Jul 14
Women priests save the church from heresy
There’ve been a fair few reactions to the vote of the Church of England’s General Synod to move forward towards the ordination of women as bishops. One of the tendencies I’ve noted in more than the odd report, however, is that this is a liberal development, and one that largely overturns the Church’s tradition. It seems to me worth recalling what could be described as the biblical and Catholic case for seeing this as a faithful and proper development of the tradition.
The evidence of the biblical period is mixed. However, one has to note
- The description of Junia as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom 16:7 – ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις).
- The description of Phoebe as not simply a servant or deacon of the church (Rom 16:1 – διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας) but also as Paul’s patron (Rom 16:2 – αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ). Patron – προστάτις – is a term that would normally connote a form of what many today mean by “headship” whatever Paul meant by that term then.
- There are Euodia and Syntyche who have not only struggled alongside Paul in the work of the gospel (Phil 4:2-3 – ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ συνήθλησάν μοι) and these two women are named ahead not only of other generic fellow-workers but also of Clement, who in Catholic tradition is identified with the third Bishop of Rome.
- In John’s gospel Mary Magdalene is entrusted with the first proclamation of the resurrection, which led tradition to call her “apostle of the apostles” (John 20:11-18).
- In Luke’s gospel Jesus defends Mary’s choice to sit at his feet as a disciple, instead of being about women’s work (Luke 10:38-42). The cultural implication is not only radical about roles (possibly in terms like the gospel of Thomas of becoming male – Saying 114) that she could be entrusted with the passing on of his teaching.
There are other instances that one can adduce, but it seems to me these are the most significant. They represent a spread across the width of the early Christian movement which seems at least strong enough to counter any facile quotation of Pauline texts. The Pauline examples seem to show that Paul’s practice is to accept women as apostles, and accord them significant honour for their ministry in the churches. And even if the idea of a bishop of Rome is a tad anachronistic in the first century, I rather like the idea of the third Pope learning ministry as a junior partner to a couple of women.
The early centuries are problematic. There is patchy evidence both from apocryphal writings and from inscriptions for women exercising ministry, but we have no idea how mainstream much of this is, nor exactly what is being described. There is also the evidence of women’s prominence and leadership in early martyrology – Perpetua, for example. There is also evidence from attempts to ban women from various forms of ministry, such as this one: “Presbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church. (Canon 11 of the Council of Laodicea). Exactly what is being referred to is not fully clear, except that some form of public ministry appears to be in view. The cumulative effect of this, however, is to undercut any simple appeal to the idea that the church has only ever known one practice. There is no simple continuity but rather a more complex picture. Evaluating these precedents is a matter for theological reflection, and not historical excavation.
An outline of the “traditional” argument for women as bishops and priests might include the following points. (I note that this is not an argument which will appeal to evangelicals, who may have to content themselves with the biblical material summarised above. Saying that, however, does remind us that some of those who are arguing that women can’t be priests, don’t believe that men can be priests either!)
All Christian priesthood, whether that of the people of God, or the ordained ministry, is a participation in the priesthood of Christ in diverse ways. Essential to Jesus’ qualification to be a priest, and therefore to be able to offer himself as the sacrifice for humanity, is that, according to Hebrews, he must be made like his brothers and sisters in every way (Heb 2:17). The inclusive translation is demanded by the argument of the text. Only by sharing our flesh and blood can he share our death so as to redeem us from death. The whole argument of Hebrews, summarised in this key text, is that the efficacy of Jesus’ priesthood not only depends on his sharing humanity, but that if it was, instead, a function of his masculinity, then he could not be the Saviour of women, only of men. In short, any argument that there is something inherently masculine in priesthood contradicts the way in which Hebrews develops the argument for the priesthood of Christ. An essentially masculine priesthood is a different type of priesthood from that of Christ, and therefore cannot be a Christian priesthood at the most profound and fundamental level. As St Gregory remarks, “What he did not assume, he cannot heal.” If Jesus is the Saviour of men and women, then the qualification is the human nature he shares with men and women.
Now in terms of some forms of ancient biology which held that women are pretty much defective men, it would have been possible to affirm that men could represent men and women, and women could only represent other women, and still maintain that Christ shared our common humanity. I do not believe that understanding of humanity is biologically, philosophically or socially tenable in any respect. Furthermore, most coherent readings of biblical anthropology give little support for accepting that kind of Aristotelian biology.
Therefore, it seems to me that, given our understandings of humanity, psychological, social, biblical and biological, we must today insist that priesthood should be open to women (and if priesthood, then episcopacy). Unless we do so we will (however inadvertently) be calling into question either the full humanity of Christ, or the salvation of half of humankind. It is, in the end, a biblically informed catholic theology of priesthood as rooted in, and representative of, Christ our priest, which demands that the episcopate and priesthood be open to women as well as men.
This is what I mean when I say that ordaining women is actually traditional and conservative, because it is expressing the essential heart of the gospel. Maintaining an essentially masculine character to the priesthood is, given the rest of our understanding, increasingly running the risk of conveying not orthodoxy, but heresy, that Christ is neither fully human, nor the Saviour of all. By contrast, at least some of us who argue for the ordination of women are doing so in order to proclaim and defend the incarnation of Christ as one like us in every respect save sin, and to announce and receive the ministry of our great high priest for all humanity.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Doug,
Hear, hear! I have only recently become interested in the matter of women’s ordination, due in large part to the controversy within the Church of England. Regardless of whether or not one is inclined to believe in the ordination of women (and I am), I would like to think that someone can have the charity to assume that the others’ argument can be based on some good reasons, including Biblical ones. Charity won’t solve the dilemma, but will make the situation live-able for the various sides who are disagreeing.
-JAK
July 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am
I’ve never seen it put quite that way before, Doug, but I agree wholeheartedly!
July 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
well, that really reallly is a good speech, totally agree. there should be a campaign to read this at every church as law!!!!!!!!!!!
July 17th, 2008 at 7:29 am
[...] bloggers, A Guy in the Pew, had blogged about exactly that. This particular blog was quoting Doug Chaplin, a parish priest in the Church of England. Check out what Doug has to say: I have (with [...]
July 17th, 2008 at 8:58 am
“Maintaining an essentially masculine character to the priesthood is, given the rest of our understanding, increasingly running the risk of conveying not orthodoxy, but heresy, that Christ is neither fully human, nor the Saviour of all.”
This is really very silly. The concept of orthodoxy is an ecclesial one, likewise heresy. As I understood from my studies at St John’s, the Church of England does not a concept of ‘priesthood’ (hiereteuma) separate from the priesthood of all believers but of presbyterate (whence the English word ‘priest’).
It is baptism and the Word of God that make us Christians.
Do you have a problem with ‘lay celebration’ of Holy Communion? If so, on what grounds?
So, if you want to be a *real Catholic and have a real catholic understanding of the sacrificial priesthood, you should submit to the historic catholic order of the pre-Reformation churches.
Otherwise, don’t try to smuggle in misunderstood versions of pre-Reformation theology.
Further, you misunderstand the Letter to the Hebrews. The point of the letter was that Jesus surpassed - and consummated - the Aaronic priesthood with his ‘one offering of himself once offered’ (epaphax) - not that he instituted a new improved Mark II Jewish priesthood. It’s done, Doug, finito - tetelestai!
July 17th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Mark, you’re a first time commenter here, so I’d note that I encourage a more courteous and reasoned approach. I would not expect many people who studied at St John’s to understand very much about priesthood at all, and I think you conclusively prove you don’t. You also seem to have missed the bit which says “I note that this is not an argument which will appeal to evangelicals” and that I was engaging a particular argument on its own territory.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Doug, forgive my lack of decorum. I think I understand the concept of sacrificial priesthood (hiereteuma/sacerdotium) pretty well, having had a Roman Catholic education. I’m also familiar with ‘Apostolicae Curae’ and the ARCIC documents. That’s why I wonder if you actually understand Catholic thinking here. In Catholic thinking, the esse of the priesthood is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary in the sacrifice of the Mass. Every Catholic understands this. Do you wonder why (soon to be St?) J H Newman swam the Tiber?
The Church of England reformed its ministry in the 16th century. The old English word ‘priest’ was retained but not the theology.
If you wish to argue for a Catholic understanding of the ministry, you must do so from an organic point of view. That’s why Anglo-Catholics are grieved at a unilateral disruption of the integrity of ancient orders.
Nowhere does the NT link Christian ministry with the (incommunicable)sacrificial priesthood of Christ. It is a gift of the Ascended Christ (Eph. 4).
July 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I think I’m quite clear. The priest offering the Mass represents Christ the priest, and acts in persona Christi in representing Calvary. Therefore if Christ’s qualification for priesthood is his humanity, why is the ordained person’s qualification his maleness? It’s a simple argument.
BTW Perhaps you also need to Saepius Officio as well.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Doug: “The priest offering the Mass represents Christ the priest, and acts in persona Christi in representing Calvary.”
That’s a correct summary of Catholic Tridentine doctrine - the Mass is the repetition of Calvary ‘in a bloodless way’ (I would hyphenate ‘re-presenting’ to make the point clear - not ‘representing’ as in ‘image’ but as in ‘presenting again’, thus a conintual sequence of sacrifices).
‘..if Christ’s qualification for priesthood is his humanity’-
no, that’s not what Catholics say. Christ’s qualification is from the Father’s choice, in the establishment of a sui generis priesthood. Hebrews is clear on this. I can’t find anything in the NT that gives this as the foundation or character of Christian ministry; can you?
Thanks for the heads up on Saepius Officio - I think it makes my point to wrt transubstantiantion and ‘re-presenting Calvary’.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
” Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.”
Sounds like a qualification to me.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Doug:
1. ‘in ever respect’ (NRSV?) ['in every way', NIV] renders ‘kata panta’ and I’m sure you agree it doesn’t mean Jesus had to be an omni-racial hermaphrodite to save all of his chosen people! No, he was (and still is) a Jewish male, and just as the Jewish male Aaronide represented ALL his people, male and female, so does the Jewish male Jesus represent all his people, male and female, Jews and Gentiles. (I agree that ‘tois adelphois’ includes females, even though the text doesn’t actually spell this out.) Are you saying that the Aaronide priesthood was defective (even potentially heretical) because it didn’t have females in it?
2. It isn’t simply being human that makes Christ a priest, otherwise everyone without exception would be a priest. Incarnation is just a necessary precondition of Christ’s priestly ministry which was perfected in his humiliation and atoning death (v. 18). ‘kata panta’ means being fully human flesh and blood (2.14) - rather than, say, an angel (2.5) - and obediently undergoing suffering and death.
Your statement “All Christian priesthood, whether that of the people of God, or the ordained ministry, is a participation in the priesthood of Christ in diverse ways” is simply not correct as exegesis of Hebrews - Christ’s own priesthood is not shared by his people (it is ‘for us’, not ‘by us’), any more than Aaron’s priesthood was shared by Israel - or of 1 Peter 2.9 (where the sense is clearly corporate, like ‘the priesthood of all believers’). Anglicanism is committede to understanding the Christian ministry is NT terms, rather than the patristic elaborations of of the 3rd and later centuries which typologized the OT ministry and sacrifices as prefiguring the eucharist.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Believe it or not, not every statement I make about priesthood is an exegesis of Hebrews. Certainly when I said “All Christian priesthood … is a participation in the priesthood of Christ” I had no intention of exegeting Hebrews but offering a very broad brush summary of my reading of a whole range of tradition.
I think like you that Anglicanism is committed to being biblical. Unlike you I think that the Reformation understandings of ministry and Eucharist the reformers espoused, and which you seem to wish to continue to espouse, are in fact less biblical than the patristic developments of the 3rd and 4th centuries. See here and here for examples.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Doug, I believe you! But you did go on to exegete Hebrews… My point was that no-one can exegete Hebrews on Christ’s priesthood and then make conclusions about ‘Christian priesthood’ - because Hebrews doesn’t do this AT ALL. Quite the reverse. If the author had thought that, he had the golden opportunity to say ‘OUR priesthood is better (kreitton) than the old one in Jerusalem’ - as he says on just about everything else, contrasting the old and new.
I vaguely recall some 19th century liberal catholic writings (Gore?) that used Hebrews to claim Christian priesthood ‘participated’ in Christ’s. I wonder if ARCIC has repristinated those ideas (’enter into the movement of self-giving’ etc). It founders on Heb. 1:3.
The Fathers are often wonderful but you have to read them sometimes ‘cum grano salis’, as well as understanding the context of Christian-Jewish controversy. I hope you don’t preach from the Epistle of Barnabas!
July 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Mark, I’m not sure why you keep misunderstanding. I think that any statements we make about Christian priesthood, whether we relate those to the corporate priesthood of the baptised, or the priesthood of the ordained, must show their relationship to Christ’s priesthood. I’m not at all surprised that you don’t accept there is a priesthood of the ordained. I disagree. I don’t have time to make that case right now, but it involves quite a careful argument that goes back to understandings of the role of Adam.
But now I must ask you a question – are you yourself Anglican? And if so, in what province? I ask this because I know understandings of this (and e.g. the place of the articles) differ around the globe?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Doug, our ‘relationship to Christ’s priesthood’ consists of receiving the benefits thereof - we do not share/participate in it as fellow priests, offering Christ to the Father; Christ has done the offering of himself already, and the eucharist is not a re-presentation of Calvary. This is BCP doctrine. The hiereteuma of believers is a responsive act of offering spiritual sacrifices of praise.
Yes, I’m an Anglican and I know Anglo-Catholics who think differently from me. I think they are having a very sore time of it - as I believe they are in England where it looks like it’s been decided to close the shop on them. If more of them leave, I think the liberal catholic ascendancy over the Church of England will be further entrenched.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I do assure you, in the Church of England, it looks nothing like a liberal catholic ascendancy. That might have just been a tenable view at the end of the 1980 and early 1990s, but it isn’t now. And I can only repeat what I said before (since you seem to keep repeating yourself also)
It seems to me that we have reached a stage of mutual disagreement which isn’t going to go anywhere fruitful.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
‘…it looks nothing like a liberal catholic ascendancy’ because in England you have quite a few lively and well attended evangelical and charismatic church (most of these in Tec like Christ Church, Plano TX, and Overland Park KS have escaped for CABNA, AMiA etc), but a disproportionate number of your bishops, deans etc are from ‘Affirming Catholicism’ - which is the real engine of the pro-gay movement (along with MCU). And you have NO conservative evangelical bishops, despite there being megachurches like All Souls Langham Place etc. That’s the root of the impasse and the deepening crisis you face in the Church of England - much worse than in the 1980s and early 1990s, from what I can recall.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
That should be CANA, of course. There is also oversight now from Southern Cone, Uganda etc.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
As a statement of fact that’s simply wrong. I know you’d like to think you understand the situation better than those of us who live here, but there are a number of conservative evangelical bishops. I would (and I have to say that the study of bishops is among the more tedious fields of study and I am hardly state of the art) in descending order of conservatism and evangelicalism among those I know of: Lewes, Willesden, Carlisle, Chester, Durham, Southwell, Coventry, Liverpool. There are those who would disagree. Of course, it depends how you define conservative, but there are those Roman Catholics who think Ratzinger is a dangerous liberal.
At national level the most underrepresented churches are those in the countryside and simply are non-aligned, and a mix of gentle conservatives and liberals, catholics and evangelicals, with a sprinkling of renewal influences, who have put being the church in their village as a higher priority than running off to the nearest urban church that fits their style (and often does its best to suck the life out of the small ones).
July 19th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Doug, my information is that all the bishops you mentioned would be called ‘open evangelicals’ (pro-WO etc) except +Lewes, who was at Gafcon and I don’t think is a diocesan. I know you have a couple Anglo-Catholic ‘flying bishops’ but their days must be numbered now, along with the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Church of England - which is the source of the ‘priestly ministry’ idea in its Anglican incarnation. Minus that conservative, traditional ballast, I think you are in for some rocky times ahead, as the liberals press on with their agenda (women bishops, gay blessings, revising worship of language etc).
July 19th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Arrgh, I meant ‘language of worship’ - but maybe there’s an unintentional truth there as well!
August 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“my information is that all the bishops you mentioned would be called ‘open evangelicals’”
Then quite simply your information is in error. Seriously. I’d be extremely surprised if they weren’t both surprised and rather horrified at your impressions.