Vineyard movement, responds that asking those who hold to a complementarian view of gender roles to "bless" such a thing is asking believers to sin.

Grudem says:

"Under the guise of ‘mutual respect’ I believe the Vineyard leadership, by this policy, will drive out the pastors who are most faithful to the teaching of John Wimber and most faithful to the Word of God itself," Grudem said.

"With sadness and regret I now expect that compromise with the spirit of the age will soon follow in other areas of Vineyard teaching as well.  I sincerely hope that the Vineyard will reverse this policy."

I am still hoping for evidence to prove me wrong in my assertion that feminism is winning the gender debate among American evangelicals, but the Vineyard downgrade doesn't help.

Comments

[Eric]

Sad, but who is surprised? This is one of the issues that helped me appreciate the crisis of authority in Protestant groups (I am now Catholic).

One party says that women pastors are unbiblical, citing key verses and citing X, Y, and Z as authorities. Another group says that women pastors are not unbiblical, citing key verses and citing A, B, and C as authorities, plus they have political correctness and the prevailing winds of cultural sentiment on their side.

So, what happens? Even if one could convince a group that women pastors were contrary to God's will, is there any doubt that those who disagree would just leave and join others that thought as they do?

Already, major Evangelical seminaries are ambivilent on the issue. It is only a matter of time before Evangelicals generally accept women pastors. I cannot foresee any way to stop it.

[GL]

The headline to the article to which Dr. Moore links is "Vineyard Ministries moves toward accepting both views of female pastors." Imagine a headline that reads "Church X moves toward accepting both views of the divinity of Jesus" or "Denomination Y moves toward accepting both views of the Virgin birth" or "Sect Z moves toward accepting both views of abortion." This is just patently relativist, what our Lord called being lukewarm as recorded by St. John in The Revelation.

I am not, have never been, and never plan to be a member of the Vineyard, but please, be either hot or cold. From Revelation, I take it that our Lord would prefer outright heresy, strongly believed, to trying to have it both ways. The first denies the truth; the second denies that there is truth.

[Clark Coleman]

Even if one could convince a group that women pastors were contrary to God's will, is there any doubt that those who disagree would just leave and join others that thought as they do?

My conclusion is that such hypothetical people would not be Christians, because they are in open and premeditated rebellion against God's will. Hence, I don't want to be associated with them. If they go away and form their own church, what of it?

Eric's conclusion is that it sure is lucky that the Roman Catholic Church does not have this problem, because of its central authority. Of course, if some of these hypothetical people were in the Roman Catholic Church, and left to form their own church even though they know they are contrary to God's will, then how is this different from the corresponding division in the hypothetical Protestant church? Neither church can prevent apostates from leaving and forming their own apostate church.

Would you want them to stay, sharing the pew in "fellowship" with you while they secretly hold their pagan beliefs? What would be the point? What does any of this prove about Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism?

[Patrick]

I'm not a member of the Vineyard church so maybe I don't know their history too much but I'm curious why this is really big news. Vineyards are part of the charismatic movement which has a bit of a connection with the Pentecostal movement. Women pastors are nothing new in either, and go back to the very beginning of Pentecostalism.

I'm not arguing for or against here, just making the point that this isn't new to such a tradition. Whether or not Pentecostals, Charismatics, Presbyterians, etc. are Christian is a much bigger conversation and one I'm going to stay out of.

Then there is this point in an earlier post made by Jay Woodham, which I don't believe was ever answered:

"Timothy George, the dean of Beeson Divinity School writes not irregularly for Touchstone. Beeson as official policy grants Master of Divinity degrees to women, and even has a few women professors. Beeson (and George) grant their M.Div. degrees knowingly to women who will and do go on to positions of pastoral authority. Then there is Phillip Johnson who is an elder at First Presbyterian (PCUSA) Berkeley that has sponsored women (albeit quite orthodox ones by their own lights) for ordination. Given SMH's vigilance on this issue I'm wondering how these men made into the pages of Touchstone, and why they remain there."

I want to again note I am not trying to argue for some point. I really am curious about understanding all the various views on this issue, so I'm poking at what I see as some inconsistencies.

[Juli]

Would you want them to stay, sharing the pew in "fellowship" with you while they secretly hold their pagan beliefs? What would be the point?

Iow, would we who worship in the Catholic tradition (including but not limited to Roman Catholics) prefer to be able to purge our churches of those whom we consider to be in error? Would we build "windows into men's souls"?

[Christopher Hathaway]

Juli, who needs a window into men's souls if they leave because they don't believe official teaching? They are making their souls' position clear and acting in accordance. Good for them and good for the church they leave. Not maiking windows does not mean avoiding making doctrine clear even for fear that some might leave.

Just curious, but would you really prefer to say the Creed with people who didn't believe it as you did? How would that make your worship better? If they leave of their own accord, being true to their consciences, how would that be bad?

[robert p]

I'm a devoted Vineyarder and this isn't really a surprise. Our churches have been blessed by the ministries of some wonderful godly women for a long time. Fear not my traditionalist friends!

I'm also cautious of the contemporary erosion of gender roles and consequent social confusion. However it seems to me that this decision is simply an affirmation of something God is already doing. Grudem's scholarship is hard to match, but the Vineyard position indeed has reasonable support from the Bible.

[Stuart Koehl]

Considering that Evangelicals do not consider ordained ministry to be sacramental in nature, nor uphold the Christian Tradition in regard to the nature of the Eucharist, it matter not one whit whether whether their ministers are men or women. Put bluntly, their ordinations have no validity, their Eucharist has no validity and thus the argument is really one of culture and aesthetics. To those of us in Churches that uphold the Apostolic Tradition, there can be no compromise regarding the nature of Holy Orders, the male exclusivity of the presbyterate, and the impossibility of achieving anything more than practical cooperation with ecclesial communities that deviate from that norm. As Alexander Schmemann told an Anglican friend in the 1970s, "The ordination of women means the death of dialogue"--and sure enough, the once-promising Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement has died on the vine (that failure, however, has resulted in a significan influx of Anglican/Episcopalians into the Orthodox Church, so it hasn't been a total loss.

I think we need to look to another biblical aphorism: you know a tree by its fruit; the good tree yields good fruit. The fare of those denomnations that have gone the root of women's ordination have almost universally suffered a catastrophic collapse, numerically, spiritually, and doctrinally. Yet people seem willing to make the same mistake again and again.

[firinnteine]

I am an Anglican who believes in the Sacraments, and therefore in the sacramental nature of ordination. However, I don't think it's fair to say that for Evangelicals who don't understand this it doesn't matter. There is still the spiritual authority of one who teaches doctrine and Christian practice, which Paul and Peter spoke of (both of them fairly important contributors to the Apostolic Tradition). The apostles themselves seem to put a fair bit of weight on this. For this reason I think Southern Baptists (for example) are being consistent in rejecting female pastors, even though they believe in neither apostolic succession nor sacramental ordination.

[Juli]

Juli, who needs a window into men's souls if they leave because they don't believe official teaching?

Clark's question wasn't about people who chooose to leave - that was the point.

Just curious, but would you really prefer to say the Creed with people who didn't believe it as you did? How would that make your worship better?

The Church gives us a common language of prayer and liturgy. Sometimes it is enough to carry us along for a time. I would be sorry to worship in a church that didn't have room for those with private doubts and questions - but surely the point of whether someone else is welcome is not to make my worship better.

[Patrick]

I'm also a little curious on the arguments the Vineyard Church are using. While the mainlines are more interested in the feminist arguments, it would surprise me if these are the arguments being used by the Vineyard churches. They may result in similar actions, but I suspect it will be for different reasons.

Also, why is Wayne Grudem an ex-Vineyard fellow already? Clearly there must be something else he disagreed with, leaving me suspicious whether he could speak for John Wimber, or make any suggestions as to what the Vineyards are doing. My exposure to him has left me feeling he is rather good at telling other people what they should be doing while not quite understanding what he's fighting against.

Like it or not, my suspicion is that this is not about feminism but about pneumatology.

This is not the same battle. And should be treated differently. Let us hear what the Vineyards have to say before there is condemnation about what other churches have done. They deserve to speak for themselves.

Seems fair to give them a hearing, even as James did for Paul and Peter in Jerusalem back in the day.

[YaknYeti]

Biblically, "blessing" someone isn't condoning their work. We're called to bless those who curse us, after all, and pray for our enemies. How much more for our friends who disagree with us on some points of theology! Let the quoted portion of the Vineyard statement speak in full:

"It should not be implied or assumed that those who believe that women should not be senior pastors are women-haters, etc.

"Mutual respect means that those who believe women cannot be senior pastors must recognize that those who do are committed to the scriptures and are not heretics or among those who believe the Bible is not inspired by God. They simply happen to read the scriptures differently on this point.

"Those who do not believe women should be senior pastors should not show disrespect to women speakers or women pastors in any of the gatherings. They should bless these women and treat them as true sisters in the Lord.

"Include women, who happen to be senior pastors, in the guideline of showing the costly side of loving one another by considering the high importance of the interests of others and putting such consideration into actual practice.

"Respect local churches who do not ordain women by not pressuring them to change their view."

I'm doubtful that such a half-way compromise can work out, but the passage seems to be a solid attempt to apply St. Paul's "weaker brother" teachings to the issue. Also, I am quite comfortable saying the Creeds with someone who believes in them as strongly as I but may have a mistaken interpretation of the Scriptures.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Clark's question wasn't about people who chooose to leave - that was the point.

Juli, that is exactly what Clark's question was about.

Of course, if some of these hypothetical people were in the Roman Catholic Church, and left to form their own church even though they know they are contrary to God's will, then how is this different from the corresponding division in the hypothetical Protestant church? Neither church can prevent apostates from leaving and forming their own apostate church.

Would you want them to stay, sharing the pew in "fellowship" with you while they secretly hold their pagan beliefs? What would be the point?

Clarke asked about those who chose to leave, not who were asked to leave.

I would be sorry to worship in a church that didn't have room for those with private doubts and questions

My question really had to do with those who openly doubted the creed. Are there limits to your concept of communion, or would you be happy sharing the eucharist with an avowed athiest?

[robert p]

Thank-you for your kind comments Firinntiene, Juli, Patrick, YaknYeti. Joe Carter has articulated a charitable perspective, which I hope other churches will extend to the Vineyard:

I prefer to rest in the shade of the broad categories that can be preceded by the qualifying adjective “mere”: orthodox, reformed, evangelical, Christian. Doctrinal fences are needed to clarify important divides (i.e., the Catholic/Protestant split) or to prevent believers from slipping off into heresy. But I find that creating too tight of a boundary around my faith can hinder my fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I believe my friend ... has inadvertently created just such an arbitrary and unnecessary division between believers.
[...]
I’m not exactly sure how we can tell the wheat from the tares. Since the Lord chooses not to uproot them just yet, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Another blogger asks, "Who then is my brother?", and comments thusly:

I am getting pretty sick-and-tired of people that do not think Catholics are Christians. I don't agree with Catholics on a lot of things, I don't agree with their theology, and they have historically made some enormous boo-boos, but so what? I haven't found a church yet that wasn't somehow flawed theologically and historically.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Just curious, but would you really prefer to say the Creed with people who didn't believe it as you did? How would that make your worship better?<<<

This point is made explicitly in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, in which the Liturgy of the Word begins with the exhortation:

"Let us love one another so that with one mind we may profess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and indivisible"

In other words, unity is essential for the Body of Christ, and such unity is not possible unless we love one another.

Later in the Liturgy, we pray,

"Asking for unity in faith and communion in the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves, and one another, and our whole lives to Christ our God".

That is, the Body is one and indivisible, with unity in faith a necessary prerequisite for communion, which is the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the entire congregation. The Fathers saw unanimity in matters of faith as a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit, and as a seal upon their teachings and deliberations. Thus, excessive latitudinarianism (or "sloppy agape") does not lead to real unity and does not assist the transfiguration of the Church into the true Body of Christ.

On the other hand, as I have said elsewhere, one must constantly be alert to the opposite danger of putting too much emphasis on formulaics and not enough on reaching a true understanding of what others believe. Unity does not mean uniformity or the assimilation of other Traditions into the Tradition of one particular Church. Avoiding both traps requires us to investigate closely the roots of our faith, and particularly the teachings of the Fathers, not to mindlessly imitate what they did and said, but to come to know their collective mind and learn to think as they thought, totally consumed by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

[David L]

"I'm doubtful that such a half-way compromise can work out, but the passage seems to be a solid attempt to apply St. Paul's "weaker brother" teachings to the issue. "

Who is the "weaker brother" here? The man who wants to accept the ordination of women? Or the man who objects, and is being compelled to accept a woman as an ordained leader?

"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. (Rom. 14:13)"

The weaker brother is a man who believes that action x is sin, but is "seduced" into doing action x, because he sees the "stronger brother" doing action x.

If I believe drinking alcoholic beverages is sin, but I see Christian brother go into a bar, and I proceed to drink, then I have sinned--not because drinking is itself sin, but because I think or believe it is sin.

"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Rom. 14:23)"

So in this case, the man who believes that accepting the spiritual leadership of a woman is sin is being (not merely seduced into, but) compelled to accept that leadership.

But in any case, this scenario is not really an application of the "weaker brother" issue. The "weaker brother" of Romans 14 is a brother is lacks a fully formed conscience (e.g., a new believer who assumes that drinking alcoholic beverages is sin); whereas both sides of the woman-ordination issue have strongly formed consciences.

[Patrick]

Stuart, amen to your last post. This to me is the absolute key. There are those who wish to chuck out the whole thing, do whatever they want, forge new paths, and like latter day Marcions tear the church apart for their own creations. We see such people in our churches, in all of our various congregations. Even in Catholic and Orthodox.

However, then there are those who genuinely want to pursue your last sentence. Not mindless, neither empty, but with a real interest in discovering what it means to live in the unity and diversity of Christ and Spirit. They or we may be wrong on an issue, but there is a distinctive difference between the inquiry which should be noted. The Fathers are not always spot on. It was their heart, their desire to really know Christ, which led them through their inquiry and later led other thinkers into clarifying or correcting.

Both inquiry and steadiness are needed, both are qualities of the Spirit in our midst. It is when the inquiry then rejects Jesus as Lord that we see the Spirit has left the building.

[Juli]

Who is the "weaker brother" here? The man who wants to accept the ordination of women? Or the man who objects, and is being compelled to accept a woman as an ordained leader?

Maybe the weaker brother is a man who considers it sinful to disregard or deny someone else's gifts and callings. Note that in this scenario you need not agree that this is happening, only that he has scruples about it himself.

Or maybe the weaker brother is actually a sister.

[GL]

Maybe the weaker brother is a man who considers it sinful to disregard or deny someone else's gifts and callings.

We can, and indeed are called to, judge whether a "calling" is from God based on Scripture. God never call someone to do something they are proscribed from doing in Scripture. Such calls are from someone else.

I have a friend right now who is having an affair. God must want this because he is so happy, he thinks. I can guarantee you God does not want this. He condemns it in no uncertain words throughout Scripture. My friends "calling" to adultery is from someone else. (By the way, his wife has asked me to speak to him as a Christian brother, which I will be doing in the next few days. Pray for me.)

Women who have a "calling" to be pastors have a calling from someone other than God.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Maybe the weaker brother is a man who considers it sinful to disregard or deny someone else's gifts and callings.<<<

I have always had a problem with the notion of sacerdotal ministry as a "calling"; i.e., the idea that God speaks to someone personally and tells him that he as a vocation as a priest or deacon. That isn't at all how the Church of the Fathers worked. They saw lots of vocations and ministries in the Church--including those of teaching and of preaching--but with regard to the ordained ministries, they did not see these as callings by God to individuals but rather the community calling out those best suited to serve it. That is why early on deacons and presbyters were elected by the community as a whole, a practice that remains vestigially in the Byzantine rite of ordination (Cheirotonia), when the candidate is presented to the people, who then acclaim him with the cry of "Axios" (He is worthy).

In ancient times, "Anaxios" was not unheard, either. Men who actively sought ordination were often looked upon with suspicion. Chrysostom wrote at length about the problem. And many of those who turned out to be among the best and greatest of the ordained literally took to their heels when the people called them out to serve. Some ran away multiple times, others had to be dragged to the altar for ordination. Eventually, most submitted to the will of the assembly.

Coincidentally, it is perhaps not that strange that the Old Order Amish hold closely to this and even older concepts in the selection of their leaders. For instance, the assembly selects three names when a new minister is needed. These are then inserted into a Bible and a name drawn out by lot. Significantly, the man and his family do not consider this a great honor and an occasion of rejoicing, but rather one of sober reflection and even weeping, for the burden of ministry is heavy indeed. We need a little more of that sobriety among our seminarians.

Now, I am not recommending direct election of our priests and bishops--far from it. But I do think that the present concept of ordained ministry as an individual calling has tended to wash out the ecclesial dimension of ordination, the notion of the clergy as being part of the Laos tou Theo, as being representatives of the "perfect layman", men called out to serve. When the ecclesial dimension is removed, then ministry tends to become more of a personal thing--"I" have a gift that "I" must exercise, and anything that interferes with that exercise is a personal affront if not a sin against God. The idea that ordination is a privilege, and that ministry is a burden of service to the community, needs to be stressed more, and one way to do this is by giving the people of a particular place more of a say in who will lead them--thus, not coincidentally, removing a large role in the selection process from those academics and "professionals" who have the annoying habit of ramming their choices down the throats of those who must live with them.

[Patrick]

GL, when did you become the Holy Spirit? Or does your Bible say something different in 1 Cor 12 than mine does?

Adultery is a sin. Being a pastor is not a sin. Adultery is a sin. Being a woman is not a sin. Adultery is always condemned. Woman are not always condemned.

Who is the call from then? If they preach Christ and him crucified, acknowledging him as Lord of all, can they be hearing a different call?

Who is calling them to preach Christ? The devil? Who is leading them to save souls? Satan? Who is calling them to exegete Scripture for the edification of their listeners? Demons?

How this calling is worked out may be a discussion worth having but to say the call itself is of evil seems a wee bit harsh and a lot more dangerous than whatever such women are saying about gender roles. How we view men and women in their respective roles is a passing point in Paul's writing. Denying the work of the Spirit, however, can lead to death.

Maybe, however, you just meant to say women should not be allowed to use their calling as pastor in the role of head pastor or elder on staff.

I generally very much appreciate your notes, but this seems a wee bit too much.

[Tony Esolen]

I've heard for years that the Scriptures are ambiguous about this issue. If so, it is an ambiguity that somehow escaped the notice of 1900 years of exegetes. The reasonable supposition -- I am not saying that it is true, but it is a reasonable starting point for argument -- is that the feminism of our day has caused us to see ambiguities where none exist, precisely because it would be more comfortable for us if the ambiguities were there. One of the first rules of the interpretation of literature is that, failing a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, you assume that your author, especially if he was a genius, knew what he was doing. Thus you reconcile texts that are apparently (I mean "apparently") in conflict. In the case of Saint Paul, you have to reconcile the verse in Galatians (which certainly does not even touch the issue of the different roles of men and women in the Church) with the many verses in Corinthians, Timothy, Colossians, Ephesians, and Titus, that do; and you have to do so in the context of the analogy that Paul draws, not for the sake of illustration but to reveal a real and intimate interrelationship, between the Church and the family. In other words, to interpret Galatians as requiring irrelevance of sex roles in the Church is to reduce the other verses regarding sex roles in the Church to the status of dead letters, AND it is to sever that interrelationship between Church and family. The result is incoherent exegetically (unless we concede that we have outgrown some perfectly clear proscriptions in the New -- note well, the New -- Testament; a dangerous concession) and anthropologically.

In addition, to stand the Scriptural pyramid on its head -- that is, to subordinate perfectly clear and practical verses to the negating authority of a verse that in context has nothing to do with preaching or church governance -- is to capitulate to a disease that threatens not only our Church but our entire civilization. Unless the proponents have perhaps not read the newspapers on the day when the collapse of the family was reported? And what awaits in the antechamber of ecclesial death, but the re-conception of God in feminine terms, which inevitably casts the Scripture itself into the fire, as in the minds of men (and, alas, women) God gradually becomes re-identified with His creation, and we lapse back into ancient pantheism, handing back the victory of the first verse of Genesis.

[Renee]

"As regards this present piece, it represents an extensive revision of something that I originally wrote in 1978. Since then my views on the issue have altered. In 1978 I considered the ordination of women priests to be an impossibility. Now I am much more hesitant. I am far from convinced by many of the current arguments advanced in favor of women priests; but at the same time a number of the arguments urged on the other side now appear to me a great deal less conclusive than they did twenty years ago.

What I would plead is that we Orthodox should regard the matter as essentially an open question. Let us not imagine that in this area everything is clarified and finally settled; for manifestly it is not, either for us Orthodox or for other Christians.

One point deserves to be underlined at the outset. On the subject of women and the priesthood, there exists as yet no pan-Orthodox statement, possessing definitive Ecumenical authority."

Quote from Bishop Kallistos Ware in "Women and the Priesthood" edited by Thomas Hopko" (1999, St Vlad's Press-page 7).

[Patrick]

Tony, as always you make an excellent point. However, in regards to your point about the "1900 years". In terms of women we can say that in the last 100 years there have been signicant changes in how society treats women and incorporates them into all manner of our public life.

Women can vote. Women can receive advanced degrees and teach in universities. Women can head entire nations as elected Presidents. Just as with slavery our consciousness has changed from most of the last 2000 years.

In short the Church alone has such barriers. As someone who has had women bosses, and women professors, and women mentors, and women in all sorts of levels of leadership around me it is not quite natural for me to say women are inherently barred from ministry. I respect and honor your points, and the others made here, but realize that we as a society have in fact changed on this point and not entirely to the detriment of mankind.

Men throughout history have had a degraded view of women, some men at least have, and this has indeed affected our theology over the centuries.

This isn't a call to making sex roles irrelevant. Rather this is to say maybe the lines have been drawn a little bit differently than they should have. This is what many are wrestling with, not to throw out Scripture but to get a stronger sense of what it does say as a whole, and how we go about living it given our contexts.

I for one do not see having a woman pastor as ruining my conception of Christ's sacrifice, his resurrection, or his work through the Spirit in this world. I do not mistake women for men, nor do I confuse the self-revelation of God the Father with my own preferences.

Part of my problem with this is I cannot separate my worlds very well. Would God give a woman an ability to lead if she was not supposed to lead? In the past society has restricted this question so it could not be asked. Now,this isn't even a question anymore, and as for most people being a woman isn't a sin I am confronted with women who have decided talents and gifts who are restricted because of perspectives on gender, not on anything which would otherwise "grieve the Spirit".

Paul said for slaves to be content with their masters, for such a thing represents our relationship with Christ and honors his salvation. We told slaves they shouldn't have to be content with their masters and should find freedom.

Exegesis, even after 1900 years, can and does change. Often with some upheaval, not always with permanent disaster.

[Joe Long]

"Women can vote. Women can receive advanced degrees and teach in universities. Women can head entire nations as elected Presidents. Just as with slavery our consciousness has changed from most of the last 2000 years.

In short the Church alone has such barriers."

Hmmm...well, women could head entire nations as monarchs "back when"; seems a mere elected President is a step down. And the church's barriers are not unique to the church, actually; they can be seen in the military and in the sporting world, to select a couple of examples - and of course, all over the place, in more traditional societies. One might also note that such barriers can be seen in the natural world, which often defines sex roles within species rather strictly. And our own biology defines us, too, however little we may like that. (Actually I'm pretty much cool with it, to tell the truth.)

Are the church's barriers an artificial construct, or are they the proper state of things? The Bible, church traditions, and the bulk of human tradition and experience seem to me to fall squarely on one side here.

"You could have said that about slavery!" Yes, and some did; but primarily they did so in frantic defense, because theology was the abolitionists' strongest suit. Slavery was defended theologically because that was where it was vulnerable: economics, and the science of the time, both fell squarely on the pro-slavery side. (I speak of chattel slavery in nineteenth-century America, of course, the most common frame of reference for debate on the issue). With this question, things shake out differently - the Bible treated slavery as an existing institution, leaving room for debate on reform and abolition, but it gives very specific instructions on the issue of women in church leadership. It does not say a thing about their university careers or eligibility to elected office...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Being a pastor is not a sin.<<<

Pride is a sin, as is presumption. To feel that one would make a good pastor is pride. To think one has a right to be a pastor is presumption.

>>>Being a woman is not a sin.<<<

But being a woman who wishes to trample the bonds of Holy Tradition is again, both pride and presumption.

As I have also said elsewhere, those who press for the ordination of women do so on two grounds: first, that it isn't "fair" to "deny" women the "right" to be ordained ministers; second, that to deny them this "right" shuts women out of positions of "power" in the Church.

Forgive me my naivete, but I always thought that ordination was a privilege extended to a few as a ministry of service, and not an inherent right. Those wishing to exercise their priesthood can do so as baptized members of the Body of Christ. The Church has presbyteroi, not hieroi. Christ is the one true high priest, in whose priesthood we all have a share.

Also, I must have missed the part where they told me the Church was about "power". Frankly, I thought rather the opposite. "The rulers of the gentiles lord it over them. It shall not be so with you. He who would be first must make himself least, and he who would be leader of all must first become the servant of all".

Frankly, as I have said before, I think the advocates of women's ordination have a strangely medieval clericalist view of the Church which stands at odds with their ostensible egalitarian position.

[Stuart Koehl]

Renee keeps quoting Kyr Kallistos' essay in Hopko's revised "Women and the Priesthood":

>>>Quote from Bishop Kallistos Ware in "Women and the Priesthood" edited by Thomas Hopko" (1999, St Vlad's Press-page 7).<<<

A very good and interesting book, filled with many articles by learned and holy men and women trying to discern God's truth in the matter.

But, Renee, your postings show that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the perils of extrapolating a position from a very limited set of documents.

It so happens that I know Bishop Kallistos and had the opportunity of discussing his essay with him at some length. You go too far in trying to claim His Grace as an advocate of women's ordination. Rather, as he said to me, he feels that the grounds on which Tradition rests in this case is rather shaky; the arguments put forward for the male exclusivity of the presbyterate are contradictory, unconvincing and lacking in coherence. On that basis, Kyr Kallistos believes that the issue is not closed, but that the best minds of the Church should put forth the effort to make such a coherent rationale of the Tradition.

Kallistos himself is not willing to transcend the boundaries of Tradition--he is Orthodox through and through, and though he may not be happy with the arguments put forth for the Tradition, and may even have reservations about the Tradition itself, he, like all Orthodox Christians, defers to the wisdom inherent in the Tradition even if he does not fully understand it. Think of it as a matter of intellectual and spiritual humility--a willingness to consider that current standards and mores may not be the "ultimate" development in human consciousness, that our ancestors may have known a thing or two, after all.

As Kallistos put it, "Suppose I live in an old house that I wish to modernize. In the center of the living room, there is a pillar, the purpose of which I cannot discern, but which is most inconvenient from an aesthetic perspective. Should I simply cut down the pillar because it is inconvenient to have one in the center of the living room, or would it not be wiser to try to discern why the pillar was placed there, and whether it has some critical function--such as holding up the roof--before I decide to cut it down?"

[GL]

GL, when did you become the Holy Spirit? Or does your Bible say something different in 1 Cor 12 than mine does?

Adultery is a sin. Being a pastor is not a sin. Adultery is a sin. Being a woman is not a sin. Adultery is always condemned. Woman are not always condemned.

Whoa!

I am not the Holy Spirit and never claimed to be. I do believe the Holy Spirit has spoken in Scriptures and that He clearly taught that women are not to be teachers of men -- that is the pastoral office. See Tony's post for citations. Where does 1 Corinthians 12 indicate that women are called to be pastors? It doesn't. The Scriptures are not ambiguous on this. Women have many gifts and many available offices within the Church. The Blessed Virgin Mary had a higher office than any man except her Son, Mother of our Lord.

I never said being a woman is a sin. I never said being a pastor is a sin. The Bible says woman are not to be pastors. As Tony said, "I've heard for years that the Scriptures are ambiguous about this issue. If so, it is an ambiguity that somehow escaped the notice of 1900 years of exegetes." I agree with you, Patrick that "[e]xegesis, even after 1900 years, can and does change. Often with some upheaval." I am growing more doubtful everyday, however, with your concluding clause, "not always with permanent disaster." I am afraid that the 20th century and the first half-decade of the 21st century teaches otherwise, except, by God's grace, the disaster won't be permanent -- except for those who lose their souls as a result of following false teaching or led by it to abandon the Faith. If the Holy Spirit has begun in the 20th and 21st century to call women to teach men, then He has changed and Scripture clearly teaches that God does not change.

[Renee]

Thank you, Patrick for your wise and balanced postings.

Stuart, I would appreciate it if you would respond to what I actually post and refrain from personal attack such as saying that I am of "little knowledge." You are substituting your preconceived notion of me in place of real dialogue.

It is very hard to have an honest conversation with you when you use these tactics.

[Patrick]

"Scripture clearly teaches that God does not change."
He does change tactics. Hence Jesus. Hence Gentiles. If he didn't change then we'd all be making sure to hightail it onto Jerusalem to worship in the Temple and get ritually circumcise. The being of God doesn't change. The purpose and reality of God does not change. The Bible is a story that God does work in different ways among us in different generations.

GL my point about 1 Cor 12 is that gender issues are brought up at all in this passage. Paul does speak about elders being men (though he also seems to suggest they have to be married), which adds to the comment about functional authority in the church not being equivalent to charismatic gifting. But, in this and similar passages he doesn't split the gifts. You may be right that women should not be priests, but to say that all women who feel called do not hear from God, that is pushing the bounds of what the Spirit can or cannot do.

Certainly tradition is worth noting. However, do any of us really think that if the Spirit wanted to use women the Spirit couldn't do it? The question is one of discernment, not definites. The Spirit may not have called such women. "Can not", or "did not" is stepping outside the bounds of our knowledge and authority.

I do realize this is a spicy issue and one filled with a lot of thought. So I want to thank everyone here, whether I agree or disagree. Though... it does make me feel a little less alone when I'm not the only one on this side.

[Steve]

Acts 8:30
So Philip ran up to the chariot. He heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you're reading?" Philip asked.
31"How can I?" he said. "I need someone to explain it to me." So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
...
34The official said to Philip, "Tell me, please. Who is the prophet talking about? Himself, or someone else?"
35Then Philip began ...

Like the Eunuch, who turned to the church for understanding of the scriptures -- in this case the deacon Philip - maybe we also should look beyond our own interpretation and turn to the authority of the church for scriptural meaning -- after all the church gave us the scriptures. As for ordination of women, the church has spoken clearly for almost 2,000 years.

[Stuart Koehl]

Renee wrote:

>>>Stuart, I would appreciate it if you would respond to what I actually post and refrain from personal attack such as saying that I am of "little knowledge." You are substituting your preconceived notion of me in place of real dialogue.<<<

My dear Renee, please forgive me. I can only work with the material you present me. Perhaps if you would go beyond citing just one work and one author in that work, and perhaps if you showed just a little more humility with regard to the integrity of the Orthodox Tradition, I would have a somewhat better opinion of knowledge.

[Blake Walter]

Patrick wrote,

"The question is one of discernment, not definites. The Spirit may not have called such women. "Can not", or "did not" is stepping outside the bounds of our knowledge and authority."

I think the question of discernment only comes into play once one is satisfied about biblical teaching. (My perception, at least, is that the only people who wrestle with this issue are those who are concerned with biblical authority. If you do not give a fig for biblical authority, you probably are not losing sleep over who may or may not be ordained.)

If you really, really believe that scripture forbids the ordination of women, then there can be no "discerning" of a woman's call, because the Holy Spirit is not going to overturn the Word of God. If you really, really believe that scripture is inconclusive or is actively in favor of women's ordination, then you must work to discern each woman's calling. Either way, the work of establishing the bounds of biblical authority has already been done. Where the boundary line has been drawn is apparent from the questions that are asked.

[Tony Esolen]

Patrick,

I thank you for your gracious manners in this touchy argument, and ask you to reconsider your acceptance of modern indifferentism with regard to male and female. (I've decided to devote a blog to the question, so please, folks, keep your powder dry.) We must somehow be able to separate what is merely time-bound and cultural and thus amenable to change from what is timelessly true about man and God. Now the argument of the Biblical feminizers is that the patriarchy of Scripture is time-bound and cultural and amenable not merely to change but to dismissal. And that, from a Scriptural point of view, and from my observation of the human race, is what I can't see and can't justify. It is certainly true that in our changed circumstances the accoutrements of patriarchy -- and the relations of men and women -- must change. It is not certainly true that patriarchy itself must be dismissed, or even that it can be dismissed, without an ensuing cultural or ecclesial suicide. The black community in America, I should think, provides suggestive empirical evidence of what happens when fathers are not fathers.

Another thing: to the extent that the assumptions of our culture diverge from those of Scripture, to that same extent we need to question them. It is true that the New Testament writers accepted slavery as a fact of life; they did not, however, accept it as a good thing (even the slaveowners knew that it was, in itself, a bad thing, for the simple reason that they themselves never wished to be slaves), and they did all they could to stress liberty. But when Paul talks about the relations of men and women in marriage, he does not immediately think of cultural expectations. HE RETURNS TO GENESIS, and talks about what men and women were in the beginning, before the fall. So does Jesus. In other words, we have here the rare and precious instance of Scripture alerting us, in case we are not paying attention, to a truth about mankind that simply IS the case, without regard to our sorry history since Adam. Now if Scripture is reliable in this regard, then it is Scripture that must stand in judgment over against our cultural habits and assumptions, and not the other way around. In other words, though Scripture has nothing definite to say about your having a woman boss, it certainly does suggest that any anthropology that is indifferent with regard to male or female leadership is suspect. I'd say, too, that you don't need to go to Scripture to begin to be queasy about the results of that indifferentism. Go to the local penitentiary.

Or, as Saint Thomas would say, gratia supponit naturam: grace perfects (or sup-poses, literally supports) nature. If in the order of grace a woman may not be the pastor of a church, then that fact should instruct us about nature, too. I am NOT saying that no woman can be a boss, everybody (see the comment in the paragraph above; I am trying, even in the haste of a blog, to express myself precisely). But the feminists, I am sure, are either right or wrong, and we're just kidding ourselves if we think that female leadership in the Church is just a quaint exception to the general rule, which is -- that there is NO RULE, not even something that falls short of a rule, such as a strong cultural expectation or a preference.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If you really, really believe that scripture forbids the ordination of women, then there can be no "discerning" of a woman's call, because the Holy Spirit is not going to overturn the Word of God. <<<

I think part of the problem is our free and loose use of the term "ordination", together with the tendency to look soley to scripture or to doctrinal statements without looking at how the Church has lived for the past two millennia.

With regard to ordination, literally, "election through laying on of hands", the mandate for doing so is given both in Acts of the Apostles and in the pastoral epistles. But we must look closely at who was being ordained for what in the early Church. Note that from the beginning, ordained ministry in the Christian Church differed fundamentally from the role of priests of the pagan cults--or even the priestly caste in the Temple Cult of Jerusalem. This is summarized in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in all the early Christian documents dealing with ministry in the Church. The Church went so far as to use different terms for its ordained ministers, calling them variously "episcopoi" and "presbyteroi", together with "diakonoi". The first two terms come out of the ancient synagogue, with the episcopos (overseer) of the synagogue responsible for its good order and finances, and the presbyteroi (elders) being the governing council.

In contrast, priests, both pagan and Jewish, were hieroi. Their role was to mediate between the people and the gods (or God), through the offering of sacrifices on the part of the people. Christians, on the other hand, believed that Christ's death on the Cross and Resurrection on the Third Day represented the one complete, perfect and final sacrifice that rendered all others moot. There was only one true high priest, Jesus Christ, who was both offeror and offering, priest and sacrifice/ In place of blood offerings, Christians offered "the Sacrifice of Praise", the Eucharist in which the entire congregation shared in Christ's priesthood.

But not all could, simultaneously and literally participate in the hands-on business of making the offering. As at any banquet table, someone had to preside, to break the bread, pour the wine and distribute them. Thus, first the Episcopos, and later the Presbyteroi acting on his behalf, led the congregation in prayer, and presided over the Holy Table at which the Eucharist was offered and distributed to the people. The men selected for this important ministry of service were also to be moral leaders of the community, mature, upright and capable of exercising decisive leadership within the concilium of the Church. These men were selected by the community as a whole, and then were confirmed with the Gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, first by the entire community, later by the Episcopos. This conferral of the Gift of the Holy Spirit was considered of a different degree but not of a different kind from that conferred during the Sacrament of Chrismation (which was administered at baptism for adults and infants alike). When a new Episcopos had to be chosen, it was from among the ranks of the presbyteroi, the bishops of the neighboring dioceses gathered to lay their hands upon him, as a way of demonstrating the unity of the Church.

Deacons were a different matter, as Acts lays out. They were not selected for any liturgical purpose (scholars are agreed that the liturgical role of the deacon emerged relatively late in the day), but to act explicitly as servants of the community, looking out for the welfare of its members. They, too, were ordained by the bishop's laying on of hands, but with a slightly different rite from that of the presbyters and bishops. It is perhaps not unexpected, then, that early ordination rituals are based very much on the rites of initiation (baptism, chrismation and Eucharist), thereby stressing both the ecclesial and eschatological dimensions of ordination.

Thus, when we speak of the Church's Tradition regarding ordination, we must place it within this sacramental and eschatological context; not to do so is to argue in a vacuum that makes any discussion pointless. Looking at the historical record regarding ordination, we find the blanket statement "the Church did not ordain women" to be in error. The Church certainly did ordain women--to the order of Deaconess, which in the Christian East, at least, was a major order using the same rite of ordination (Cheirotoneia) as was used for a deacon. The record, both Scriptural and historical is repleat with the names of Deaconesses who were prominent in the early Church. There is no reason to doubt that these were numbered among the ministers of the Church, rather than being merely an honorific title.

On the other hand, the Church has never ordained women to the presbyterate (and thus, of course, to the episcopate). To say that the Church reserved these orders for men out of "sexism" is both anachronistic and historically ignorant. In the first place, priestesses were common as dirt in the ancient world; many cults had them, and in some cults, the highest ranking priests were always women. Priestesses were held in high social esteem and honor; in no way were they inferior in status to male priests, all cults being equal. Jews were rather unique, therefore, not only in having but one God, but also in having a God served by an exclusively male priesthood, membership in which was determined by bloodline.

Given the increasingly hostile relations between Jews and Christians towards the close of the first century, and the fact that Christians were now recruiting almost exclusively from among the Gentiles, nothing would have been more expedient than to ordain women to the preeminent ministerial offices of the Church. After all, women numbered disproportionately among the converts, and furthermore, wealthy widows and virgins were major benefactors of the Church.

Yet the Church chose not to ordain women, and in fact never did. The Montanists, who believed in the "new revelation", did in fact ordain women presbyters. but when the Montanists were reconciled with the Church, its male presbyters were allowed to remain in that order upon making a profession of faith, while the female presbyters were returned to unordained status.

Why did the Church refuse to ordain women to the presbyterate, while allowing them into almost every other aspect of Church life (including the diaconate)? One would have to look, I think, to the mysterium of the Church--the Church as sign or sacrifice. That is not to say that we must accept the role of the presbyter "in persona Christi", for that argument is a late one and applies only to Latin sacramental theology; in Eastern Christian liturgy, the priest sometimes stands " in persona Christi", but more often "in personal Ecclesiae". Nor do I think we can fall back upon simple-minded anthropomorphic arguments (Jesus was a man, Jesus is the High Priest, therefore all priests must be men). Rather, the issue resides in the role of God as Father, of Christ as Son, and of Jesus as the Bridegroom (with the Church as His Bride).

While God transcends sex, the relational nature of the Trinity is replicated in the Church's relationship with Christ. God is Father, and while God's Fatherhood is complete and perfect, it is symbolically mainfested in this world through the role of man (the male of the species, that is) as father. The Church is an extended family; families are headed by fathers--that is the ideal, which we should try to emulate even if we fall short due to the fallen nature of this world. Hence, while Christ is the invisible head of the Church living among us, the visible head of each local Church should have the anthropological characteristics that emulate God's relationship to us; i.e., God is Father, therefore the head of the local congregation should also be a spiritual father. And, all attempts to prove otherwise not withstanding, it is pretty clear that women are not cut out for fatherhood, any more than men are cut out for motherhood. Each role is distinct and complementary, and since God made us this way, we ought to assume He did so for a reason.

Which brings us to the current debate. I would summarize my position thus:

1. When we speak of ordination, we must do so in a manner that upholds the sacramental nature of Holy Orders as understood by the early Church, within the sacramental context that was the life of the Church. Today, that means only the Apostolic Churches that uphold the fullness of Tradition even have ordained sacerdotal ministries. Outside of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, there are no ordained orders, thus no issue to discuss.

2. Bound by two millenna of Holy Tradition, and without any significant groundswell of countervailing opinion from within (Catholic and Orthodox advocates of female ordination to the presbyterate are the classic "squeaky wheel"--noisy and annoying, but not really all that important), these Churches are not likely to ordain women priests any time soon.

3. Outside of the Apostolic Churches, there are a number of pastoral ministries with varying degrees of sacerdotal function (relatively high among some Anglicans and Lutherans, low among Evangelicals), but as these men (and women) are not "ordained" in the sense that the early Church used the word, they pretty much can do what they want. With the abandonment of Tradition and the breakdown of the sacramental structure of these Reformation communities, the point has become moot. Its ordained ministers are not presbyters, are not bishops, save in name alone; the understanding of those ministries is profoundly different from that held by the early Church and maintained within the Apostolic Churches.

4. If we break down the roles of these ministers, we find that they have a variety of pastoral functions, but only a limited sacramental function at best (i.e., they preside at baptisms, but Tradition allows that even laymen can baptize for necessity). They are preachers, teachers, and to some extent counsellors; they maintain order and discipline within their congregations (though with diminishing success, it would seem). None of these roles are precluded to women according to Scripture or Tradition, for we have numerous historical examples of women who did all these: St. Nino, Enlightener of Georgia and Equal to the Apostles; St. Macrina the Younger, the "Fourth Cappodocian Father"; St. Olympias, friend of John Chrysostom--and these are only from my own Church's history. There are plenty more, even in the West.

5. Therefore, arguments concerning the role of women in Church ministry really only apply (from the standpoint of Tradition) to those Churches that uphold Tradition. For everyone else, it is a matter of the internal discipline of each specific denomination, because what these women do in the pulpit is not what Paul was considering when he said women should not speak up in Church.

[Patrick]

Thoughts to chew over, everyone. Thank you.

I do find Scripture less clear on this, and Paul more varied in his comments, than others here it seems. And this is not because I do not take Scripture seriously, but because I take it so seriously I do not want to sacrifice one part for another. It has to speak with a single voice, or otherwise we lose an important nuance.

The Church has indeed spoken, and the Spirit is true to the Word of God. However, the Spirit isn't always committed to a certain path which is why Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised even though Scripture insisted on it. It took a dream and some tongues to change that rule, after several thousand years of God's policy. But, to say something is changed has to be more than just a feeling. Peter, chosen by Jesus, did have that quite powerful vision, and it was confirmed by a meeting of the leaders of the Church. Not everyone agreed, but the right ones did, leading to our own unique church traditions.

With this, however, is the reality the Church now is not the same exact Church as 100, or 500, or a 1000 years ago. Long standing traditions do change, even though it might take 300 years to get around to making the changes.

However, you all rightly offer caution and I respect it and your words very much.

[David Gray]

>Therefore, arguments concerning the role of women in Church ministry really only apply (from the standpoint of Tradition) to those Churches that uphold Tradition. For everyone else, it is a matter of the internal discipline of each specific denomination, because what these women do in the pulpit is not what Paul was considering when he said women should not speak up in Church.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Thanks for your opinion.<<<

Don't mention it. Perhaps, though, someone would like to engage, rather than dismiss the argument? After all, an appeal to "scriptural authority" outside the matrix of the Tradition of the Church--in all its aspects--is an exercise in solipcism. Who gets to interpret scripture, and why should we favor his interpretation over anyone else's? Individual interpretation invariably leads to uncontrollable centrifugal forces pulling Christians into ever smaller factions.

Ultimately, one is required to recognize that the Bible is the book of the Church, and not vice versa. Scripture does not stand over, or even alongside Tradition, but is an integral element of Tradition. Scripture is granted special status and authority within Tradition, but only when interpreted through the matrix of Tradition. Those who deny the integrity of Tradition (understood here as the action of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ, manifested in the life of the Church) have no foundation on which to base their understanding of Scripture.

Tradition has many different elements, including Scripture, liturgy, the sacraments, the works of the Fathers, the Acts of the Great Councils. All of these can be discerned through the history of the Church and examination of how the Church LIVED. Deny liturgy, deny sacraments, deny the authority of the Fathers, deny the Councils--what's left? A bunch of guys sitting around with their own individual copies of the Bible, each trying to figure it out de novo (though each, in fact, interpreting it through the matrix of his own individual time, place and experience).

Thus, one has to go back in time to understand what the Church meant by ordination. Is what many Evangelical or non-denominational groups do "ordination" as the Church understood it? Doubtful, since ordination was meant to fulfill a sacerdotal ministry, and absent sacraments, what is the point? How did the Church understand the role of women in light of Paul's letters on the subject? Maybe it would help to know what women actually DID in the second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries. Maybe, just maybe, a people who lived in the same culture as that in which the New Testament was written, who spoke and read the language in which it was written, and who lived much closer to the events which it recounts, might have a better understanding of what the Bible means than people living 2000 years later, in a totally different culture, reading the Bible only in second and third-hand translations, and carrying the baggage of two millennia of history with them?

Understanding the meaning of Tradition within the Church, accepting its authority and living in accordance with its preceptsl is, as I noted, a way of maintaining continuity with the Apostles and the Fathers. It is a form of intellectual humility that recognizes the wisdom of our ancestors and discounts our inevitable tendency to think that we know it all, that we, being "modern" and "enlightened" men of the 21st century, have greater insight into the meaning of the Gospel than those whose entire lives were wrapped up in it.

When you look at the issue of women's ordination as it is used generally, it is hard, from the standpoint of Tradition, to say that the bulk of the argument is actually about ordination at all, since from the perspective of Tradition, most of the women in question (all of them, in fact) are not ordained in the true sense of the word. And thus, I reiterate my conclusion, that for most Protestants, and practically all Evangelicals, this is not really a matter dogma, but just an aesthetic or internal disciplinary matter. Having abandoned much more central tenets of Tradition, why cavil about the sex of the person standing in the pulpit delivering a long lecture on Sunday?

[Patrick]

Stuart, I actually agree with you on this point. Even as I'm on the rather protestant wing of the Protestant church.

Though, I quibble about your statement that the Councils are denied by Protestants.

And as regards to this point, "might have a better understanding of what the Bible means than people living 2000 years later" we seem to see that if the earliest churches had a good grasp on just what Jesus was about then we wouldn't have the benefit of any of the epistles. We have a New Testament, except for Acts and the Gospels, precisely because the earliest communities weren't getting things right and didn't understand everything. So, there's no reason to think things changed in 400 or 500 or 1024.

And we are told by Jesus that it is the Spirit who will teach us all things, so we do in fact have the hope that we can understand what God is doing as equally as someone who saw him walking around. Even more, Jesus seemed to suggest.

But then, to argue more over your very interesting thoughts puts us back to discussing the ultimate standing of the Protestant churches, and that I think might be too broad even for these comment sections.

[GL]

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." 1 Timothy 2:12a (ESV)

This text says nothing about ordination or administering the Sacraments. Perhaps something is lost in the translation, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Deny liturgy, deny sacraments, deny the authority of the Fathers, deny the Councils--what's left? A bunch of guys sitting around with their own individual copies of the Bible, each trying to figure it out de novo.

By all means correct me if I am wrong, but what orthodox Father ever wrote that women may be pastors. If you can point to none, then any argument to the contrary must be based on a de novo interpretation of the Scriptures outside the traditions and Tradition of the Churches claiming Apostolic Succession.

As a Protestant, I'll readily admit that we should give great deference to the non-heretical Early Church Fathers in our understanding of Scripture and that our failure to do so has had some tragic consequences. I have read, however, modern day Catholics and Orthodox Christians who creatively interpret both the Early Church Fathers and Scripture in ways that would make a liberal jurist's interpretation of the Constitution appear downright strict constructionist. The words of the Early Fathers can be just as twisted as the words of Scripture themselves. And, as a Protestant, I believe even the Early Church Fathers' understandings are subject to and subordinate to the words of Scripture itself.

[Joe Long]

The theological big dogs are out, which should keep me under the porch. However, recklessly, I will observe that on this issue, given -

"...a bunch of guys sitting around with their own individual copies of the Bible, each trying to figure it out de novo..."

- those guys, if they sat down with the sincere intention of seeing what the text SAYS, seem to me very likely indeed to come to the same basic notions the assorted Traditionalists hold on this issue. Doesn't seem very fuzzy or amenable to honest misinterpretation at all. (Willful misinterpretation is another matter, of course.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>- those guys, if they sat down with the sincere intention of seeing what the text SAYS, seem to me very likely indeed to come to the same basic notions the assorted Traditionalists hold on this issue. Doesn't seem very fuzzy or amenable to honest misinterpretation at all. (Willful misinterpretation is another matter, of course.)<<<

Therein, of course, lies the problem--sincere people sincerely trying to discern the meaning of the text have been coming up with divergent answers for hundreds of years. First, of course, there is the ambiguity of many passages. Second, there is the difficulty of trying to deal with the text in translation. Third, there is the problem of placing the text in its original context, stripped of all the cultural, linguistic and historical baggage it has picked up along the way.

Finally, I do insist that we have to distinguish between "traditional" Christians and "traditionalists". The distinction was made succinctly by Prof. Jaroslav Pelikan, whom, I am sad to say, recently fell asleep in the Lord after a lifetime devoted to discerning as much of the truth as is humanly possible. Pelikan famously said, "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." 1 Timothy 2:12a (ESV)<<<

All well and good, GL, except that we know women were in fact teachers in the early Church, and that many were counted as "Isapotolos" or "Equals to the Apostles". We might start, of course, with Mary the Mother of God herself, who served as the perfect disciple and model for all men and women. Or Mary Magdalen, counted as "Apostle to the Apostles", because it was she who brought them the Good News that Christ is risen. And then there are the various female deacons recognized by Paul himself in the salutations of his epistles. What exactly did Paul mean when he said that he did not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man? I suspect that we are dealing with an obscure passage referring to a specific situation in a specific local Church, so that our attempts to universalize tend to mislead rather than enlighten. Is reading equivalent to teaching? If so, should women be allowed as lectors? Is singing teaching? If so, should women be cantors or choirmasters? Ben Witherington and others across the theological spectrum of orthodoxy (small-o) cannot concur on just what the passage means, and so in the end, we have today mainly different traditions (small-t) of what it means, each imposing its own assumptions on the passage. Myself, I believe we ought to look at what the Church DID, as well as what it SAID, and thus try to reconcile the two and achieve some degree of understanding.

>>>This text says nothing about ordination or administering the Sacraments. Perhaps something is lost in the translation, but it seems pretty clear to me.<<<

Yet many believe that it was in fact a conflict between charismatic leaders of the community and those who were ordained ministers that lies at the heart of the matter. For the age of Paul was the age of ongoing prophesy, and those charismatic prophets could certainly be disruptive within the structure of the local Church. The Holy Spirit, is, after all, the anarchist member of the Trinity. From Paul's perspective, a charismatic woman overruling the ordained episcopos of the local Church becomes a matter of the good order of the community--the kind of thing that perhaps lies behind the problems with those whacky Corinthians.

As for the Sacraments, one ought to remember that the early Church was first and foremost a Eucharistic community: its primary purpose was to come together to offer up the bread and wine and receive in return the Body and Blood of Christ. The sacraments, or mysteria, were the signs by which the Church manifested its true nature as the Kingdom of God in this world. For the early Christians, symbol and reality totally interpenetrated each other, so that the modern distinction between the two is meaningless. The Church as a whole was a sacrament, the purpose of which was to celebrate the sacraments, and above all the Eucharist as Sacrament of Sacraments.

Of course, this is not in the Pauline Epistles, or Acts of the Apostles, but it is explicit in the many sub-apostolic works written before the end of the first century--and thus within the lifetimes or at least the living memory of Jesus and the Apostles. This is a hard point for many people to accept, since the tradition of their own particular denominations is founded on a rejection of the real history of the Church in favor of an imposed interpretation of a limited set of texts.

>>>By all means correct me if I am wrong, but what orthodox Father ever wrote that women may be pastors.<<<

The question itself is anchronistic, since the notion of "pastor" in the Protestant sense of the word did not exist--and would not exist for about 1500 years. There were certainly women in pastoral roles both in the early Church, through the patristic era and beyond. These would include the various women such as St. Nino and St. Olgha who acted as evangelists to entire nations (historically documented facts): these women, by the nature of their mission, were indeed teachers and to a degree "pastors" to the people they converted. If the tree is judged by its fruit, how to judge them? What of St. Macrina, who taught and occasionally upbraided her brothers, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa? What of St. Gorgonia, sister of Gregory Nanzianzen, who admitted his debt to her as both an example and a teacher of the faith? Then, of course, there were the many ordained deaconesses who served as teachers to women and children; and the Irish abbesses who were de facto heads of large local Churches in Ireland. In other words, the record is replete with examples of women doing that which "pastors" do--in Protestant denominations. What the record does not show is the Church ordaining women to any sacramental order beyond that of the deacon. No female presbyters, no female bishops. What distinguishes those two orders from that of the diakonate-which did admit women? Only one: the presbyter and the bishop are the principal celebrants of the Eucharist and the other sacraments. Hence, male exclusivity and sacramental theology are inextricably tied together. No sacraments, no restriction on the role of women.

>>>The words of the Early Fathers can be just as twisted as the words of Scripture themselves. <<<

They certainly can, and have been. By the same token, there is a consensus patriae which must be observed, while at the same time one has to recognize that the Fathers were far more tolerant of diverse opinion in matters beyond divine revelation or the received rule of faith. They dogmatized relatively little, and allowed a lot of personal theological speculation. "Certitude" was not high on their list of priorities, but constant questing for a deeper understanding of the mysteries of the plan of salvation and a share in the divine nature were always foremost in their minds.

[firinnteine]

I've appreciated much of Stuart's insights, but I must question the Holy Spirit as the "anarchist member of the Trinity" -- as my roommate says, how can one by an "anarchist member" of anything? It's like an "anarchist organization," -- or, alternately, a dismembered body (which the Church sometimes appears to be, but the Holy Trinity is decidedly NOT...).

With due respect, I think the phrase may be blasphemous, as it stands.

I also find it highly theologically problematic to suggest that the Spirit could lead to anarchy; this would almost suggest that the third Person of the Trinity undermines the Authority ordained by that same Trinity, and representing (in different respects) the first and second Persons.

I assume this is not what what meant; but our theological language must be exceedingly cautious -- we speak of so glorious and sacred a Subject.

[Patrick]

Firinnteine, a very good caution, though I would guess it was meant more to suggest the Spirit's tendency to be like the wind, blowing where it will. The Spirit is not disconnected or a real anarchist, but the Spirit does tend to do things apart from the oft accepted order, and we do not quite have a handle on what the Spirit will do next. Calling the Spirit the anarchist member of the Trinity is sort of like calling the science of seemingly random events in nature "chaos". It's not chaos, but it's so infinitely complex that it seems like it.

Who know where the Spirit will blow next? Stuart's words in my estimation, are a helpful reminder to us who would much prefer the Spirit to do just what we think he should and mind his P's and Q's.

But you are right to offer the caution.

[Will Reaves]

Since Stuart had summarized my own position on the matter perfectly in his last two posts, this might be a bit repetitive, but oh, well.

While I was in high school, I was reading an anthology of C.S. Lewis and came across his "Priestess in the Church?" essay. I read it with some interest, came to the conclusion, and thought to myself, "Hmm, that's a very good argument. But it doesn't apply at all to my own situation." At the time, I was attending a Baptist Church, and I knew, whatever our pastor was doing, he wasn't engaged in the type of sacramental ministry that Lewis was describing. Thus the argument he advanced--which was fundamentally sacramental in nature--completely failed to apply.

Having since become an Anglican and now a Catholic, my understanding is that the problem with GL and other Protestants who attempt to hold the line against women pastors (if I may be so bold as to assert my thinking on the matter) is that they have already gutted their understanding of the pastorate. Abandoning the sacerdotal aspect of priestly ministry, Protestants have already denuded the role of those attributes that made restricting it to men make sense. Thus I find it amusing that they insist on the fig leaf of a male-only pastorate in a desperate attempt claim to maintain a link to Biblical authority--a link that, by their abandonment of Tradition and Magisterium, they have already repudiated. Thus they are forced to interpret the "teaching" referred to in 1 Timothy 2 in such a way as to make the ministry of, say, St. Catherine of Sienna complicit in furthering the egalitarian heresy.

(For that matter, since the passage doesn't specify a church context any more than it does a sacramental context, an obvious of the sort that GL would require would also cause us to oppose women political leaders, women teaching in schools--at least in co-ed colleges and adult education classes--and women writing in the pages of Touchstone. Does Touchstone employ any female editors? If so, does that mean it has succumbed to the egalitarian heresy?)

Now, people like Patrick look at the history of the Church and can tell quite easily that women have been serving in roles more or less like what Protestant pastors do since the times of the Apostles. Thus attempts to read the Bible in ways which contradict this history fail to convince him and other egalitarians (I'm assuming, Patrick, that you are an egalitarian; please correct me if I am in error), and in fact seem terribly forced and occasionally flat-out ridiculous. But only by making these arguments can Protestants equate their pastors with actual priests (whom, traditionalists correctly observe, the Bible and Tradition insist must be male) and thus claim to be ministering in the same way as the Apostles did. But they are not, of course, and therein lies the problem.

The problem is not, as SMH has claimed elsewhere, that "concurrent with the rise of feminism, discoveries [sarcasm in original] are being made in the scriptures of which the Church was ignorant for the first nineteen hundred years of its life?" The problem is that "concurrent with the rise of Protestantism, discoveries [sarcasm still in original] were made in the scriptures of which the Church was ignorant for the first fifteen hundred years of its life" and now, we are seeing the perfectly natural outgrowth of Protestant ecclesiology and Biblical interpretation. If you dislike this, there's a solution: it's called Rome. Or Constantinople, Antioch or Moscow, for that matter.

[Patrick]

I think that sums it up well, Will.

At least for me. However, not all Protestants are the same. Some are a lot closer to Rome than others. It would seem to me, from your words, that it is our view of the Eucharist which really is important in this matter. For me, it is not a heresy because I see the pastoral role, and the sacraments, in a very different way. For Dr. Hutchens and the others, however, they cannot understand my being so blind.

I like you note so well argue in terms of women serving in such roles through church history and in the Bible. The Protestant pastor is, essentially, the New Testament prophet, and there were quite clearly women prophets. I have a particularly egalitarian understandng of pastors within the church to begin with, not only in terms of gender. It is a role, not a sacrament or symbol. That is likely increasing as I find myself drifting more towards Quaker thinkers in recent years.

Dr. Hutchens, and the others here, most certainly begin with a much higher view of a priest/pastor in how they represent Christ to the congregation. I see Christ being represented from each to each through the Spirit with the pastor being a functional office for purpose of order and direction.

The issue is much deeper than gender, and if Rome is indeed right in all its claims then my views on gender are the least of my ecclesial heresies.

[GL]

For those Catholic and Orthodox Christians out there, may a woman delivery the homily in your Churches? I honestly do not know the answer to this question. It seems to me that the pastor's sermon in a Protestant church is the equivalent of the homily. If I am correct that only men may deliver the homily -- and again I'll admit ignorance in this regard -- then it would seem that answering that my question is the relevant issue from Church history. We are not talking about deaconesses or prophetesses; we are talking about homilists.

[Patrick]

Connected with that question, GL, is something which really hit me last night. One of the big problems with Protestantism is there is only one expression of vocational ministry, the public pastor.

In the historic churches there are priests. But there are also monks of many kinds, and many other roles which are not connected with the Mass. Protestants conceive of only one expression, and a pastor must represent all the aspects the Catholic church realizes may be best expressed through diverse roles.

In the historic churches a woman who feels a call to serve God can choose to become a nun, exercising all manner of gifts in the context of exclusive service of God.

There is no equivalent choice in Protestant churches, leaving a woman with Protestant leanings only two options if she were to feel the "call" in the same way a Catholic woman might. If she is an egalitarian she becomes a pastor, receiving the wrath of a good portion of the church. If she is not, she becomes a pastor's wife, which has its nice aspects but is never fully that which would express the call.

Protestants can never have their equivalent to Mother Theresa without being charged with egalitarianism. This means there is a problem with theology as wrestled with here, but maybe more practically it is a decided problem with a limited ecclesiology of Protestantism which curiously has less to offer women than does Rome.

Who could be our version of Mother Theresa, for instance?

[Will Reaves]

To GL: Good question; the answer is no, a woman would not be permitted to give the homily, because she is not ordained (no woman, obviously, may take Holy Orders) and only the ordained can deliver a homily in the context of the Mass.

(This leads to an interesting question to Stuart: In what sense do the Roman Catholic deaconate--which is restricted to men--and the Eastern Orthodox deaconate--which is, according to you, not--differ from each other as far as their theological role is envisioned? I know that for a very long time in the Western tradition the deaconate was seen as a stepping stone to the priesthood rather than a dedicated role in its own right. Is that not the case in Orthodoxy?)

Now, immediately at the closing of the Mass a non-ordained person (male or female) could--with the permission of the priest--speak with regard to practically any religiously-related topic, for as long or longer than the homily went (depending on how brief the priest was). Moreover, either religious or lay women may lead education classes in other contexts in which their presentation can seem eerily similar to a homily, or a sermon. But these do not occur within the context of the Mass, where the Eucharist is celebrated.

So I see two problems with this analogy: One, Protestants don't have Mass, so the requirement to have only one (properly) ordained give the homily is moot. Two, the restriction is not against women, it is against the non-ordained. So claiming the sermon in a Protestant service is the equivalent of the homily in a Mass--and thus all restrictions that apply for one apply for the other--would require me to insist that not only the priests or deacons giving such sermons be men, but that they are ordained in Apostolic Succession and operate with proper Episcopal oversight. Since Protestants ministers enjoy neither of these things ...

The insistence against women pastors by certain Protestants seems an odd place to draw the line. If I may give my own, probably flawed analogy, it seems like making (perfectly valid) arguments against contraception while ignoring abortion. That contraception is, in fact, morally wrong is a moot point; the area and intensity of focus not only shows an inherent misunderstanding of the connection between the two subjects, but a much skewed sense of priorities as well.

S.M. Hutchins, writing an official editorial in 2002, claimed: "Egalitarianism in all its expressions is false doctrine. Those who adopt it, to the degree of their adoption, have departed the Faith." Granting, against our egalitarian brothers and sisters posting here, that this is correct (and it occurs to me we have not even begun to discuss the case of male and female roles in marriage, where I would say Protestant complimentarians have much better ground on which to stand), there is no reason why a faithful Catholic could not replace "Egalitarianism" with any number of Protestant doctrines and still have the statement work. I'm certain the Protestants here, if they are honest, could insert Catholic and Orthodox doctrines in and have the statement work in their minds as well.

None of this means, however, that ecumenical efforts like Touchstone are invalid--just that such ecumenical efforts much always be couched in such a way that recognizes the gulf of theology that separates the groups participating. Thus I am a bit curious why Egalitarians are not afforded the same courtesy.

[David Gray]

>Thus I am a bit curious why Egalitarians are not afforded the same courtesy.

Perhaps because egalitarianism is contrary to orthodox Chrisitianity whether in its Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic or Reformed manifestations.

dave

[GL]

Who could be our version of Mother Theresa, for instance?

I do not claim that these two women are the equivalent of Mother Theresa, but the Southern Baptist Convention has historically had a place for women to serve. Two examples are:

Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon

[Stuart Koehl]

GL writes:

>>>For those Catholic and Orthodox Christians out there, may a woman delivery the homily in your Churches? <<<

The answer is "no", because a homily per se is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word, which is in turn an integral part of the Eucharist. A homily is meant to be an exegesis on the reading of the day, and in the Churches of the Byzantine Tradition, at least, the readings together with the homily comprise what is in its own way a complete sacrament manifesting both the Word of God and the unity of the Church. The Word is manifested through the readings themselves--the Epistle by the lector and the Gospel by the deacon, while the priest delivers through the homily a targum on the themes presented by the reading. All the orders of the Church--the laity, the diaconate, and the presbyterate/episcopate are united through the Liturgy of the Word. With that liturgical understanding of homily, one can see why it is normally delivered by the priest (or, occasionally, by the deacon).

A homily is not a sermon; the two are completely different. Sermons do not have a liturgical connotation, and can take place outside of liturgy. The are in fact "lessons" based on Scripture, and are divorced from the liturgical calendar. Thus, women can indeed deliver sermons--just not in the context of the liturgy. They may address the faithful in non-liturgical situations, or can deliver a "reflexion" AFTER the dismissal from the Liturgy. They do not address the congregation DURING the Liturgy.

[Stuart Koehl]

Will writes:

>>>(This leads to an interesting question to Stuart: In what sense do the Roman Catholic deaconate--which is restricted to men--and the Eastern Orthodox deaconate--which is, according to you, not--differ from each other as far as their theological role is envisioned? I know that for a very long time in the Western tradition the deaconate was seen as a stepping stone to the priesthood rather than a dedicated role in its own right. Is that not the case in Orthodoxy?)<<<

The diaconate in both East and West has common roots in the seven Hellenists commissioned by the Apostles to "wait on tables" (a deacon is thus a "waiter"). In both East and West, their principal function for the first several hundred years was service--taking care of widows, orphans, consecrated virgins, distributing alms, receiving gifts, and the like.

I suspect that it through the latter role--the reception of gifts--that their liturgical function began to emerge, since people would literally bring their offerings "in kind". Bread and wine would be inspected, and the best reserved for use in the Eucharist. At some point, the offerings would have to be brought forth to the Holy Table, and the deacons would do this. As liturgy became more elaborate, deacons began assisting the bishop and the presbyters in various ways--holding things, incensing, fanning, and serving as aide memoire to the priest ("Reverend Father, bless the bread!").

The role of the deacon is pretty much the same in East and West until the Middle Ages, when liturgical changes in the Latin Liturgy--and particularly the emergence of the "private" Mass in which the priest subsumed the roles of both the deacon and the people--reduced the deacon to the bishop's administrative assistant. The diaconate in turn became a mere stepping stone on the way to the priesthood, with only a vestigial liturgical role. In the East, the diaconate continued to be a ministry in its own right, and the liturgical role of the deacon actually expanded in the Byzantine rite as it became ever more ornate.

Vatican II restored to the Latin Church the concept of the "permanent" diaconate, and in the reform of the Roman Liturgy it also restored the liturgical role of the deacon. Unfortunately, it seems not to have been well thought out, and as compared to Eastern deacons they seem underutilized. Sacramentally, Latin deacons can do one thing that Eastern deacons cannot--they can officiate at marriages. This is because in the Latin sacrament of marriage, the couple in essence "marry each other", with the Church as witness, while in Eastern marriages, the priest is the ordinary minister of the sacrament who binds the couple to each other through Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus, Catholic canon law requires that a priest celebrate the marriage between a Latin and an Eastern Catholic, or a Latin Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox.

It is rather a shame about the liturgical role of deacons in the Latin Church because overall restoration of the permanent diaconate has been a great success, attracting many fine, responsible men to position of ministry in the service of the Church. One has to hope that over time, the Latin diaconate will begin organically to expand its liturgical function, especially in light of the continuing shortage of priests in the Latin Church.

With the restoration of the permanent diaconate diaconate in the Latin Church, the "theology" of the diaconate in East and West is once more converging, and I do not see this as a major hurdle to the restoration of communion.

Incidentally, and I cannot stress this enough, deaconesses, though fully ordained ministers in the Eastern Churches, never had a liturgical role outside of assisting in the baptisms of adult female catechumens (since adults, like infants, were baptized naked through full immersion). No liturgical role is anticipated if the order of the deaconess is formally restored in the Orthodox Churches.

[Stuart Koehl]

Patrick greatly oversimplifies:

>>>There is no equivalent choice in Protestant churches, leaving a woman with Protestant leanings only two options if she were to feel the "call" in the same way a Catholic woman might. If she is an egalitarian she becomes a pastor, receiving the wrath of a good portion of the church. If she is not, she becomes a pastor's wife, which has its nice aspects but is never fully that which would express the call.<<<

First of all, there are many more outlets for ministry within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches than either the priesthood or the religious life. Take, e.g., Dorothy Day, who was never a member of any religious order, yet found her vocation in service to the poor. Likewise, in the Orthodox Churches there are many examples of ordinary lay men and women who devote their lives to Christ without ever taking monastic vows. One cannot stress too much that liturgy is leitourgia, the work of the people, and that there is a "liturgy after the Liturgy"; we are all called to live our lives liturgically, as when the Divine Liturgy exhorts us, "Let us commend ourselves and one another, and our whole lives to Christ our God!". Similarly, our vocation is laid out for us at the dismissal from the Divine Liturgy: "Let us go forth in peace, in the name of the Lord".

With regard to Protestants, Patrick has taken the same reductionist stance: holiness resides in the preacher, or in the preacher's wife--leaving nothing for anyone else. Which is certainly convenient for the rank and file, who seem to have rather minimal demands made upon them. But it is not consistent with the Great Commission, nor is it consistent with concept of Christ's royal priesthood, in which all the baptized participate.

It is noteworthy that in the Eastern Traditions, both Catholic and Orthodox, the family is called the "domestic church", the husband and wife ordained as priests and rulers over the domestic realm, and called to holiness in that station of life. Chrysostom was quite serious when he wrote, "There can be more holiness in the nuptial chamber than in the monastic cell"--a recognition of the universal call to holiness which is not restricted in any way to those who are ordained or in monastic orders.

[Stuart Koehl]

Firinteinne writes:

>>>I've appreciated much of Stuart's insights, but I must question the Holy Spirit as the "anarchist member of the Trinity" -- as my roommate says, how can one by an "anarchist member" of anything? It's like an "anarchist organization," -- or, alternately, a dismembered body (which the Church sometimes appears to be, but the Holy Trinity is decidedly NOT...).<<<

To understand my meaning, it helps to know about the kind of person known as the "Fool for Christ" or "Holy Fool". Most prominent in the Russian Orthodox Tradition (but found throughout the Orthodox world, and not unknown in the West, either), the Holy Fool appears insane or unbalanced, but it in fact filled with the Holy Spirit and uses his condition to (as the cliche du jour puts it, "speak truth to power"). They were known for doing unsettling and disruptive things--much like a certain itinerant carpenter who overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple). Holy fools in fact have roots going back to Old Testament times, and are evidence that the Spirit chose this way of communicating with us even before the arrival of the Son.

For the Holy Spirit is no respecter of persons. He is like the wind, indeed, and passeth where He wills, using whom He pleases, and speaking as He needs. As a result, the Spirit is not a welcome presence among those who seek order, peace, quiet and self-satisfaction. Pushing us always to challenge our comfortable status quo, the Spirit, like the Son of Man, often comes bearing a sword, and divides father and son, mother and daughter, husband and wife. This makes the Spirit dangerous.

More dangerous, still, is the fact that there are many spirits, and our tendancy to conflate the voice of our own passions with the voice of the Spirit. Hence the need for prayerful discernment and the achievement of inner stillness, so that when the Spirit does speak in truth we might hear.

But also, to help us when the voice of the Spirit might be muffled or buried in a confusion of voices, the Spirit resides in the Church as the assembly of all believers, and the Tradition of the Church can provide us with guidance when we are lost or confused.

[David L]

So far, both of the argument seems to be around liturgical activity: is a preacher a priest, is a sermon a homily, etc. I submit this ignores a far deeper issue: in my judgment, male superordination (is there a better word? simply "authority") is not simply a question of church order or the nature of the church as revealed by God in Christ, it is matter of moral law. In Thomistic terms: male superordination is determined by "natural law," and not (only) by "revelation".

I grew up in a sectarian Protestant community that was patriarchal, where the women were veiled in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11. Towards the end of my graduate training, as the practice of the veiling was largely ignored in my community, I was beginning to move to an egalitarian position.

But then I began to teach, read, and study world religions and ethics, and began to realized a central fact: male superordination is a fundamental teaching of the moral law. Everywhere, all the time, male superordination is a presupposition of moral truth.

Initially, the Buddha rejected women as members of his Sangha because, tradition says, women are too emotional and sensual. Socrates, in Plato's Apology refers to men who act like women--whining at the rigorous application of the law, using their wives and children as pawns to manipulate the jury.

In both Greek and Latin, the root for "virtue" (arete and vir, respectively) means fundamentally, "manliness."

Hinduism and Confucianism assume male superordination, and hence do not need to argue for it.

So let's change the terms of the debate: it doesn't matter that Protestants have abandoned the (allegedly) proper sacramental order of the priesthood. There is a more fundamental moral order that embraces not only RC and Orthodox and Protestant, but Jew and Hindu and Buddhist.

To violate the dictum of the moral law--husbands are the head of the home and of their wives; men are the head of their communities at all levels of social functioning--is to disrupt the order of the community as certainly as murder or adultery.

[Stuart Koehl]

David writes: >>>So far, both of the argument seems to be around liturgical activity: is a preacher a priest, is a sermon a homily, etc.<<<

I would say you have that backwards. A preacher may or may not be a priest, but only priests are ordained in the sense that the early Church understood ordination, hence the Church's refusal to ordain women to the presbyterate is linked not to the oriest's function as teacher and preacher (for there were many female preachers and teachers in the early Church), but to his sacerdotal function.

Hence, to dealve into "natural law" arguments for why the Church does not ordain women misses the point entirely. If male superordination in the Thomistic sense were correct, then of course, we would have to discount the lives of many female saints who indeed held positions of authority over men, both inside and outside the Church, from the time of the Apostles onward. Rather, withiin the context of the Church, we must look to the inner life of the Church to determine those roles and functions which are specifically open to all, those that are open only to men, and conversely, those open only to women.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I grew up in a sectarian Protestant community that was patriarchal, where the women were veiled in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11. <<<

Why did women veil in Paul's Churches? is this some transcendant commandment, or is it a custom conditioned by Paul's time and place? Perhaps if one is aware that in Greco-Roman culture, only whores went around uncovered (not "unveiled"--veils were unknown in the Hellensitic world, so this is a mistranslation), then what Paul is saying to his female followers is the need to preserve modesty and proper decorum within their society, despite the fact that through the Spirit all things are permitted to them. In other words, do not cause scandal or offense that might reflect badly on the Ekklesia.

So what happens? Over the centuries, head covering in women ceased being a sign of modesty and became an opportunity for ostentation. Hats and headdresses became ever more elaborate, with precisely the opposite effect of that Paul desired. Hats become a scandal and--irony of ironies--a means by which women of dubious morals called attention to themselves.

So, who better reflects Paul's intention? The woman with head uncovered dressed modestly with a modest haircut? Or the woman in the expensive dress wearing the elaborate hat? You tell me. This is the difference between "Tradition" and "traditionalism"--Tradition is centrally concerned with substance and meaning, while traditionalism is centrally concerned with punctillious observation of forms.

In the same way, they seem fixated on Paul's words regarding the leadership role of women in the Church, without actually considering the context in which he used those words. This is especially true of Reformed Christians who, while being "traditionalist" formally reject the very notion of the authority of Tradition. And, as I have stressed, once you strip Scripture out of Tradition (whether to place it alongside Tradition or to jettison it altogether), all you really do have left is individual interpretation shaped by the culturally conditioned experience of the reader.

[David Gray]

>This is especially true of Reformed Christians who, while being "traditionalist" formally reject the very notion of the authority of Tradition.

And Lutherans differ from Reformed in what fashion? Besides that is an incorrect statement, they rejected Roman Catholic understanding of Tradition in which modernist currents were permitted to trump both the Church Fathers and Scripture.

[Stuart Koehl]

David Gray writes: >>>And Lutherans differ from Reformed in what fashion?<<<

Well, I'm no authority on Reformation theology, or the current state of the various Protestant denominations, but for starters, Luther (and to this day, most of the confessional Lutherans) did indeed maintain liturgical services, did believe in the Eucharist as the sacramental presence of Christ (for an Eastern Christian, the "consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation" is rather meaningless, since all we know is that the Bread and Wine ARE the Body and Blood, without diving into the plumbing of divine grace)--as Calvin, Knox and others of a Presbyterian bent were quick to point out to Luther's detriment. Thus, there remains within Lutheranism's founding assumptions a connection to the traditional understanding of the nature of worship and the function of ordained ministry. Now, granted, in the case of the ELCA and many of the more liberal sects within the Lutheran family that link is increasingly tenuous, but in fact Luther remained until his dying breath far more "Catholic" than either Catholics or Lutherans today would like to admit.

[David Gray]

>Well, I'm no authority on Reformation theology, or the current state of the various Protestant denominations, but for starters, Luther (and to this day, most of the confessional Lutherans) did indeed maintain liturgical services,

Many Reformed churches have liturgical services.

did believe in the Eucharist as the sacramental presence of Christ (for an Eastern Christian, the "consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation" is rather meaningless, since all we know is that the Bread and Wine ARE the Body and Blood, without diving into the plumbing of divine grace)--as Calvin, Knox and others of a Presbyterian bent were quick to point out to Luther's detriment.

Many Reformed churches do not hold to the memorial view of the supper but hold to the sacramental presence of Christ (those that are consistent with Calvin, Knox, etc.) They just don't hold to the physical presence of Christ in the sacrament.

[David L]

>>>David writes: >>>So far, both of the argument seems to be around liturgical activity: is a preacher a priest, is a sermon a homily, etc.<<<
I would say you have that backwards. <<<

I was not making an argument here, but simply noting that your argument depends on the
>>>inner life of the church<<<
, as you explicitly say later. My response to that is below.

>>>Hence, to dealve into "natural law" arguments for why the Church does not ordain women misses the point entirely. <<<

Not if "natural law" arguments are logically and theologically prior to arguments based on revelation. It is you who are begging the argument. You have not shown that (1) "natural law" arguments for the male superordination do not exist, and (2) they do not possess a prior authority to arguments from revelation.

In other words, if there are "natural law" arguments for male superordination, then such arguments are not superseded by revealed truth. Grace does not annul the law; it fulfills it (Matt. 5:17; Rom. 2:12-16; Rom. 6-7, esp. 6: 19; 7:12; Rom. 8:4).
>>>Why did women veil in Paul's Churches? is this some transcendant commandment, or is it a custom conditioned by Paul's time and place? Perhaps if one is aware that in Greco-Roman culture, only whores went around uncovered (not "unveiled"--veils were unknown in the Hellensitic world, so this is a mistranslation), then what Paul is saying to his female followers is the need to preserve modesty and proper decorum within their society, despite the fact that through the Spirit all things are permitted to them.<<<

This was a familiar argument used among the modernists in my own community. But if indeed Paul's argument was specific to his time and place and culture, and not finally a universal moral/spiritual claim, then why is it that his arguments correspond exactly to arguments made by the Buddha and Socrates and Hosea (ch. 1-2)? Why the universal claim that women are predominately sensual, erotically oriented, and must place themselves under the authority of men for full human functioning? Why is it that morality (as expressed in these, and other seminal figures) by definition assumes the superordination of man? Why is it that the moral law is first discovered/discerned/created by men?

BTW, I am curious if you have any documentary evidence for your claim. I have heard it asserted, but never proven. It has the air of an academic "urban legend."

>>>If male superordination in the Thomistic sense were correct, then of course, we would have to discount the lives of many female saints who indeed held positions of authority over men, both inside and outside the Church, from the time of the Apostles onward.<<<

Why? If indeed the universal moral law teaches male superordination, and if indeed these women were saints, then we must assume that their lives were in accordance with the law. Then the question is not, what authority is consistent with women in the church, but what manner/extent of authority can a woman properly exercise that is consistent with the moral law? Then, and only then, can we ask the further question, how is this authority, --which authority is consistent with the moral law--expressed in ecclesial settings, settings transformed by, and exercised in accordance with, the further stipulations of revealed grace.

To take the well-worn example of Mother Teresa, just because she exercised a certain manner of authority within her community and work, does not contradict her subordination to her (male) spiritual authorities (her confessor, her bishop...).
>>>Rather, withiin the context of the Church, we must look to the inner life of the Church to determine those roles and functions which are specifically open to all, those that are open only to men, and conversely, those open only to women.<<<
Again, revelation does not annul the law but completes it. My claim is that preceding revealed truth about roles/functions is moral truth, a law holding in all times and all places. Revelation may transform that law; grace brings the law to its fulness. But whatever the relationship of male and female in the church, it will not contradict the strictures of the universal moral law.

Your position seems to be that only Catholics/ Orthodox have the resources to oppose egalitarianism. Further, your arguments against ordination of women seem curiously sectarian in coloration: it is wrong because the church says it's wrong.

I find that a prima facie unconvincing claim. Coming from a sectarian Protestant position, if I move in a "catholic" direction, it will not be in order to become a "sectarian Catholic" (or sectarian Orthodox). If the "holy catholic and apostolic church" is truth, then it is because it is universal truth.

Further, why do you wish to deprive non-Catholic/Orthodox of their arguments in this debate? In this "co-belligerancy" of the "cultural wars," one would think that you would do everything possible to support those who agree with core convictions, even if we (you and I) come at them in different ways. To continue the martial metaphor, it is as if you knock the sword out of my hand, to increase the glory you can win. But without a friend to fight alongside, you may discover, not glory, but defeat.

[Stuart Koehl]

David writes, >>>BTW, I am curious if you have any documentary evidence for your claim. I have heard it asserted, but never proven. It has the air of an academic "urban legend."<<<

Which claim? That in the Greco-Roman world respectable adult women covered their heads? That's in any basic textbook of Greek or Roman civilization. As to what Paul meant, you could try N.T. Wrght's two books on Paul, Ben Witherington's book on women in the Church, or Ford's on John Chrysostom's view of the matter.

>>>Why? If indeed the universal moral law teaches male superordination, and if indeed these women were saints, then we must assume that their lives were in accordance with the law. Then the question is not, what authority is consistent with women in the church, but what manner/extent of authority can a woman properly exercise that is consistent with the moral law? Then, and only then, can we ask the further question, how is this authority, --which authority is consistent with the moral law--expressed in ecclesial settings, settings transformed by, and exercised in accordance with, the further stipulations of revealed grace.<<<

Perhaps "male superordination" is not what you think it is. Perhaps we're better going back to Paul's admonition to husbands and wives: Women be obedient to your husbands; husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. Viewed from that perspective, male superordination is not absolute, but rather must be viewed in the context of relations between man and woman, which are an example and sign of the perfect conciliarity that is supposed to exist within the Holy Trinity. Women are obedient to their husbands; husbands in turn are supposed to love their wives to the point of laying down their wives for them. Within such a relationship, superordination does not in any way presuppose domination, but rather koinonia: a good wife will not disobey her husband; a good husband will not make unreasonable demands of his wife, and will listen to her counsel.

Within that broader understanding of the relationship of man and woman, Paul's admonition about women in positions of leadership in the Church must be viewed both as something more narrow (in the context of male-female relations) and broader (in the nature of authority within the particular Church). Paul experienced repeated conflicts between the charismatic leaders of the Churches he founded (prophets, teachers, ascetics, confessors, etc.) and the ordained leadership (bishops, presbyters, deacons). We take for granted now the supremacy of the ordained over the unordained charismatic, but even beyond the Council of Nicaea, charismatic witnesses to the faith could "pull rank" even on bishops. Thus, at Nicaea, the words of those mere laymen who were accounted "confessors" for having suffered under Diocletian were given as much if not more weight than that of the bishops. Even later, charismatic ascetics like St. Symeon Stylites carried more authority than most bishops. Thus, women speaking out in church fits well into the context of charismatic vs. ordained leadership, and has nothing to do with male superordination, and everything to do with church order and discipline, particularly as the early Church did not ever ordain women to the episcopate or presbyterate (but did ordain women to the diaconate).

>>>Your position seems to be that only Catholics/ Orthodox have the resources to oppose egalitarianism. Further, your arguments against ordination of women seem curiously sectarian in coloration: it is wrong because the church says it's wrong.<<<

No, my position is that only Catholics and Orthodox rightly understand the issue of the ordination of women to the presbyterate, because only Catholics and Orthodox rightly understand ordination, period. Ordination is intimately connected with sacerdotal ministry, that is, the administration of the Sacraments or Holy Mysteries, of which the Eucharist, understood as the sacramental presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is central to all. The Church is a Eucharistic society; it is only really the Church when it is celebrating the Eucharist and living eucharistically. As St. Ignatios of Antioch said in the first century, "Where there is the Eucharist, there is the Catholic Church". The role of the presbyter is to preside at the Eucharist. There are many good sacramental reasons why women should not serve at the altar, though these have not all been codified and reconciled to each other (and admitting that some arguments are better than others). But absent that sacramental context, the argument about the "ordination" of women is rather meaningless.

On the other hand, Protestants trying to keep women out of the pulpit are stuck, because historically, if you look at what women did in the Church, it isn't all that different from what Protestant "pastors" do: they teach, evangelize, they counsel, and occasionally they lead. Well, it's kind of hard to say there is a divine mandate against women in positions of authority in the Church when, in fact, they have ALWAYS occupied SOME positions of authority. And when one has abandoned the ONE role women were NEVER allowed to fill, well, one is in something of a quandry. Because the historical record shows women being precisely what Protestants call "pastors"--and being honored for it, any attempt to argue from Paul that women cannot be pastors results in the appearance of arbitrary and tendentious reading. Moreover, since individual interpretation of scripture is at the heart of Protestantism, how precisely does one argue that one interpretation is better than the others?

That's the pitfall of abandoning Tradition--it's the glue that holds all the various elements of faith together in dynamic tension. Without it, there is a tendency to stress one thing over another to the detriment of both. And it flies to pieces.

[Stuart Koehl]

David Gray writes: >>>Many Reformed churches have liturgical services.<<<

Not by the criteria the Fathers would use for "liturgy".

[David L]

Mr. Koehl:

Re: the cultural background of the head-covering of women:

Ralph Bruce Terry, in "A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians" (http://bible.ovc.edu/terry/dissertation/2_4-aspects.htm) quotes Oepke, writing the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, "But it is quite wrong that Greek women were under some kind of compulsion to wear a veil in public. (Kittel 1965, 3:562)"

Terry looks at several quotes from Plutarch, and points out why they are not decisive. He concludes as follows:

"The significance of this difference of customs regarding women's headdress in the ancient world is that it shows that there was no uniform practice, especially in Greece where women often appear without a head covering in religious rites. The evidence seems to indicate that in the first century among the Romans, both men and women covered their heads at worship, while among the Greeks, both men and women uncovered their heads when they worshiped. Thus the tradition which Paul advocated in I Corinthians 11 was, contrary to popular opinion today, not grounded in the social customs of Corinth, but opposed to them".

So your attempt to claim that Paul's command to Christian women to cover their heads was a response to some cultural particularity seems to collapse simply on the facts.

For the rest, I think I agree with you. I'm not clear on what separates us. There may be this one thing: I sympathize with your commitment to Tradition, but you cannot uphold one part of Truth by destroying another part. As C. S. Lewis pointed out 50 years ago, once you begin debunking false sentiments by reason, you cannot create true sentiments.

You think we Protestants, without a sacerdotal priesthood, have no basis for objecting to women in authority. Oddly, you use the weapons of egalitarianism to make the point. But that is a sword that will sooner or later turn against you. Incantations of Tradition will not protect you.

Male superordination (in whatever form) is a moral sentiment, an intuition expressed in the deepest parts of truth and right and law. Attack the authority of that law--(Jewish) Torah, (Greek) Dike, the Dao (of China), the dharma of India--and all truth vanishes. Either the truth of that law must be perceived, or it is not recognized at all.

[David Gray]

>Not by the criteria the Fathers would use for "liturgy".

Which Fathers would you have in mind and how so?

[Patrick]

"Male superordination (in whatever form) is a moral sentiment, an intuition expressed in the deepest parts of truth and right and law. Attack the authority of that law--(Jewish) Torah, (Greek) Dike, the Dao (of China), the dharma of India--and all truth vanishes."

No. All truth is in God alone. Substituting any preference of any kind of person over another as the basis of truth is nothing less than idolatry.

[David L]

>>>All truth is in God alone.<<<

Yes, of course.

>>> Substituting any preference of any kind of person over another as the basis of truth is nothing less than idolatry.<<<
How do you know that? Revelation? the Moral Law?

If Revelation, then the only question is: what does Revelation tell us about the divinely ordained relationship of man and woman?

If the Moral Law, then you must first refute my argument that male superordination is a fundamental dictum of that Law. As long as that dictum stands (in our present argument), then it must be assumed that any other dictum of the Moral Law must be consistent with that first dictum. If you claim that based on some new understanding of the Moral Law, man and woman are equal, then you must show how that can be so based on the strictures of the Moral Law itself.

As far as your final point of "idolatry", your use of the word is silly. The concept of idolatry is first defined in Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 44: there an idol is (1) a human construct and projection of desires and wishes, which (2) unlike the "living God" of the Israelites, is incapable of acting in history and responding to the human requests. According to Isaiah 44:17, an idol is fabricated by the human who worships it, and therefore cannot save the human.

Now which is the human fabrication: egalitarianism or male superordinationism? Which mode of social interaction is given to mankind, whether in stipulations of Law or the gift of Revelation?

[Juli]

As far as your final point of "idolatry", your use of the word is silly. The concept of idolatry is first defined in Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 44: there an idol is (1) a human construct and projection of desires and wishes, which (2) unlike the "living God" of the Israelites, is incapable of acting in history and responding to the human requests. According to Isaiah 44:17, an idol is fabricated by the human who worships it, and therefore cannot save the human.

Now which is the human fabrication: egalitarianism or male superordinationism?

Well, here's one point I'd expect to see more men making, if they were struggling to be honest about this subject. Men have an interest in understanding "male superordinationism" as inevitable and good. That doesn't mean it might not be inevitable and good, but as a general rule, I trust people more when they start off by acknowledging what they have to gain by believing or convincing me of whatever point they're trying to make. When I'm forming opinions about political matters, for example, I try to be very conscious about what I stand to gain or lose by a certain policy or course of action (eg, as a taxpayer, a parent of school-age children, and a parent of a draft-age son) - and then I try to back away mentally and consider whether the policy is right or wrong *apart* from how it will affect me personally.

I think it's sort of funny when man after man will post wildly different rationales for their beliefs that women ought not do X, Y, or Z without once stepping back and acknowledging that they all *might* have a vested interest in making these claims.

Another way to put it is that when someone has tries to sell me something, I do factor in what they have to gain by the transaction.

Above, Joe Long said

"...a bunch of guys sitting around with their own individual copies of the Bible, each trying to figure it out de novo..."

- those guys, if they sat down with the sincere intention of seeing what the text SAYS, seem to me very likely indeed to come to the same basic notions the assorted Traditionalists hold on this issue.

Well, yes, but sometimes the simplest explanation comes to mind first. When opposition to "egalitarianism" becomes the minimal (and apparently most fundamental) requirement for not being called a heretic, something doesn't smell right.

I personally think Patrick nailed it when he said "Substituting any preference of any kind of person over another as the basis of truth is nothing less than idolatry." Maybe it's "only natural" that men find the subject of men and masculinity endlessly fascinating, but it's a bit much when they turn around and accuse others of self-absorption.

I do want to say that Firintenne is a man who seems inclined to proceed with caution and humility in making statements about male headship, etc; I have the impression that he (probably the youngest man posting on this forum) instinctively understands the spiritual dangers here. (There are certainly spiritual dangers for women as well, which include the temptation never to live into our vocations as adult Christians, but that's another subject and perhaps best saved for a thread dominated by female voices.)

[Renee]

"My dear Renee, please forgive me. I can only work with the material you present me. Perhaps if you would go beyond citing just one work and one author in that work, and perhaps if you showed just a little more humility with regard to the integrity of the Orthodox Tradition, I would have a somewhat better opinion of knowledge."

Dearest Stuart, my brother in Christ,
I seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot on this blog. Thank you for telling me that I need to cite more than one work and one author in my postings. I've not noticed everyone doing this, including yourself, so I did not realize this was a rule. Are there indeed rules for this blog that I need to peruse, and could you let me know where I may find them?

I don't often enter into blog conversations, partly because I don't have a great deal of time to spend doing this, so perhaps I am not as adept as someone like you. Please also, do not think that I mind you saying that I have "little knowledge." Compared to God, I realize that I know really nothing at all, and what I do think I know is perhaps colored by my limited view, previous experiences and conditioning, as well as my own propensity to sin.

When I do read a blog, I am usually looking to learn something, rather than share my knowledge, which again I realize is small. That is why I often enter into a conversation with a question, usually seeking to clarify a point someone else has already posted.

I have a great deal of respect for Kallistos Ware, this is one reason I initially quoted him. I see him as someone who has a vaster knowledge than I do. Also, when a Bishop pleads or instructs that an issue be kept open for discussion, I am inclined to obey.

In this case, I admit it is easier for me to obey, partly because my own experience seems to parallel his. I used to be completely convinced against the ordination of women, now I also believe it should be open for discussion. I think this is at least in part because as I grow older, I value dialogue, discussion and questioning more than I used to. I can only hope this is a good thing. (If not, I wonder why blogs seem to be thriving these days.)

Now you have noted that I should show "just a little more humility with regard to the integrity of the Orthodox Tradition," in order to gain a more positive view in your eyes. Could you please tell me how you believe I could show more humility? Pride is something I do struggle with.

Many blessings.

[David L]

Juli:

I'm not trying to "sell" you anything. I'm restating what I take to be the content of the Moral Law, and its implications for male/woman relations. It is notable that no interlocutor has challenged my reading that: 1. there is a Moral Law; 2. it teaches male superordination; 3. this stricture of the Law remains ethically normative under Grace and Revelation.

Note that all your responses have to do with personal feelings and attitudes. You "personally think" Patrick is right, even though you do not answer my claim that he has no foundation upon which to base his beliefs, and he misuses the concept of idolatry.

You say something doesn't "smell right" about opposition to egalitarianism. Very good. Now we have a moral argument. Why not? What might your moral intuition mean? Insofar as you are attempting to make a moral argument (and not simply an argument about the content of a certain body of teachings), you can only make that argument by appealing to the concept of moral truth itself.

And there you run smack-dab into my argument that moral truth assumes male superordinationism. (It already exists when one begins to think ethically.) Either I am wrong (which no one on this forum has attempted to show), or it is your moral intuition (not mine) which is distorted.

[David L]

Juli:

I'm not trying to "sell" you anything. I'm restating what I take to be the content of the Moral Law, and its implications for male/woman relations. It is notable that no interlocutor has challenged my reading that: 1. there is a Moral Law; 2. it teaches male superordination; 3. this stricture of the Law remains ethically normative under Grace and Revelation.

Note that all your responses have to do with personal feelings and attitudes. You "personally think" Patrick is right, even though you do not answer my claim that he has no foundation upon which to base his beliefs, and he misuses the concept of idolatry.

You say something doesn't "smell right" about opposition to egalitarianism. Very good. Now we have a moral argument. Why not? What might your moral intuition mean? Insofar as you are attempting to make a moral argument (and not simply an argument about the content of a certain body of teachings), you can only make that argument by appealing to the concept of moral truth itself.

And there you run smack-dab into my argument that moral truth assumes male superordinationism. (It already exists when one begins to think ethically.) Either I am wrong (which no one on this forum has attempted to show), or it is your moral intuition (not mine) which is distorted.

[David L]

My apologies for the double posting.

[Joe Long]

Juli,

There's an old saw about a liberal being someone too refined to take his own side in a fight. That's actually quite an admirable thing, in many ways, and after a fashion it speaks well of anyone it can be said of. It does always behoove us to ask "qui bono?"

As for "the simplest explanation" coming to mind first, though...well, it's the convoluted explanations by which Scripture means something other than what it says, that set off my alarms - and "qui bono" comes into play there, too. When the Scriptures address an issue in such a forthright manner, AND thousands of years of church tradition in the main branches of Christianity all agree...why even muster arguments against the ordinary, and the historical, understanding? Who benefits then?

[GL]

I trust people more when they start off by acknowledging what they have to gain by believing or convincing me of whatever point they're trying to make.

Juli,

I am not a pastor and am not called to be one -- of that I am certain. I have nothing to "gain" individually. My grandfather was a pastor: the pay was low, the hours were long, the burdens were heavy. I am not sure what he "gained" other than being obedient to the call he received. As to larger issue of male headship, as it relates to the family, we are called to love our wife as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for it. That is sacrificial love; it is love that serves the other. I count it gain to so love my wife, though I have never attained the ideal. From a worldly view, that is not "gain." Pastors are shepherds, who, if they are true to their calling, give their lives for their flock. From a worldly view, that is, however, not "gain."

I'll admit that some pastors and some husbands have an unBiblical view of the nature of headship. Those men and the women who want to be like them are in serious error. It is because of this view that occupying an office (e.g., pastor or husband or father) makes one superior that so many develop in their own minds a false call to it. Autocratic men and feminist women are alike in error about their call because they are in error of the nature of the true call.

[Stuart Koehl]

Juli wrote:

>>>I have a great deal of respect for Kallistos Ware, this is one reason I initially quoted him. I see him as someone who has a vaster knowledge than I do. Also, when a Bishop pleads or instructs that an issue be kept open for discussion, I am inclined to obey.<<<

Dear Juli,

You are quite right to respect Kyr Kallistos. He is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable men I have ever met, and his works and words have guided me on my own spiritual journey; indeed, I count him among my spiritual fathers. Kyr Kallistos has a mind of extraordinary depth and subtlety, which is why one must always read and re-read what he writes, understanding that one is dealing not only with a highly respected Oxford don, but with a monk deeply immersed in Orthodox spirituality as well.

Kyr Kallistos' essay in Hopko is often used as a cudgel, both by those who support the ordination of women and by those who believe His Grace is an unregenerate "modernist" (i.e., someone whose idea of Orthodoxy isn't fixed somewhere in the 17th century). But it is a highly nuanced and very senstive reflection on the problem, and if you read it closely, Kyr Kallistos does not come out either for or against the ordination of women. Rather, he comes out as a man with great reverence for Holy Tradition who finds that the Tradition regarding the male exclusivity of the presbyterate is not supported at this time by a coherent theological argument in its favor. That should come as no surprise: much that is and always has been part of Tradition is what the Church has known "intuitively". Theological elaboration usually emerges only when the intuitive consensus of the Church is challenged, either from within or without. Thus, e.g., the Church always "knew" that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was indeed "God"; it just never got around to expounding "how" until challenged by Arius--and even then, it took more than fifty years to put the Trinitarian issue to bed. Similarly, the Church always "knew" that Jesus Christ was both God and man--but how? It took more than 260 years to settle that one--and 1500 years to realize that everyone was agreed about it in the first place.

Now, with regard to ordaining women to the presbyterate, this is something the Church has never done--though several heretical sects did. As such, the male exclusivity of the presbyterate is certainly part and parcel of Tradition. But WHY? And here is Kyr Kallistos' complaint--the arguments put forth in favor of the Tradition are not, in his opinion, coherent, consistent and intellectually satisfying. He notes that until the Church can put forth arguments that are all three, there continue to be challenges to the Tradition. Without affirming or denying the Tradition of only ordaining men to the presbyterate, he calls upon the Church to put its best minds to work to determine why (or whether) this is actually part of Tradition.

Hence his analogy of the pillar in the middle of the living room. Until you know whether it is holding up the roof or not, it is prudent to leave it alone.

With regard to some of the Orthodox women's groups actively questioning the Tradition, I would only note that none of them reflect the consensus of Orthodox women, and that there is no groundswell of support for women's ordination anywhere. It remains a fringe, elitist movement with little support from the laity (Indeed, the common attitude is summed up by the baba who said, "Why would a woman want to be a priest? She can't go behind the iconostasis").

It seems to me that women interested in service to the community already have many outlets in the Orthodox Church--and where obstacles to their participation exist, they are mainly cultural and not theological. I know many Orthodox women who teach, who sing, who evangelize and do charitable works, and who basically hold the parish together. I know several women monastics who serve as exemplars to all Christians, men and women alike. Most of all, I know many Panis, Khourias and Presbyteras who share fully in their husbands' ministries in a way that is fully consistent with Tradition and in no way inferior to that of the priest, even though these women do not serve at the altar.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> "But it is quite wrong that Greek women were under some kind of compulsion to wear a veil in public. (Kittel 1965, 3:562)"<<<

if you will re-read my post, I said that Greek women did not wear veils, but mature women (both Greek and Roman) did cover their heads, usually with a drape of their mantles. I suggest that a quick review of classical pottery, painting and statuary will enlighten.

Also, I suggest that you find a classicist or two for your sources.

As for your argument for your defiintion of male superordination, I find it unconvincing in light of the more conciliar approach Paul espouses in Ephesians: women must obey their husbands, but husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Thus, a good wife will obey her husband in all things, but a good husband will not make unreasonable demands, and will listen to his wife and take her counsel. As with the Holy Trinity, the relationship of husband and wife can be hierarchical without involving subordination. True communion is like that--the submission of all to all in accordance with the gifts God has given.

Which also explains why your theory of superordination does not apply unconditionally or universally to the issue of women holding positions of authority within the Church.

[Stuart Koehl]

Someone wrote (the threads are coming hot and heavy!): >>>Which Fathers would you have in mind and how so?<<

With regard to the patristic understanding of liturgy, we can go back to the various sources, including Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Maximos Confessor, and John Damascene; we might also include the great Byzantine liturgical commentator Nicholas Kabasilas. In modern times, the best understanding of what patristic liturgy really means can be found in Alexander Schmemann's "Introduction to Liturgical Theology".

Now, among the various Protestant churches, two groups--the Lutherans, Anglican/Episcopalians (and some Methodists) retain vestiges of liturgy--indeed, the old Lutheran service and the older versions of the Book of Common Prayer show their roots in the Latin liturgy whence they came. But the reformed denominations for the most part have nothing that vaguely resembles even early liturgy. Look at some of the pontificals or euchologia for examples. Any denomination in which the sermon is the centerpiece of the service does not really have a liturgy.

[David L]

>>>>>> "But it is quite wrong that Greek women were under some kind of compulsion to wear a veil in public. (Kittel 1965, 3:562)"<<<

if you will re-read my post, I said that Greek women did not wear veils, but mature women (both Greek and Roman) did cover their heads, usually with a drape of their mantles. I suggest that a quick review of classical pottery, painting and statuary will enlighten.

Also, I suggest that you find a classicist or two for your sources.<<<

Firstly the distinction between "covered" and "veiled" is irrelevant, as you would see if you would consult the sources.

Further, in Dr. Terry's dissertation that I link to earlier, you will find that he looks at the visual evidence in Verena Zinserling's Women in Greece and Rome (1973). The conclusion I quoted was based on his analysis of that and other evidence. It shows (Terry's words) "no uniform practice in either Greek or Roman customs."

It also shows that, contrary to your premise, that prostitutes (specifically the hetaerae), were not necessarily uncovered. Of 13 pictures, only one is uncovered. Six were wearing headbands, and six were wearing a headdress shaped like a "horn of plenty." (You can see an example here: http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_1_1b.html : notice the figure to the left).

Stephen B. Clark, in Man and Woman in Christ reaches the same conclusion:

>>>Some older scholarly works and some popular works hold that an unveiled woman in Corinth would be mistaken for a prostitute. However, this opinion cannot be substantiated. No Greco-Roman custom corresponds to what Paul enjoins. There is no evidence for the view that he was urging the Christians at Corinth to conform to the norms of society around them for missionary reasons. http://www.cbmw.org/resources/books/clark/ [ch. 7]<<<

I now consider your original interpretation (that Paul was responding to a misapplication of Christian freedom, which would have categorized Christian women with prostitutes) to be a scholarly myth.

>>>As for your argument for your defiintion of male superordination, I find it unconvincing in light of the more conciliar approach. Paul espouses in Ephesians: women must obey their husbands, but husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church.<<<

1. "Conciliar"?? Having to do with "councils"?! How is that an approach to man-woman relationships?

2. Assuming you mean something like what some call "mutual subordination", I have said nothing to deny the interpretation of male superordination as being transformed through grace into a relationship of self-giving love. I have insisted all along that revelation and grace builds on natural law.

In other words, if there is a problem, it is because you are projecting on me what you think I am saying, and not in fact what I have said.

[Juli]

Stuart wrote:

Dear Juli,

You are quite right to respect Kyr Kallistos.

While I certainly do respect him, you were quoting Renee's comment about Bishop Kallistos, not mine.

[David Gray]

>Now, among the various Protestant churches, two groups--the Lutherans, Anglican/Episcopalians (and some Methodists) retain vestiges of liturgy--indeed, the old Lutheran service and the older versions of the Book of Common Prayer show their roots in the Latin liturgy whence they came. But the reformed denominations for the most part have nothing that vaguely resembles even early liturgy.

Well I've attended both Lutheran and Roman Catholic services and don't see a vast difference in structure compared to my Presbyterian church. And a Roman Catholic friend of mine made much the same comment. Perhaps you aren't very familiar with reformed theology or churches.

[Patrick]

"(1) a human construct and projection of desires and wishes, which (2) unlike the "living God" of the Israelites, is incapable of acting in history and responding to the human requests. According to Isaiah 44:17, an idol is fabricated by the human who worships it, and therefore cannot save the human."

Yep, that's about it. Precisely what you are making men into. They are not God to women. They are incapable of acting in history as God does, and cannot do anything to save humanity. Men are as much in a bind as women, no higher, no lower.

Your view on men essentially makes all men into the emperors, and institutes an emperor worship for women to follow. So, yeah, idolatry, and the sort that early Christians were so particular to avoid. One man or many, it's still the same sort of idolatry. And it's never really a good policy.

Only God is above any of us. We are all before God the same.

[Joe Long]

So...anybody in charge of anybody else, is an idol?!

Don't get me wrong, I did have a CO once who had gone beyond "Napoleon complex" into downright self-deification, but if he was anybody ELSE's idol it escaped my notice. But as he was commissioned (read "ordained") and I was not, he was in charge. Of course, he fell under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and so forth, so hardly had an emperor's rights (fortunately for us, I think) - but I believe most churches have similar codes in place restricting the behavior of clergy...

To extend the metaphor: many militaries have maintained a distinction between a "line officer" and a specialist, such as perhaps a doctor or engineer - who might well hold higher rank, rate a salute, draw better pay and so forth than a line officer junior to him - but does NOT inherit command responsibility; if a ship lost much of its officer contingent and the survivors included a full Commander who was the ship's surgeon, and a Lieutenant, Junior Grade who was a line officer, the "jaygee" would take command. This would NOT make him a superior human being - but it WOULD put him in the role he was commissioned for. The poor fellow. And it wouldn't hurt him to take the surgeon's advice, if it was good advice - but the authority, and the responsibility for whatever happened, would rest on the man with the line commission.

Lots of folks sure eager to get that "servant of all" role of church leadership, it seems to me...personally I wouldn't want it, biologically qualified or not. Emperor, my foot!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well I've attended both Lutheran and Roman Catholic services and don't see a vast difference in structure compared to my Presbyterian church. And a Roman Catholic friend of mine made much the same comment. Perhaps you aren't very familiar with reformed theology or churches.<<<

Actually, my grandfather was Dutch Reformed, which is about as reformed as they come, and I often went to Church with him. Singing a few hymns, listening to a long sermon, singing a couple more hymns, and drinking a little cup of wine every three months is NOT liturgy. Nor does the dessicated state of the Roman liturgy in this country make your point.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>While I certainly do respect him, you were quoting Renee's comment about Bishop Kallistos, not mine. <<<

Oopsie! My bad.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>1. "Conciliar"?? Having to do with "councils"?! How is that an approach to man-woman relationships?<<<

Conciliar, as in "sobornost'", as in koinonia, as in people taking counsel with each other, and not acting all, you know, PONTIFICAL.

[luthien]

Stuart, I'd really meant to stay out of this thread because I'm very busy getting the paperwork together so I can actually be legally done high school before starting my senior year of college in August (beauraucracy, bleh!) but this was just begging for clarification...
"Women are obedient to their husbands; husbands in turn are supposed to love their wives to the point of laying down their wives for them" laying down their wives??? Please reassure me that you meant lives..I'll be awake a 3 am puzzling over that if you don't. Your observation on women in Orthodoxy was perfectly accurate.
A question for everyone: what does male headship actually look like in practice? I agree in theory that it's right, but am lost as far as practical application goes. I do have a few ideas, but suspect them of being quite wrong.

"Lots of folks sure eager to get that "servant of all" role of church leadership, it seems to me...personally I wouldn't want it, biologically qualified or not. Emperor, my foot!" well, from one of the not-biologically-qualified, at least for church leadership...you make perfect sense, Joe:)

[David L]

>>>>>>(1) a human construct and projection of desires and wishes, which (2) unlike the "living God" of the Israelites, is incapable of acting in history and responding to the human requests. According to Isaiah 44:17, an idol is fabricated by the human who worships it, and therefore cannot save the human."<<<
Yep, that's about it. Precisely what you are making men into. They are not God to women. They are incapable of acting in history as God does, and cannot do anything to save humanity. Men are as much in a bind as women, no higher, no lower.<<<

No, I am not making men into anything. I am stating what the Moral Law makes men.

As Joe Long implies in the metaphor in his nice post, most of us men don't have skills to live up to the responsibility, but it is the task we've been given, none the less.

You cannot annul one part of the Law (male superordination) by another part (the law against idolatry). If I am correct on the first, then it must be consistent with the second.

But secondly, in fact a closer examination of the idolatry metaphor supports rather than questions my claim for male superordination.

Your analysis says that men, like idols, cannot act in history. Huh? Then what are feminists complaining about? History is one long tale--often sad and tragic--about the (mis-)deeds of human beings, especially the male half of the species.

The tragedy of history does not mean we ought to surrender our responsibility. Humans in general are called to be "little gods," to act providentially on behalf of those for whom we have responsibility, just as God acts providentially on behalf of all beings everywhere all the time (Aquinas).

My argument is that according to the Moral Law, men have been given a particular share of the high calling. And the idol analogy does not refute that. We have not created or fabricated that task. It has been given to us.

[David Gray]

>Actually, my grandfather was Dutch Reformed, which is about as reformed as they come, and I often went to Church with him. Singing a few hymns, listening to a long sermon, singing a couple more hymns, and drinking a little cup of wine every three months is NOT liturgy. Nor does the dessicated state of the Roman liturgy in this country make your point.

I rest my case. We have the supper weekly and your description above does not resemble our services. Perhaps you should refrain from addressing subjects with which you have little familiarity.

[Stuart Koehl]

Dear Luthien,

>>>"Women are obedient to their husbands; husbands in turn are supposed to love their wives to the point of laying down their wives for them" laying down their wives??? Please reassure me that you meant lives.<<<

Ooopsie, again. I sure hope Freud is wrong about this sort of error.

[Renee]

Poor Juli, with her astute comments being taken to task for my drivel! We women really are all the same, aren't we? (smile, I'm laughing here, trying to keep a sense of humor).

Something in the Scripture is fascinating to me. It is something that St Paul and Mary the Mother of God have in common. When called by God, neither one of them conferred with any man, but accepted God's calling and invitation (ordination?) freely.

It is quite startling, if you think of what Mary did NOT do when God called her. She did NOT go to her betrothed (Joseph) who had headship over her and ask permission to accept her calling, nor did she go to the priests or any religious leaders to ask permission to accept her calling. She did not confer with any human (Luke 1). Evidently she was handmaiden to none but God. Sounds almost rebellious, considering the standards of the day. (And she may have done all of this with her head covered.)

Then we have Paul, who also accepted his calling and, as he tells us in Galations,"I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me.....(5:16,17) Amazing. What is wrong with these two people that have changed history immeasurably and completely without previous sanction or permission of the powers that be, in fact the powers that God may have ordained? Sounds like there may be another superordination..............and what might that be called? The tender mercy of God? His desire that the world be saved in the way he chooses and by his plans only? An unbelievable, unfathomable love that surpasses all human will and continues to work and create in spite of our inability at times to comprehend what he is doing?

Let God be true and every man (and woman) a liar.

[Tony Esolen]

On the contrary, Renee, Mary obeyed her husband. It was to Joseph, and not to Mary, that the angel revealed the instructions regarding where they were to go and when. The miracle you are missing is that the sinless Mary (as Catholics and Orthodox believe) yet obeyed the just man but sinner, Joseph; and the Son obeyed the man and woman whom He had created. In the presence of an angel of the Lord, one submits; it would be entirely insubordinate to appeal to the lieutenant when the general himself gives the command. Note also that though Mary received the same gifts of the Spirit as did the apostles at Pentecost, she did not preach, she did not take it upon herself to lead (or, what is usually the case, to pretend to lead, while causing resentment and recalcitrance) the men in liturgy or evangelization.

Saint Paul was elected an apostle by Christ himself. Note well: if Christ himself appears to you and speaks, then what on earth do you need to go to his lieutenants for? Now if Christ himself should suddenly appear on earth and demand the ordination of women, then I will change my mind on the issue, though this can't happen, since it would contradict his word through Saint Paul. Note too that during the controversy surrounding the circumcision of the Gentiles, Paul appealed to the brethren at Jerusalem. Thus his own practice (and it seems not to have come naturally to Paul, such submission) is in accord with what he recommends for the churches generally and for Christian families.

But look at what is happening to the Christian churches that have reneged on this prohibition. The Holy Spirit does speak through history, and here the history lies in a colossal ruin right before our eyes. I don't simply mean the abandonment of those churches, or better, the failure to keep children faithful as adults to an increasingly matriarchal church. I mean the wholesale apostasy -- most notable in the demotion to mere symbol, or the outright denial, of the fatherhood of God.

[Juli]

On the contrary, Renee, Mary obeyed her husband.

They both heard and obeyed God's messenger. Renee's point was that Mary didn't consult with her father or her betrothed before assenting to bear God's son. The account in Matthew includes two angelic visitations to Joseph but not the Annunciation, a different narrative viewpoint, as it were. In the Luke account, Mary goes immediately to her kinswoman, Elizabeth (no passing GO), receives Elizabeth's blessing, and stays there for three months. Perhaps in this she was guided by the Holy Spirit, to whom she was also espoused?

[Ellen]

all I can say is I am so sick at heart to read what many of you are saying about women -- especially that superordination stuff. Thank God for the Vineyard and its courageous step of moving out of 1000's of years of gender bias. Check out the board's definitive statement on women in leadership on their web page.

[Mike Greiner]

The comments on this post prove the difficulty we have, don't they?

However, this question is not a crisis. God will lead by His Word, as He always does. There is clarity, and that will win out in the end.

I am somewhat perturbed at some on this board dropping "ecclesiastical rank" as if being Catholic or protestant is the solution or problem. History makes it clear that there is no church tradition that is free from foible and weakness and in need of a constant return to the Word of God (need I mention the Medici's, for instance). All traditions that have been around long enough will, at times, burn the wrong people at the stake, if you will.

the issue is one of perspicuity. What does the Word of God say? The Bible has been clear on the issue of women as Elders of men for 20 centuries. It is still clear. The questionable hermenuetic of the egalitarian evangelicals will lead to further error as time goes on.

Those who stand on plain truth, with humility, will stand for ever.

[Nola Smith]

Once again, those who are outside looking in, only look at the surface of this decision over women being permitted to senior pastor in the Vineyard movement. It's not about the feminist movement at all, Vineyard leadership is opposed to the sin and rebellion in the feminist movement. This is not a compromise with feminist thought, but rather a unification with a biblical view that is disagreed with in many realms of evangelical Christianity. Look at the history of the Church - how is this any different?

The Vineyard is completely in support of wives in subjection to loving husbands and to good church leadership. The highest value in relationships is placed on honor.

I'm a 56 yr old wife, mother and grandmother who has spent 10 years with the Vineyard, 12 years with the Foursquare movement, 6 years with A of G., 4 years with a community church and 19 years as a Conservative Baptist. Each of these denominations has given me values and theology I did not hold in the previous ones. I know God better, as a result of adopting new views after much study and prayer and experience.

I've been a beloved wife, a stay-at-home-mom of seven, a part-time working mom, a bible study and prayer meeting leader (of women), a sunday school teacher, an avid student of the Word and above all I remain a sincere, devoted follower of Jesus Christ.

Rather than seeing your brothers and sisters with an evil eye, why not view them as many Baptists view Charismatics - opting to not share the same values, they still bless one another as part of the Kingdom of God!
One of my Conservative Baptist dad's best friends is an avid Pentecostal - neither man is threatened by the other's view.

And - even if the Vineyard has suddenly become your "enemy" due to the position they've taken on women in the church, do you remember what Jesus said to do toward your enemies? BLESS and NOT curse them! If you are a follower of Jesus, you are asked to bless both those you agree with and those you oppose. John the beloved said that if you don't love your brother from your heart, you don't really know God!

Jumping to conclusions as to what brought about the movement's drift towards the egalitarian position for women (all three positions have biblical and scholarly support as you well know), why can't readers bless what their fellow brethren have come to embrace, with the same kindness that Baptists now extend to Pentecostals - "to agree to disagree", while still holding dearest, those Biblical values they are not willing to adjust?

It's always been about how Scripture and history is viewed, about English translations and many scholarly studies by men and women who desire to hear from God as much as you do, who are not swayed by popular culture, but want only to be led by the Spirit.

Vineyard has been out on the limb, and out on the cutting edge in other areas before, and twenty years later many in the church have adopted "Vineyard values" on winning the lost, missionizing, integrous prophecy, praying for the sick, intimacy of worship, community outreach and most recently "creation care" (also demonized by the poorly informed as our becoming "evil environmentalists" and joining those "who worship the creation more than the Creator" - ignoring every other Scripture about creation stewardship).

Every denomination, every member, has things to offer the rest of the Body of Christ. Please don't be so quick to demonize your brother (for whom Christ died) because he has embraced a theological view you do not value or agree with.

Gender bias is widespread in the church, and spiritual equality is little understood. The Vineyard is not like other movements which fell to feminist pressure. It will not "now soon be promoting homosexuality" as some have demonized. Shame on those for villifying your precious sisters and brothers in such a way!

This decision to adopt the egalitarian view on women as a guideline, was a well thought out, prayed about, dialogued-about topic. Pastors of every Vineyard were invited to read books on all three views of women in the church, and to study Scripture and every reference they desired, then to give feedback to leadership.

Over my years in church, I've seen very bad male senior pastors, false teachers, false prophets, divisive and cruel men in leadership. I've seen very bad females in church leadership too. There is no gender bias for or against sin and corruption. In my humble opinion, those who believe the church will be corrupted by women in leadership are holding to a demonic, muslim belief that began when the Israelite rabbis were taken captive by the Babylonians and came back to Israel with the oral laws against women they had learned from their captors. These captors held the views that formed the roots of contemporary Islam about women. Jesus rebuked the oral laws, and He broke every social custom forbidding the high value God places on women by both His words and His actions.

Last year, our pastor invited everyone on staff (I direct women's ministries) to do their own study and give him personal feedback on the position of women in the church. We even went on a leadership retreat together, read, studied and prayed about it. Every person's position was honored, no one was encouraged either way, except to bless EACH OTHER'S positions. Opportunity was given to study views different from one's long-held ones.

Now Vineyard members will be allowed to bless the view that Vineyard leaders nationally have arrived at, for our denomination's guidelines. I am sure some will leave, and go to denominations that hold one of the other two views on women. That happens already with other theological stands, why would it not happen with this highly-debated one? It's also true that some will leave complimentarian churches to join a Vineyard church because they want to see women be free-er in ministry.

Baptists left Baptist churches by the droves when they began to speak in tongues and receive physicaly healings during the 70's, and finally many Baptists had to stop demonizing healing and tongues and embrace them as valid gifts of the Holy Spirit! Some even changed the wording in their theological statements, while others decided to simply be tolerant of those who speak in tongues or believe in healing so long as they didn't impose those on others in their church.
(Our children attended a Conservative Baptist youth group whose leader spoke in tongues.)

I'm just asking that people learn more about what was behind this, than to jump to such derogatory conclusions about your Vineyard brothers and sisters in Christ. We all have the same Holy Spirit, not a bigger, better one, nor a smaller one. Diversity among the members has been one of God's values for His Church for 2000+ years.

It will be a bumpy ride for the Vineyard for awhile. The fruit of women being allowed to pastor churches as co-pastors with their husbands or as senior pastors in the case of single women - will be shown in the years ahead. If true holiness remains the highest priority for its followers, and if people continue to get saved, filled with the Spirit and serve in the Kingdom to reach the lost and bless the saints as a result of this freedom allowed women, then we will know that God's hand is/was upon the theological shift.

As usual when a difficult position is taken in a movement, TIME will tell the fruit.

I am fostering more freedom for women after much study and prayer and observation on this subject for so many years. My husband still has the last word in our home. My co-pastors still have the last word and if its between him or her, she will defer to him. We have also watched them defer to the other after prayer and deliberation with great love, honor and humility. Their example has strengthened marriages.

Let's watch and see what this does for the Body of Christ, for reaching the lost, for strengthening families. We'll know better in twenty years whether this was a good decision, won't we?

In Christ,

Nola Smith
Vancouver, Wa

[James A. Altena]

No-one here has "demonized" the Vineyard church, or called its members "enemies". Those are slandars of your own devising,. and the fact that you fabricate them to defend your position on women's ordination is simply further evidence that what you are doing is indeed contrary to Scripture and 2,000 years of sound Christian practice.

[David Gray]

>Let's watch and see what this does for the Body of Christ, for reaching the lost, for strengthening families. We'll know better in twenty years whether this was a good decision, won't we?

What kind of utilitarian disobedience are you advocating? "Results" are better than obedience? We aren't capable of a meaningful empiricism in this arena and shouldn't kid ourselves.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Let's watch and see what this does for the Body of Christ, for reaching the lost, for strengthening families. We'll know better in twenty years whether this was a good decision, won't we?<<<

I forget who it was that said stupidity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. For about thirty years now, different Protestant denominations have been experimenting with women pastors--to the point that, in some of them, the majority of seminarians are now women.

If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then this is one very sour dessert. In every one of these denominations, we see membership dwindling, doctrine diluted, morality muddled. So, how many times do we have to repeat this experiment with female pastors before realizing that the results of the equation are not going to vary?

Switching metaphorical gears, Jesus said that the good tree bears good fruit, the bad tree bears bad fruit. Some people seem to be saying, "Don't blame the tree. Maybe it was the soil, or the fertilizer, or the pesticides. Maybe we should graft on a few branches from some other trees, or maybe we should do a few more generations of selective breeding, and then check the fruit again".

Or maybe it was the tree, after all?