“Even the sparrow finds a home, and the swallow a nest,
where she may lay her young at your altars,
Lord of Hosts, my King and my God” (Ps. 84:4)
“You are no longer strangers and sojourners,
but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19)
3 June 2016,
the watchwords for the opening day of the ELCL Synod
IS THE BIBLE AGAINST THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN?
The ordination of women – what is the dispute really about?
In the coming days the synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia will decide on several amendments to the Church Constitution. Among them is one that is theologically especially significant – a proposal to include in the text of the Constitution a prohibition on women aspiring to ordination to the office of pastor. Women have not been ordained in our church for more than twenty years already (though before that, from 1975 to 1993, it was done), but this is the first time that the impossibility of women’s ordination is to be entrenched in such a clear and legally binding form.
Thinking about this, I recalled the once widely run CSDD social campaign “Look twice!” At the time it was a call for drivers, before changing into an adjacent lane, to glance once more at the mirror – right before the manoeuvre. Only in that way can you spot some fast motorcyclist who, at the first glance, seemed so far away or was not even visible at all…
This article, too, is an invitation to look in the mirror a second time – to reconsider once more what exactly it is we will be deciding, and why. Sometimes in intellectual discussions we begin to process specific arguments so quickly that we forget to clarify what our driving force is, our inner motive for taking part in a dialogue or dispute at all. Such self-reflection is very helpful, because specific questions can most often not be resolved productively until the real subjects of contention have been recognised – the ones that, in a hidden way, direct the energy of the discussion in question.
Discussions about the ordination of women certainly have their psychological and socio-economic reasons, yet I would like to concentrate on the field of theology. My conjecture is this: the discussion around the amendments to the Constitution centres not on the role of woman in the church, on her fundamental ability or inability to perform the duties of the pastoral office, but rather on a certain dogmatic stance over against Holy Scripture. Beneath the question of women’s ordination, a dramatic battle is being waged over the authority of the Bible and its place in the church’s self-understanding. As long as this theological aspect is not clearly recognised and the concerns associated with it are not dispelled, fruitful dialogue will not be possible.
By way of illustration. If we hold that the apostle Paul in his letters clearly and definitely does not permit the ordination of women, then in that case to practise it means to stand in open rebellion against the Bible and the Spirit who inspired it! Without Holy Scripture we have no sure access to Christ, we lack the foundation of faith and the unifying element! By departing from the authority of Scripture, we lose the possibility of building a true church of Christ.
If the alternative really is such, it is not hard to understand why the struggle becomes dramatic and desperate. The foundation of faith is worth standing up for to the very end – how could it be otherwise? To sacrifice the authority of Scripture for the sake of women’s ordination seems to many too high a price for “moving with the times”. However dear and beloved our Christian sisters may be, they themselves ought also to understand that incommensurable things have been placed on the scales!
Roughly in this light I understand the decisive events of 1993, when the ELCL synod elected our present archbishop to office. It was a conscious choice, made in the knowledge of his stance on this question. The archbishop had warned the synod of his view and of his intention to impose a complete moratorium on the ordination of women. The justification: it is not permissible to continue a church practice that contradicts the command of the Bible. This is a clear, comprehensible position that was openly stated. “A church grounded in Holy Scripture, not in human caprice” – this theological vision, set forth back then, has over the past years gained considerable support among ELCL pastors and congregation members.
We feel echoes of that time’s concern for remaining true to the foundations of faith even today. This is shown by how often the ordination of women in Latvia is linked with other phenomena and processes in the Western Christian churches. The question is not only about women, but about the future of the church! In ELCL circles the ordination of women is often understood as the first step towards ever-increasing human wilfulness and falling away from the faith. If open rebellion against the authority of the Bible takes place in one question – does that not mean “the floodgates are open”? Is it hard to imagine that it will be followed by other, even more serious, departures from the truth?
Such a strict dogmatic position may be displeasing, it can be criticised in all sorts of ways on the basis of other authorities, but it has its own inner logic and stance. The idea that the Bible must be the sole measure of everything that happens in the Church is well grounded both in Scripture itself and in the Lutheran confessional documents.
Let us leave aside the question of whether all the changes we see in the European churches are truly destructive (rather, different developments are to be judged differently…). For now I wish only to put into words the problem which, from my point of view, gives the theological justification and energy to the whole dispute, and I invite you to look in the mirror once again: is the choice “discard Scripture and ordain women” as opposed to “do not ordain women, but in return remain true to Scripture” unavoidable? The ordination of women contrary to Scripture would be a dogmatic problem, but is the ordination of women in accordance with Scripture possible?
This second possibility may seem to many in our church completely unrealistic. The first glance in the mirror does seem so convincing – everything is clear, written down and formulated many years ago already… We have our friends who think as we do. We have arguments. If need be, we can recount the arguments once more. But is that really still necessary? How long shall we repeat one and the same thing: what God has forbidden, men must not permit!
Yet over the course of the past decades many significant exegetical studies have been carried out on the contested passages of Scripture, bringing a new perspective on the “long-known answers” and helping to formulate more clearly the possible ways of understanding the “key texts” that are usually used in argumentation in the context of women’s ordination. What is appealing is that the discussion takes place at a strictly exegetical level – reading the text itself rather than appealing to some authorities “from outside” and setting them against Scripture.
I want to say at once: there are churches in the world that do not ordain women, and, respecting the theologians of these churches, one has to conclude that Holy Scripture can indeed be interpreted in such a way that the ordination of women seems impossible. On the other hand – the churches that do ordain women have also sought and found justification in Holy Scripture. This gives one pause to reflect – does there really exist a single correct way of interpreting Scripture on this question? Could it be that the ordination of women is compatible with belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, and is also not connected with other, ethically dubious questions? Perhaps the (non-)ordination of women is a question not of the command of Scripture, but of a particular tradition of interpretation?
Is the choice between the authority of Scripture and the ordination of women a real one?
First of all, it must be pointed out that nowhere in Holy Scripture is it commanded in so many words: “Women must not be ordained!”. There are well understandable historical reasons for this – at the time the New Testament came into being, the understanding of the spiritual office had not yet fully formed, and the Latin word “ordination” itself cannot appear in a Greek text.
At the same time this fact is noteworthy in one respect: it signals that in the question of women’s ordination we are using the biblical text in an interpreted form. Essentially the text is always interpreted, but in this case even those theologians acknowledge it who see in Paul’s letters a clear prohibition on women holding the pastoral office – the “speaking” (1 Cor. 14) or “keeping silent” (1 Tim. 2) is to be understood in the context of the pastoral office, not as a universal prohibition on women speaking in any congregation or taking part in social life.
The question – are there passages of Scripture that inescapably forbid the ordination of women? Does the overall message of the New Testament compel us to interpret Scripture unequivocally in such a way that the ordination of women is impermissible? Do any convincing positive arguments exist?
Passages of Scripture used to forbid the ordination of women
In this article it is not possible to give a complete overview of the various arguments that have been voiced concerning the key texts, so I shall confine myself to a sketch of an alternative interpretation. The aim is to show that these passages of Scripture can be translated otherwise as well – and that consequently in interpreting them we must be guided by additional criteria. More on that in the conclusions section.
A.
1 Cor. 14:34-35
This particular passage of Scripture is placed in a different location in some New Testament manuscripts (not after verse 33, but after verse 39). This allows the conclusion that this remark was inserted into an already finished text – after the letter had been composed. Does this mean that this text is no longer authoritative for us? Not at all, for it is found in the canonical text – in all the manuscripts. Nevertheless, this small fact indicates that it is a matter of some additional note that was possibly included in the text later.
What is the place of this note in the overall flow of the text? Paul is speaking about what takes place during worship. The word “ekklesia” (congregation, church) in Greek carries the same nuances as the Latvian word “sapulce” [assembly] – it is at once a community of people and a particular occasion of gathering. Kenneth Bailey (Kenneth Bailey) and other connoisseurs of Near Eastern culture hold that it is a matter of women chatting during worship. This is indicated not only by the overall context, but also by the addition: “But if they wish to learn something…” The account, then, is about chatting during instruction – an account about listeners who disturb worship with their talking! Here we can only agree with Paul – and not only with regard to women!
B.
1 Tim. 2:8-15
An especially significant text, because four words torn out of context seem like an absolutely clear answer to the question – namely, “I do not permit a woman to teach”. Yet the theologian’s work differs from cursory reading precisely in this, that the words of the Bible are seen in their contexts, and what is to be analysed is both the motivation behind the saying of the words and the motivation of my reading.
Here, incidentally, a great surprise awaits us. Paul urges that the social roles of the sexes be changed!
EXCURSUS on “gender studies”
Social sex, or gender (Eng. gender), is the role that society assigns to people of the corresponding biological sex (Eng. sex). In present-day Latvia gender has become one of the most misunderstood terms – it is useful to devote a little attention to it in order to grasp the meaning of this concept. In our language several variants of the translation of the word gender are used in parallel, but the essence of the matter is not hard to describe: social sex, or gender, is all those typical forms of behaviour, dress, occupation and other conduct that a particular society associates with a particular sex and expects from it. For example, in Muslim society it is customary for women to wear long clothing that covers the whole body. Does a woman’s biological sex necessarily require such clothing? No, women are not born with this clothing on their backs! Such a manner of dress derives not from sex, but precisely from gender – from a notion of the appearance of a ‘normal woman’. This notion is variable, depending on the traditions of the particular culture and society. In another land and culture women dress differently…
In this sense social sex is a variable quantity. Over the course of its history a society tends to change its understanding of the “ideal/typical dress” or the “ideal/typical occupation” that would be suitable for a particular sex. The individual cannot change social sex, or gender, so easily at all – most often one can only rebel against the prevailing stereotypes (“women cannot drive cars” – but I shall drive anyway; “men must be warlike and suitably aggressive” – but I dare nonetheless not to be such), because the understanding of social sex usually changes slowly – along with the transformation of the whole of society. Of course, a man can behave “femininely” (and likewise a woman can “break into” the male sphere), but it will nonetheless be identified as something atypical or strange… In this respect social sex is a thing that can be quite objectively ascertained in a given society or part of it.
Returning to our theme. Paul writes as one who, to put it in modern terms, possesses a good understanding of the difference of gender from sex. Namely, he addresses Christian women – females (sex, sex), and calls them to break the stereotypes of social roles (gender, gender) existing in the local environment – introducing in their place a new understanding of what it means to be a woman, feminine! For a woman who is conscious of herself as a disciple of Christ, the traditional social-sex role is not suitable – to be an ornamental object in her husband’s possession. Paul calls for this gender stereotype to be broken. Women should not adorn themselves with finery and elaborate clothing, but instead turn their attention to the development and cultivation of the inner world! In a pagan environment in which it is held that a woman is not capable of learning, this is a truly revolutionary step!
From this, too, arises the instruction – to let women be “in quietness”, that is, undisturbed, to devote themselves to the path of discipleship (the word manthano, which is used here in the text, denotes prolonged learning, the mastering of something). The addition “in full submission” does not refer to submission to a husband or, all the more, to every man, but rather to submission, to devotion to the said path of discipleship. Let women learn undisturbed – wholly devoted to Christ.
At the same time Paul understands that social roles must not be changed too abruptly, and so he adds – but to teach a man domineeringly I do not permit a woman. The word “oude” (Greek “nor”, “neither”, “in such a way that…”), which joins the first part of the sentence with the second, inseparably binds the two statements into a single whole. In this case there are not two prohibitions – “to teach” and “to domineer” (“to be domineering”, even “violent”), but one whole: to teach domineeringly, to command.
Namely, Paul does not wish to create confusion and say that the genders must change places – that now a woman must subjugate a man, as men have hitherto subjugated women! No, this I do not permit, he says. The inclusion of woman in society does not mean the privilege of setting herself up as lord in place of her husband. Namely, there must be equality and cooperation! That is why, after his addition, Paul returns to the theme of quietness, of undisturbed participation in learning…
As the reason for this is given the sorrowful account from the Old Testament, in which it is told that Eve, who was created after Adam, was the first to fall into sin – and Adam, being bound to her, along with her. It is precisely for this reason that a woman must be allowed undisturbed to walk the path of discipleship, so that in the new order of things this should not happen!
Social roles have changed and it is desirable that they change. A woman must be allowed to learn. The Gospel equivalent is the story of Martha and her sister Mary, who “sits at the feet of Jesus”. At one point Martha is so indignant, mainly because her sister is staying in the part of the house meant for men and is not fulfilling her gender role – “to bake and to cook”, to use stereotypical language… Instead she is – imagine! – learning at the feet of the rabbi, just like His other disciples! It must be borne in mind that “sitting at the feet of the rabbi” is a form of learning that involves discipleship, that is, the taking on of the master’s qualities in order to be able to pass them on to others! Women must become disciples in the full sense of the word – able both to learn and to bear witness.
C.
1 Tim. 3:2
“A bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, level-headed, modest, hospitable, a skilful teacher…”
Titus 1:6
“…he must be blameless, the husband of one wife, whose children are believers and not wild and disobedient.”
For these texts the so-called Sitz im Leben (“setting in life”) analysis is important – what situation, and for what purpose, Paul wishes to influence. What is clear is that he does not say: a bishop must be a man. Instead he addresses some other problem. Two main variants are possible. It is either: some Greek heretical teaching that denies the right to marry – setting family and sexuality against the attainment of holiness. In this case Paul defends the Jewish tradition that required a rabbi to be married. The reason – God’s instruction: “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18), that is, human life and spiritual development require an other. In this sense the overseer or presbyter of a congregation must form a family. The reference to children added in Titus 1:6 indicates the aim: to learn to manage one’s own household before attempting to oversee others.
the Jewish practice of polygamy and/or frequent divorces. In this case Paul is addressing a custom which, as the Dead Sea texts attest, was widespread not only in the higher strata of society but also in the middle class: many successive marriages (even – without formal divorce!) and polygamy (simultaneous life with several wives). A congregational leader who has several wives at once would be unacceptable in the Greco-Roman environment, which did not permit polygamy.
It must be admitted that Paul’s own example comes into contradiction with this text (as far as is known, he was not married – unlike the apostle Peter and the others, see 1 Cor. 9:5). If we take Paul’s prohibition literally, then Paul himself is not suited to the office of bishop and pastor!
The whole Christian church – both in the East and in the West – for many centuries required bishops and presbyters to be unmarried, which is in diametrical contradiction to what the text says. If through the centuries this text has not been understood as a literal command, why do we forget about that when we wish to apply it in the case of women’s ordination? The church itself in all ages has interpreted this passage of Scripture in combination with others – and that is a healthy reminder that words torn out of context are not to be used for a quick resolution of a question.
If we ignore the main emphasis of the sentence (“to be married” and “with one wife”), but over-stress the indirect conclusion, we present an outstandingly selective case of interpretation. To conclude: if, since Paul speaks of bishops as men (gender), then bishops can only be men (sex), would be the same as saying that the instructions to slaveholders mean the necessity of restoring the system of slavery! Such conclusions are not logically acceptable.
It must also be added that the word “episkopos” (over-seer) itself is gender-neutral in Greek. Paul’s overall thought: the oversight of a congregation must be entrusted to an older “family man” who shows the ability to keep fidelity in marriage throughout life (how indeed could such a one keep fidelity to Christ when encountering difficulties, if he has not been faithful to his promises to people and to God?) and the skill of raising believing children (what indeed could better testify to a deep knowledge of human nature and the ability to teach not only with words but also by example?). To such a person the governance of congregations can be safely entrusted (the other desirable qualities are listed further on in the text…).
It is interesting that a moment later – 1 Tim. 3:8-13 – Paul speaks of the qualities a deacon must possess, and there too the condition “the husband of one wife” is mentioned (v. 12). At the same time the overall passage of the letter that speaks of the service of deacons mentions “women”, and this word can also be understood as “women deacons”:
“Likewise deacons must be worthy of respect; they must not be double-tongued, given to drinking, or to dishonest gain. They must keep the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. Let them first be tested, and if they are blameless, then let them serve. Likewise women must be worthy of respect – not slanderers, but temperate and trustworthy in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, managing their children and their households well.”
Unless we suppose that greater conditions apply to the married wives of deacons than to the married wives of bishops, in this case it is nonetheless a matter of female deacons.
D.
“The order of creation”
This term calls for a broad, detailed examination, because it is based not on any one particular passage of Scripture, but rather on the overall understanding of them (“Adam was created before Eve”, “the husband is the head of the wife”, etc.). The general idea is this: in the biblical texts a certain order and division of roles appears, one already observable at creation. Even if, in terms of salvation, we are all equal before God, this division and order is to be preserved. As one important expression of such preservation of the order of creation, the disallowing of women’s ordination is discerned. To man alone is given the task and the right to represent Christ before the congregation.
Being unable to examine all the extensive arguments, it is important to note in brief: in appealing to the “order of creation”, the place of woman in the church is derived from some broader, more universal principle. That is, the matter is no longer about the church office alone, but about a general division of roles between the two sexes. But here we must be very careful, because in the broader context of the New Testament we can discern unmistakable testimonies to the full equality of woman and man before God.
How is it possible to construct a theology in which the general principle indicates the equality of woman and man, full participation in the mysteries of salvation, but at the same time – from this principle of equality it is possible to conclude in a logical manner that, in terms of the pastoral office, full equality and interchangeability is not in force – that remains a difficult question for me to answer.
To hold that the male sex makes it possible to better represent Christ rests on an arbitrary elevation of sex (rather –gender) above other qualities. Perhaps, then, Christ can be fully represented only by a person of Jewish nationality who speaks Aramaic?
Of course, a justification can be sought and even found! But one must be clear that this is not a strictly exegetical process, but a dogmatic and altogether voluntaristic one, grounded in a tradition of interpretation.
Which passages of Scripture can be used to ground the ordination of women?
The aim of this article is by no means to close the discussions about the ordination of women – by offering a ready, ideally formulated justification and model for the service of women. Rather it is an invitation to dare to seek in Scripture not only the prohibiting part, but also the permitting one. Here I shall very briefly sketch only a few of the ideas. They require further discussion.
A.
1 Pet. 2:9
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, the possession of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light, that you may proclaim his excellent works”
In Lutheran theology the so-called principle of the “universal priesthood” is well known. It is an indication that the gospel and the sacraments are the common “possession” and responsibility of the whole church. Every believer is called to take part in the service of the church – not only by dusting or repairing roofs, but also by proclaiming the works of God. We receive a share in the believers’ “universal priesthood” already at the moment of baptism, but we may publicly begin to do that which is the common right of all only when the church has assessed our ability to do it in the best possible way. It is interesting that the apostle uses precisely the word “priest” – a minister in a special spiritual office!
B.
Gal. 3:26-29
“In faith in Jesus Christ you are all children of God, for all of you who have been baptised into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – you are all one in Jesus Christ. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise”
In terms of God and salvation we are all equal – children of God and “heirs according to the promise”. In the case of women’s ordination, the indication about “being clothed with Christ” is important – namely, Christ is present and at work through every believing person. The words “there is neither male nor female” would more precisely be translated “there is no ‘male and female’”, that is, as a reference to the distinction mentioned in the Creation account. In the new creation, which has begun with the work of Christ, “all are one”. To say that this refers “only to salvation” and not to the real life of the church means to make a particular dogmatic decision. Does salvation really refer only to a distant future? Rather we have grounds to think that the changes in people’s status before God must be reflected also in our life and practice. The Kingdom of God is manifested in the congregation – the congregation must be the place in which the aforesaid Pauline text gains its first and clearest embodiment, revealing the equal and identical standing of woman and man, slave and free, Jew and Greek before God – already now, not only in a distant future.
C.
Mt. 23:10-11
“Do not call yourselves teachers, for Christ alone is your teacher. But the greatest among you shall be your servant.”
This is an important text for the understanding of the teaching office: the true teacher of the Church is Christ alone! In this sense – in proclaiming the gospel, it is always Christ who is at work, not the human person. The regalia and titles of the office are secondary; the main thing is the proclamation of the gospel. The activity of a priest or pastor “in Christ” is not a role-play, but a matter of a spiritual process – Christ himself is present in the proclaimed word! A human being is the voice of Christ, not an actor. Proclamation takes place not only through teaching, but also through discipleship! This also corresponds to the indication found in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 10:40 and following), that whoever receives Christ’s disciples receives Christ himself – in this case “disciple” is a word understood as “a person whom Christ has sent to do the works of the Kingdom”. Similarly it is said in John 13:20: “Truly, truly I say to you: whoever receives the one I send receives me; but whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
Proclamation in the spiritual sense is always Christ’s own work, even though physically it is performed by a human being. In the early church doubts were expressed about this and the so-called Donatism arose – the teaching that a priest’s service depends on his “holiness” and other personal qualities. The early church rejected this as a heresy, because it is the word of God and the promise that give power to the gospel and the sacraments, not the personal qualities of the preacher or of the dispenser of the sacraments. Sex is a quality of the human being, not of the word of God. The proclaimed word is independent of the sex of the proclaimer – such could be an argumentation based on the aforementioned passages of Scripture.
D.
Mk. 9:35
“If anyone wants to be first, he must be the last of all and the servant of all”.
If a woman truly must not rule, can she at least serve? The question is deeper than it seems at first. By placing the emphasis on service as opposed to the exercise of power characteristic of rulers and lords, Jesus sets out a different model of relationships and power, one that must exist among His disciples. In the pastoral office, perhaps men ought to learn more from the paradoxical strength of women in weakness than the other way round!
In closing. The role of women in the life of Jesus is the object of many studies. Undeniable is the fact that women in particular had an important part in all the events of the salvation story – beginning with the Virgin Mary, the woman from whom Christ was born (without the “help” of a man!), and ending with the women who – unlike the disciples – remain faithful to Christ even at the cross, later are the first to experience Christ’s resurrection and are sent to proclaim it to the apostles.
In the life of the apostle Paul, too, women played an important role, serving together with him and working at the spread of the gospel. All of this calls for serious and attentive immersion – without prejudice and with a great readiness to assign to woman the maximum possible, not the minimum commanded, role in the life of the congregation and the church.
Conclusions. What with the foregoing has and what has not been proved?
I am well aware that no learned and skilful theologian can be compelled to accept an interpretation of Scripture that he does not like. Argumentation can continue almost endlessly, and not infrequently such conflicts have been resolved with the help of brute force.
Not wishing to offend anyone, the situation is a little similar to the dispute of the traditional denominations with Seventh-day Adventist theologians over the Sabbath commandment. Formally, the biblical text does indeed say: “Keep the Sabbath!” One might ask indignantly: “What right do churches have to celebrate Sunday instead? That is exactly why the other churches have problems, because they depart from the word of God!” To such argumentation the traditional denominations counter with a reference to the consensus of the gospel, as well as to the priority of Christ’s saving work…
With this article I have tried to show only that our understanding of what Scripture teaches about the ordination of women has more the character of tradition than of absolute truth. We operate proceeding from our own assumptions and perspective. Each of the viewpoints has its own carefully elaborated and described arguments.
What is to be done in the case of such a “conflict of interpretations”? I hold that in this situation, too, we must be guided by Scripture – by the common spirit that is revealed in it. This is best expressed by the gospel message of unconditional grace, which – grasped in faith – brings salvation to everyone who believes. The gospel apart from our merit – this alone is the indisputable foundation of the church’s service.
As to what a truly evangelical and biblical attitude is with regard to women and their service in congregations – this is a question to which, in my view, broader discussions have not been devoted.
The stance of Archbishop Jānis Vanags since 1993 has produced significant results and fruits in the life of the Church. I think that over the past years the authority of Scripture has been strongly reinforced, compared with the situation that could have unfolded. But now, when the main aim has been achieved – Scripture has clearly come to the centre of dogmatics – it is worth turning anew to the specific questions, taking as the basis precisely the testimony of Scripture. Only not at the first, but at the second, slower and more nuanced glance in the mirror…
I recommend that the synod be aware of this situation and not hasten with a decision on a question about which only now are we ready to begin to speak.
Remaining in prayer that our sisters might fully apply to themselves the words of the watchword of the synod’s opening day,
Indulis Paičs