Should Women be Allowed to Pastor Churches?

[Philip_B]

Well here is a question.

Should the Church be, or at least seek to make the message of the gospel, relevant or irrelevant to the people amongst whom it serves?​

Relevance and faithfulness are not to my mind mutually exclusive, and I know at times I have bemoaned our lust for relevance (like singing leaving on a jet plane for the feast of Ascension) however relevance does have some real value and irrelevance is not aspirational for the Church.

One of my problems with the Pauline material I have no need to repeat is I don't know what was motivating the material. There are numbers of aspects where Paul was clearly far more inclusive of both genders, and it seems was happy to acknowledge the value of women in a number of roles. The gospels also present a number of interesting insights not the least of these for me being the woman at the well and of course Mary Magdalene in the post resurrection accounts.

Those in favour of women in ministry are not simply deluded or being led astray, neither are they rejecting scripture and the truth of the gospel.

 

[Paidiske]

"Most men?" That's easy to say, but I would be interested to know which men this is, because a number of historic churches representing the majority of the world's Christians do not ordain women.

And the reason that they continue to adhere to that policy is not because they are convinced that "the little lady should stay in the kitchen," etc!

True story; on my first field placement as an ordination candidate, somehow it fell to me one day to cut up someone's birthday cake. It was one of those rather sticky gooey things, and I was making a bit of a mess of it; and the guy in charge in that place, in front of the entire staff, announced, "Paidiske, for your next placement, you need to go somewhere with a ladies' guild, where you can learn some necessary kitchen skills!"

(Because slicing cake is such a critical ministry skill. But he liked to put people down in public. )

If it was the function of most of the things many Protestants consider a "Pastor", then I say yes (preaching, teaching, etc). But since I'm also in favor of Liturgy and Eucharist, then no. The whole point of liturgy is to model our High Priest in heaven. And the High Priest chose to be a male.

I would think the point would be that Christ chose to be human; and that as his assumption of humanity redeems all of humanity (not just the blokes), his humanity can be represented by all of humanity (not just the blokes). (Remember the patristic maxim that what is not assumed cannot be redeemed).

The "you have to be male to represent Jesus" argument is very weak. Excluding women from such a role implicitly suggests our humanity is somehow impaired, or "less than."

Edited to add, to make my point more clear: Christ's assumption of humanity, as a man, apparently somehow embraced femaleness sufficiently to redeem women as well as men. Therefore Christ's humanity ought to be able to be represented sufficiently by women as well as men. To deny that is to subtly deny the full redemption of women, by focussing on Christ's sex rather than humanity.

 

[redblue22]

What is it that women should not do?

 

[Philip_B]

What is it that women should not do?

Put up with men who think they are second best!

 

[straykat]

True story; on my first field placement as an ordination candidate, somehow it fell to me one day to cut up someone's birthday cake. It was one of those rather sticky gooey things, and I was making a bit of a mess of it; and the guy in charge in that place, in front of the entire staff, announced, "Paidiske, for your next placement, you need to go somewhere with a ladies' guild, where you can learn some necessary kitchen skills!"

(Because slicing cake is such a critical ministry skill. But he liked to put people down in public. )



I would think the point would be that Christ chose to be human; and that as his assumption of humanity redeems all of humanity (not just the blokes), his humanity can be represented by all of humanity (not just the blokes). (Remember the patristic maxim that what is not assumed cannot be redeemed).

The "you have to be male to represent Jesus" argument is very weak. Excluding women from such a role implicitly suggests our humanity is somehow impaired, or "less than."

Edited to add, to make my point more clear: Christ's assumption of humanity, as a man, apparently somehow embraced femaleness sufficiently to redeem women as well as men. Therefore Christ's humanity ought to be able to be represented sufficiently by women as well as men. To deny that is to subtly deny the full redemption of women, by focussing on Christ's sex rather than humanity.

It has nothing to do with Redemption or making anyone "less than". Priesthood is not a matter of salvation. It's just a model. In fact, I'd say none of you matter. Neither women or men. If that makes you feel better. Only the High Priest in heaven matters. Everything else is a imitation of the actual reality. But imitating the reality is important, so as not to get caught in abstracts. Which is what I suspect you're doing. Becoming very abstract about the nature of Christ. This is why the church kicked out the Gnostics in the first place. This slippery slope into the mindset of "Ideas", rather than Realities.

 

[Paidiske]

It has nothing to do with Redemption or making anyone "less than". Priesthood is not a matter of salvation. It's just a model. In fact, I'd say none of you matter. Neither women or men. If that makes you feel better. Only the High Priest in heaven matters. Everything else is a imitation of the actual reality. But imitating the reality is important, so as not to get caught in abstracts. Which is what I suspect you're doing. Becoming very abstract about the nature of Christ. This is why the church kicked out the Gnostics in the first place. This slippery slope into the mindset of "Ideas", rather than Realities.

I'd argue that ministry is intimately linked with salvation. All of us are baptised into a royal priesthood; all of us are called to play our part in the body of Christ. For some of us, that part is a specifically ordained role; but to deny anyone their part impairs their functioning in the body and the fullness of living out their salvation, actually.

The liturgy is not an imitation but a making real and present in time and space, what is transcendent and eternal. It's the exact opposite of being abstract; it's taking real and physical, tangible things and allowing God to use them to transform us.

I'm arguing that in the reality of Christ's humanity, sex doesn't matter very much. I'm saying this because Christ - a male - sufficiently represented all of humanity to redeem all of humanity, women as well as men. That's not Gnostic, it's very solidly orthodox, actually.

 

[Radagast]

Since no one can explain what a pastor is or does--or find it in the bible--I think it is just some made up title.

The word "pastor" or the equivalent "shepherd" (they mean the same thing) is in the Bible. It translates the Greek word poimēn.

Clarification: "pastor" is just the Latin word for "shepherd."

 

[straykat]

I'd argue that ministry is intimately linked with salvation. All of us are baptised into a royal priesthood; all of us are called to play our part in the body of Christ. For some of us, that part is a specifically ordained role; but to deny anyone their part impairs their functioning in the body and the fullness of living out their salvation, actually.

The liturgy is not an imitation but a making real and present in time and space, what is transcendent and eternal. It's the exact opposite of being abstract; it's taking real and physical, tangible things and allowing God to use them to transform us.

I'm arguing that in the reality of Christ's humanity, sex doesn't matter very much. I'm saying this because Christ - a male - sufficiently represented all of humanity to redeem all of humanity, women as well as men. That's not Gnostic, it's very solidly orthodox, actually.

I'm not denying their part. But I hate to derail into a discussion on transubstantiation now. I won't bore you (or all of us) with too much about this. The ministry is real in every respect. But the Eucharist and Presence is a mystery, while the definite reality is in heaven. This is indeed an imitation. Christ is the only one who can offer his body and blood - and did.

 

[Radagast]

If it was the function of most of the things many Protestants consider a "Pastor", then I say yes (preaching, teaching, etc). But since I'm also in favor of Liturgy and Eucharist, then no. The whole point of liturgy is to model our High Priest in heaven. And the High Priest chose to be a male.

There seem to be two quite different arguments against female clergy.

The first is based on the idea of clergy as priests, as you say. It also refers to the fact that the Old Testament had female prophets and female rulers, but never female priests. This argument is mostly made in liturgical churches.

The second argument is based on the example of the 12 Apostles, on what Paul says about teaching (1 Timothy 2:12, etc.), and on the implication in Titus and 1 Timothy that overseers are male. This argument is more Protestant.

I still don't understand the arguments for female clergy well enough to summarise, but it often seems to involve a frontal attack on everything St Paul wrote on the subject, and/or a hermeneutic that says we interpret the Bible in the light of the culture we live in, and/or a heavy reliance on Galatians 3:28.

Arguments for also seem, at times, to involve some serious clutching at straws. For example, we've seen multiple mentions on this thread of Junia/Junias -- when the Greek is ambiguous as to whether he/she was male or female (the accusative form is Junian either way) and the evidence for him/her being ordained is extremely thin.

 

[straykat]

There seem to be two quite different arguments against female clergy.

The first is based on the idea of clergy as priests, as you say. It also refers to the fact that the Old Testament had female prophets and female rulers, but never female priests. This argument is mostly made in liturgical churches.

The second argument is based on the example of the 12 Apostles, on what Paul says about teaching (1 Timothy 2:12, etc.), and on the implication in Titus and 1 Timothy that overseers are male. This argument is more Protestant.

I still don't understand the arguments for female clergy well enough to summarise, but it often seems to involve a frontal attack on everything St Paul wrote on the subject and/or a hermeneutic that says we interpret the Bible in the light of the culture we live in.

Yes, I suppose I'm coming more from the liturgical end of this discussion. I don't even have to mention Paul. Honestly, I don't understand where he is coming from in places, so I share some people's frustration. But he was an Apostle, so I'd defer to him anyhow, just to be on the safe side.

 

[TuxAme]

Those in favour of women in ministry are not simply deluded or being led astray, neither are they rejecting scripture and the truth of the gospel.

Had me fooled. I haven't seen any appeals to Scripture in support of it, just people saying "Paul was a sexist" without really saying it.

 

[Philip_B]

Had me fooled. I haven't seen any appeals to Scripture in support of it, just people saying "Paul was a sexist" without really saying it.

1. Clearly you have not be paying attention, there have been several appeals to Scripture in support, including the creation account from Genesis 1, The Annunciation account in Luke, The woman at the Well in John 4, the Resurrection appearances to Mary Magdalene, Paul to the Galatians. There was also a link to a good article unpacking 2 Corinthians 11 which you might like to go back and find.
2. At no stage have I suggested that Paul could be said to be sexist, and I am fairly sure I have not noticed anyone else saying either. It has been noted that the Pauline Epistles were written in a social context, and part of that social context understood women as not being the equals of men.
3. There is a strong counter element to that through the ministry of Jesus, and other places through scripture, whilst not always dominant, it is not a one way street as you suggest.

I restate my earlier claim that those seeking to argue for the validity of women in ministry are not rejecting scripture and the truth of the gospel.

I understand you come from a different position, and from a tradition which currently has a different position, and a tradition which currently has a commission examining much of this area. And I suspect that means that you will be facing the same kinds of struggles that have been faced in the ecclesial tradition of which I am part. I have for the most part, endeavored to be fair and respectful, and let me assure you I have not been trying to fool you or anyone.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not denying their part. But I hate to derail into a discussion on transubstantiation now. I won't bore you (or all of us) with too much about this. The ministry is real in every respect. But the Eucharist and Presence is a mystery, while the definite reality is in heaven. This is indeed an imitation. Christ is the only one who can offer his body and blood - and did.

I'd argue strongly that "imitation" is a highly improper word here. "Representation" might be better. But it is not as if we were play-acting out something which is happening (or has happened) elsewhere; but that in the liturgy, the heavenly reality is made present to and for us. To use the language of imitation would seem to deny that effective and transformative presence of the heavenly reality.

 

[redblue22]

The word "pastor" or the equivalent "shepherd" (they mean the same thing) is in the Bible. It translates the Greek word poimēn.

So what does a "shepherd" do that women are not to do?

 

[Radagast]

Had me fooled. I haven't seen any appeals to Scripture in support of it, just people saying "Paul was a sexist" without really saying it.

I believe that the word actually used about Paul was "misogynist."

That kind of language about the Apostles makes me sad.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think Paul was a misogynist. There's evidence in his writings of pretty radical acceptance of women as equal to men. I do think that his writings at times reflected the sexism of his culture.

 

[Radagast]

I do think that his writings at times reflected the sexism of his culture.

And there is the impassible gulf between your kind of Anglican and those Protestants who have a different view of Scripture and of inspiration.

People can trade Scripture verses all day and achieve absolutely nothing if their views of Scripture are totally different.

For those who hold a high view of inspiration, "Paul said..." is definitive. For those with a lower view of inspiration, what Paul said is counterbalanced by the weltanschauung through which they evaluate the Bible.

In other words, we could keep this thread going all year, and nobody would actually change their mind.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, yes. If you believe God dictated every word as it was written, you're left with two impalatable choices:

1) God is sexist, as reflected in the text.
2) Sexism doesn't really exist, and those who recognise it in the text are deluded.

Either way, the outcome would be that women need to accept damaging and oppressive cultural structures as their God-given lot. I don't find that an acceptable hermeneutic, or one that reflects the truth of the God I know and worship (revealed to me through the bigger picture of Scripture).

 

[Paidiske]

Well, yes. If you believe God dictated every word as it was written, you're left with two impalatable choices:

1) God is sexist, as reflected in the text.
2) Sexism doesn't really exist, and those who recognise it in the text are deluded.

Either way, the outcome would be that women need to accept damaging and oppressive cultural structures as their God-given lot. I don't find that an acceptable hermeneutic, or one that reflects the truth of the God I know and worship (revealed to me through the bigger picture of Scripture).

 

[redblue22]

No one seems to know what they are talking about. Saying that only men can be shepherds is meaningless if I don't know what a "shepherd" even is or does.

I suggest at this point "pastor" and all synonyms of "pastor" no longer be used because no one knows the meaning. I cannot believe a statement if I don't know what it means.

 

[Paidiske]

I could type out the exhortation from the ordination service, which is as close to a "job description" as I get. I'm not sure that's going to further the conversation at all, though.