The Ordination of Women

Paul King Jewett,

Professor of Systematic Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

225 Jefferson Ave. S. E.

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

© 1980, reprinted 1982

ISBN 0-8028-1850-1 (BV676.J4B, 262’.14, 80-15644)

Finished, September 16, 1992, “Shorack”

This is a scholarly work with some big words but well organized. Written for the evangelical Protestant, it also touches on related Catholic and even Jewish issues.

I. Introduction – Women are denied access to the ministry on principle. Not much discussion until recently.

II. Argument from the nature of women. That man is fully human and woman is an inferior human, her only real necessity within society is childbearing. The response is that this is not true, that in a proper translation of Genesis God created humans male and female to share as partners in the creation. Both are incomplete examples of humanity. The partnership is the closest to ideal.

III. Argument that the nature of ministry precludes women. Sexual attraction of men in the flock, heavy lifting, etc. All of these arguments can be reversed so as to disqualify men. There are many features of ministry (counseling among them) where female attributes are superior. Can God not speak through a woman now, especially since he has in the past? Women are allowed equal access to baptism (unlike circumcision…), what is the difference with other rites? This was a principle contribution of Christ.

IV. Argument from the masculinity of God. The argument is incomplete. True, personal pronouns and language gender usually make God male, but many attributes and descriptions (gathering the brood under her wing, etc.) argue for features of God that are feminine. Indeed, there are ancient Christian theologies in which the Holy Spirit (part of the trinity) is cast as female. Gender here is not generative in a biological sense, but characteristic. What about the male apostolate, and the male Christ? The apostolate comes from a male dominated society and had to be such to be respected. Christ had to be fully human, and thus male or female, not neuter. He did exhibit male and female ministerial characteristics, as does his parent (the use of the term “parent” has the same problem of neutering). In the world he chose to inhabit physically, he could only be respected as a male.

V. Womens’ right to ministry affirmed. All of us male and female have trouble with certain religious images and analogies (bride of Christ among them). Will God speak through women as through men? Will he speak differently? That God spoke mostly through men in the past proves nothing. God works through other imperfect cultural conventions such as conquest, inheritance, and monarchy. God even said he didn’t want monarchy but instituted it through Saul anyway. As for inheritance, just look at the heirs of David, from late Solomon on down, or Eli, or Solomon. What is the problem with the image of a woman baptizing an infant or administering communion?

Epilogue: Theology and the Language of the Masculine. We’re stuck with our language and what it implies about our thinking and culture, abstraction or otherwise. Much canonization occurs in language. A long discussion is held on ways to refine translation in the Bible (distinguishing between grammatical and functional gender), to better allow women to transcend themselves in the faith, and a of techniques of alteration to the hymnody. Though it seems artistically and theologically heretical to monkey with hymns, it has been done before, in the name of de-nationalization, etc. For example, in “Faith of our Fathers” the original was, “And through the truth that comes from God / England shall then, indeed, be free.” Now, “And through the truth that comes from God / Mankind shall then, indeed be free.” (Of course, “mankind” here refers to “humankind.”). So what’s the problem with tasteful updates to our theology and hymnody?

My Own Comments:

We’ve always done it that way. True, civilization from the beginning of recorded history has been male dominated, and when it was a matter of physical strength and survival this was perhaps appropriate as all were at the mercy of the strongest male. It appears that male domination in today’s world is less a natural order and more a limiting of the competition, a tradition that is harder and harder to maintain. Just because civilization has done it that way form the beginning of recorded history doesn’t make it right, then or now. History is littered with examples of the weaknesses inherent in male domination such as a predilection to use strength over intelligence.

It is interesting to note (as has been pointed out by secular researchers into Biblical issues) that Magdalene was indeed the first human witness to the resurrection, before Peter. This is supported in the Gospels but denied by Catholicism (another bag of worms) in attempting to make Peter the first witness, and Pope.

Could the male dominated religion, parent religion, apostolate, and canonization committees have suppressed gender equality in the sacred texts? This would explain much of Paul’s commentary on the structure of authority (this from an unmarried man). Paul holds women inferior because Eve took the apple. If man was superior, why did he then take the apple from woman? Wasn’t the devil a worse tempter than a mere woman, an inferior human after all? Wasn’t Adam responsible for them both in any case, from the traditional interpretation of male roles? These questions are my personal response to the uninspired quote, from his own tradition, of Paul, canonized in I Timothy 2:11-15.

It is interesting that fundamentalists have less trouble with women in leadership roles than mainlines. What does this mean – advanced evil or advanced contact with God?

Strange though it seems to me, God allows people an influence, for good or bad, in the world. This allows the greatest perversions and evils, as well as the opportunity for Christians to participate in the administration of great good. Could the de-classification of all people be a great good contribution of this generation?