Ordination of Women

[I made this argument in a comment over at the Fearsome Pirate; I'm posting it here (at the suggestion of Evan Donovan) to give everybody a bigger target.]

OK, here is a substantive argument against the ordination of women (the individual points don't work individually, they have to be taken together):

1. The Saviour chose no women apostles and (so far as we know) commissioned no women to teach or exercise the power of the keys

2. St Paul forbade women to teach or have authority over men in the Church. Among other things, this suggests how St Paul interpreted the fact that Christ appointed no women apostles.

3. There were no women bishops or presbyters in the early centuries of the Church. This indicates that St Paul's take on the matter was not his personal opinion, but the consensus among the Apostles which was handed down to their successors.

4. In the third century, the principal point at issue between the Montanist heretics and the orthodox was the reliability of the Apostolic Tradition, compared to the "new revelations of the Holy Spirit" that the Montanists were claiming. One of the principal arguments against the Montanists was that their practice of ordaining women proved that they were not faithful to the Apostolic Tradition. This indicates that the ordination of men only to the presbyterate and the episcopate was part of the authentic teaching of the Apostles.

5. The canon law of the early Church specifically forbade the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate. These canons were endorsed by the Council of Nicaea which gave us our Creed. You could say that Nicaea got the Apostolic Tradition wrong on this point, but they sure got it right in the Creed, so I don't think so.

You can interpret Scripture to allow women pastors, by attributing St Paul's strictures against it as either his personal opinion or as applicable only to his time and place. But there's a right way and a wrong way to interpret Scripture, and the consistent and specific understanding of Scripture on the part of orthodox Christianity through the centuries is a pretty reliable guide. Choosing one's interpretation to conform to current understandings of "equality" is not.

Comments

[Brian]

You don't mention once that the Scriptures are inspired and infallible. This is where your argument is weak, and where it can be successfully attacked by feminists who do not fear God. You were right that they would attack Paul's "personal opinion." These days they'd be more likely to say that his prohibition on women teaching in the church was "only applicable in those times."

If you do not argue that the Scriptures are inspired, you run the risk of relying solely upon "tradition" as Romanists do in defending the Papacy. You become a hypocrite, and you cannot expect to formulate logical Christian arguments defending anything that Scripture forbids (including sexual immorality, etc.)

[Christopher Jones]

The normative authority of Scripture in matters such as this is a given, Brian. What is at issue here is not whether or not the Scriptures are inspired and infallible, but whether or not the Scriptures may be legitimately interpreted to allow the ordination of women to the pastoral office. I believe that to interpret Scripture to allow it is not legitimate, and I have given my reasons why I so believe; it is precisely because I believe that the Scriptures, correctly interpreted, are the final word that I have laid out the reasons why my interpretation is correct.

To have a healthy respect for tradition as a guide to the correct interpretation of Scripture is not at all the same as "relying solely upon tradition as Romanists do." I have not done that. I have used tradition only as historical evidence as to how the Church has always understood Scripture. That is a different thing from relying on tradition as an authority distinct from Scripture.

[Heidt]

Good summation - but you leave out a key issue: if sacraments are sure and certain signs of grace, so too must their ministers be unambiguously valid. This is not the case with women priests, who therefore destroy the certainty of the sacramental principle itself.

This argument is simply ignored by its adversaries, who don't believe in sacramental objectivity. Thus we're left with the odd spectacle of women fighting very hard to be something they don't believe in anyway...

Cheers,

MLH+

[Biris]

ah ha I see where you r coming form but you forget one issue concerniong the apostolic misyogonistic devaluation of the ifalluble representatio of the 'male god!!'

[Pastor Thomas/Marie Dean]

God has no respect of person. The finished work of Calvary proves that He is Soveriegn. Where were the men (Apostles) when the heat was turn up on the Cross? In todays' times do you think a person struggling with various addictions is more concerned about a title or hearing the Good News regardless what gender delivers the message. Matthew Henry says, "those who mock God's Messengers forfiet the benefit of the message". Their were prophetess' in the old and new testament. In these last days the Body of Christ needs soldiers (male and female). I find it interesting that women can and are expected to do everything but stand on that man made piece of wood called the pulpipt! God Bless!!

[Cheap]

Thus we're left with the odd spectacle of women fighting very hard to be something they don't believe in anyway