What Does the Church Say to This Argument for Women's Ordination?

[Gabriela]

Ran across this over breakfast. It's more sophisticated than the usual argument. Hence I'm wondering how the Church would respond.

From http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2015/novdec/from-charisms-to-calling.html?paging=off:

Woman, Women, and the Priesthood in the Trinitarian Theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel
Sarah Hinlicky Wilson
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015
208 pp., $39.95

 

WESLEY HILL

 

From Charisms to Calling

Women and the priesthood.

 

Before she died, my friend Martha and I kept promising each other that one day we would debate—preferably over a luxurious dinner and a bottle of wine—the question of women's ordination to the priesthood.[1] Martha was herself a priest, and neither of us had any interest in debating that as a question. To my mind, it was no question. Martha had clearly been called by God to Holy Orders in the Anglican Church. Whenever I attended a Eucharist at which she was presiding, I knew she was fulfilling her calling. On those mornings, she would walk down the center aisle of the church after pronouncing the absolution of our sins and recite what we Anglicans call the "comfortable words": the verses of Scripture that are to be read following the moment of confession and absolution, verses that assure the worshipers of God's pardon and fatherly goodness. "Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden," Martha would say as she walked among the congregation, looking us in the eye with that quirky and comforting smile she had, "and I will refresh you." "This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received," she would continue, looping back to return to the altar, "that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." Those moments, when through a blur of warm tears I would hear Christ's own welcome through Martha's voice, are permanently lodged in my memory, and they are part of the reason I had no interest in disputing her vocation.

What I did want to discuss with Martha, before cancer took her life, was why and how God had called her to the priesthood. I disagreed with her that the dancing, mutually indwelling Persons of the Trinity somehow modeled an egalitarian social order for the human sphere, of which women's ordination would be one instance. Aside from the historical problems with such a position (to the Greek church fathers who popularized the term, "perichoresis" didn't mean "dance"), I had theological worries about it. Too often, it seemed, Christians would embrace a particular vision of human gender relations, then—lo and behold—they would discover that the intra-Trinitarian relations themselves presage such a vision, and then, in turn, they would describe those Trinitarian relations as the rationale for the human gender relationships that prompted the whole circular pattern in the first place.[2] I remember one night, sitting in Martha's living room with a large gathering of members of her church, listening to her try to make a case from Scripture for the ordination of women, and I thought, "No, this is all wrong. I agree with the conclusion, but I don't agree on the way to get there."

If there is no specifically masculine or feminine charism or ontology, the significance of the priest's maleness fades away.

Martha and I can no longer sit down to dinner to debate the matter, and I grieve the loss of one who was not only a pastor to me but a conversation partner and beloved confidant. Still, I like to imagine the conversations she and I might have had. In particular, I like to imagine what intellectual and spiritual depths we might have explored together once I'd handed her a copy of Sarah Hinlicky Wilson's revised doctoral dissertation, Woman, Women, and the Priesthood in the Trinitarian Theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel. An ordained minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in america and assistant research professor at Strasbourg's Institute for Ecumenical Research, Hinlicky Wilson has written the best account I've seen of how someone may, mid-career, come not to abandon one of her chief theological convictions but to question and ultimately abandon one particular way of arriving at those convictions.

Hinlicky Wilson's book is about the intellectual development of one of the 20th century's most prominent lay theologians, Elisbeth Behr-Sigel (1907-2005). More specifically, it is about how Behr-Sigel gradually outgrew one way of advocating for a change in the Eastern Orthodox way of understanding who was eligible for the priesthood and eventually embraced a more sensitive, complex way of advocating for it.

Behr-Sigel got her start reflecting on the issue only later in life, when she was pushing 70. She already had 43 years of theological scholarship under her belt, most of it devoted to Russian spirituality and the practice of hesychasm (a kind of contemplative prayer). But in 1976, she was invited to give the keynote address at an international gathering of Orthodox women at the Agapia convent in Romania, the first gathering of its kind, and she needed to address "the basic question of what part Orthodox women could play in church and society." It would prove to be the beginning of an exploration that she would pursue for the rest of her life.

Her tactic in the Agapia address was one she borrowed from the famous Orthodox theologian Paul Evdokimov. There is, Behr-Sigel posited, a unique feminine charism or gifting that grounds whatever ministries women enjoy in the church (and there are many such, she thought—individual Orthodox women have been "confessors, martyrs, apostles, evangelists, prophets, and saints, married and celibate women alike"). Biological femininity is a sign of a particular "spiritual organ of human nature" that "might be defined as the capacity to receive divine grace." Put crudely, if "men are from Mars and women are from Venus," the argument would then be that the Church needs not only Martian but also uniquely Venusian gifts.

Although in this speech Behr-Sigel celebrated the gradual historical unfolding of the significance of Paul's words in Galatians 3:28 ("in Christ Jesus … there is no male and female"), she stopped short of endorsing the ordination of women to the priesthood. This is because "the priest represents Christ; he is the sacramental presentation of Christ, the Word incarnate who assumed full humanity in the masculine mode of being." Given Christ's male humanity, Christ's representative at the Eucharistic altar should also be male.

Yet, in that lecture, Behr-Sigel had sown a seed that would later come to trouble her. Alongside her use of Evdokimov's theology of a feminine charism, she had also made the apparently contradictory claim that Scripture contains no "theoretical exposition on the nature of women and their specific charisms." This insight—that Scripture's language of spiritual gifts and graces doesn't map cleanly onto the male-female binary—would come to loom large in Behr-Sigel's later writings on the role of women in the life of the Church. In a lecture given eight years after her Agapia address, for instance, she came clean on the limitations of her earlier approach: "[T]he use of the idea of [feminine charisms] runs the risk of being a mystification … . There is no mention in Paul's letter [to the Ephesians] of feminine charisms which would be different from those given to men." (She might have emphasized more than she did the exegetical point that wifely "submission" in Ephesians 5:22 is equally enjoined upon men in 5:21, while husbandly "love" is also expected of women in 5:2—in short, there is no special vocation of men envisioned in the epistle to the Ephesians that women don't share in, and vice versa.) What Behr-Sigel now wanted was an account of how God's call came to women, not a pre-formed understanding of "femininity" that could be used to evaluate that call in advance.

She eventually discovered such an account right in the heart of the most basic Christian—and Orthodox—doctrine, the teaching on the Holy Trinity. According to Eastern Trinitarian theology, God is only knowable in the concretehypostases ("persons," in English) of Father, Son, and Spirit. Any access to God's ousia—the divine being—lies in our knowledge of and communion with the persons. God's whatness, the divine substance or essence, doesn't lurk somewhere behind the persons, awaiting some gnostic discoverer to locate it and access its murky depths. Or, to shift the angle, we might say that God is not enclosed in God's nature; the divine essence is not a constraining prison. It is, instead, what we must speak of when we wish to speak of the oneness of the free, transcendent divine persons of Father, Son, and Spirit. For Behr-Sigel, it is likewise with human persons: even if gender were viewed as somehow a part of a person's "essence" or "nature," it is the property of human persons, bearing the image of their triune God, to transcend their nature. This was the mature insight Behr-Sigel eventually arrived at, and Hinlicky Wilson summarizes it well: "Any attempt to invoke the 'feminine' (or the 'masculine') always ends up reducing women (and men) to mere instances of their natures, rather than self-transcending persons in God's own image." In short, women are persons before they are feminine. Or, better: women's femininity is only knowable or accessible insofar as particular women—Elisabeth, say, or Martha—transcend it by living out the particular life God has given them.

What, then, of the priest's iconic representation of Christ at the altar? If there is no specifically masculine or feminine charism or ontology, the significance of the priest's maleness fades away. What matters—as patristic Christology recognized centuries ago with its dictum, "That which is not assumed [by the Son of God in the incarnation] is not healed"—is that Christ became human, assuming and thereby healing the nature common to men and women. Although biologically a man, Christ assumed human nature in such a way as to include both men and women in his salvific work. And that means, in turn, that to refuse to allow a woman to preside at the Eucharist may be to say much more than opponents of women's ordination realize—namely, "that women are not adequate icons of Christ." The result, notes Hinlicky Wilson near the end of her book, is nothing less than "to leave both their humanity and their salvation in doubt." If women can't reflect the human nature of Christ at the altar, how then can they trust Christ's human nature to save them at all?

This line of thinking is what I wish I could have discussed with my friend Martha before leukemia ended her own earthly ministry. I would pay a lot for one more chance to eat Indian food with her and tell her about Elisabeth Behr-Sigel's theological evolution. I like to imagine Martha, loud and boisterous and never shy to voice her unpopular opinions, not being offended if I told her I didn't think God called her to the priesthood because she was a woman or because she had some special bouquet of gifts that God couldn't do without in his church or because he wanted to balance out all the headstrong male priests in our communion. I like to imagine instead her smiling—puzzled at first but perhaps, after hours of debate, coming around to see Behr-Sigel's point—when I said that he called her because he is God and she was Martha. Martha, in all her "self-transcendence as a person, in her non-reducibility to her human (and indeed, if there is such a thing, her female) nature," was the one God called. Not a generic woman, not a faceless feminine "nature," not an impersonal assortment of charisms, but Martha—to be the hands and voice of Christ for his church.

Wesley Hill is assistant professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge, Pennsylvania. His most recent book is Spiritual Friendship: Finding Love in the Church as a Celibate Gay Christian (Brazos Press).

1. I wish to dedicate this review to the memory of Martha Hughlett Giltinan (1957-2014), priest in the Anglican Church in North America, beloved friend, and colleague.

2. See Karen Kilby, "Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity," New Blackfriars, Vol. 81 (2000), pp. 432-45.

Copyright © 2015 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culturemagazine.

[Basilisa Marie]

Basically the Church's argument boils down to either "We've always done it this way" or "Jesus chose men to be the 12 apostles." Or people avoid the question entirely and try to change the subject to how the Church isn't sexist. It doesn't really engage with any of the arguments, though some theologians do. Women's ordination is a really modern question in the scope of the Church, and we've really only developed our theology in areas that have been challenged or in areas where people are basically writing about themselves. It doesn't really engage with the argument posed in the article because we don't really have that great of a theology of masculinity and femininity (and yes friends I know about JPII and referring to motherhood and the vague "feminine genius" just doesn't cut it, plus we have next to nothing on masculinity). The question raised by the women's ordination is more about the tension between our idea that men and women are different and yet we don't say we have different baptisms. No one has really articulated, in an official capacity, what exactly about masculinity is essential to the priesthood and what about femininity excludes it, while also maintaining the common baptism. It's an area for growth for us.

[CatherineM]

Perhaps the necessity of masculinity hasn't been discussed because we don't know why it's necessary. There are lots of things in life that are beyond the understanding of our puny brains. That's why they are called mysteries. 

What we do know, is that Jesus only chose males. That's good enough for me. I've met a lot of women over the years questioning to condemning the Church about their inability to become priests. They all felt called, but not called enough to serve the Church to invest in a theological education. The other lay women sitting in classes with me and our seminarians never seem to debate it. 

It may be judged as simplistic, but if God had wanted me to be a priest, I'd have been born a male. Just as simple as if he'd wanted me to be a horse jockey I would have been born short rather than tall. I view women who complain about not being able to be priests in the same way I view someone who complains about not being a pro athlete or rock star. 

[Gabriela]

Huh. Okay. Not what I was expecting, but thanks!  

I haven't studied JPII's theology of the body. Does that relate in any way? I kept thinking of it as I read that article, but know so little about it I wasn't sure if it has counter-arguments.

 

[Basilisa Marie]

45 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Huh. Okay. Not what I was expecting, but thanks!  

I haven't studied JPII's theology of the body. Does that relate in any way? I kept thinking of it as I read that article, but know so little about it I wasn't sure if it has counter-arguments.

 

Not really. I mean, it might be a springboard, but it doesn't offer much in itself that would counter this.  

There are theologians out there who write articles that are just as eloquent defending the male priesthood. Sara Butler is a great person, off the top of my head, to look into. I've read a few of her articles, and she does one of the better jobs of defending the male priesthood. I personally think the argument still has a bit to be desired (just as arguments for women in the priesthood have conceptual holes, too), but she's a) a woman (a religious sister) b) has fancy theology degrees c) has been engaging with the issue for a while now and is one of the foremost "experts" on it today.  All of which make her a fantastic person to read when you're considering the Magisterium's side of the issue. 

It's all very much an issue that is being worked out in the Church right now, and JPII trying to drop the hammer down on discussion didn't help anything. Arguments in support of the Church's tradition and doctrine need to move beyond being "we've always done it and jesus picked boys why didn't he pick Mary hmmm?" and also incorporate a lot of the issues raised by women-priesthood-proponents, which while their conclusion is obviously contrary to Church teaching a lot of the things they talk about along the way are important, and shouldn't be dismissed with their conclusions. 

[Amppax]

It seems to me that his argument can be simplified to a statement saying that because God is neither male nor female, and humanity is created in the image of God, gender therefore doesn't matter in the question of priesthood. I realize I'm simplifying his argument greatly, but I can't see much more to his argument than that. 

Actually, continuing on, I think the authors quoted seem to drive a very sharp wedge between person and nature, in that gender (if it matters at all) is simply a part of nature, and nature is somehow superadded onto the person, rather than intrinsically united to it. 

Don't know if any of that makes sense. Ultimately, I'd hope for a little more from Wesley Hill. Granted that's a pretty informal book review, but the argument as he presented it seemed a bit weak. Might have to get my hands on a copy of that book, because he's a smart guy, and I have to imagine there's more to the theory than what he was able to present above. Maybe it's just a case of letting our presuppositions cloud our evaluations, considering I'm starting under the assumption that the question is settled one way, and vice versa. 

[veritasluxmea]

Hum. The article is not terribly convincing when you consider what the priesthood actually is. The article considers the priesthood to just be a ministry of service or some sort of representation of Christ of earth. The author is right in that we are all called to be transformed into Christ's image and represent him on earth, as who we are. But first and foremost, the priesthood is a spiritual fatherhood. The article argues that women are persons before they are women, but that's like saying people are human before they are persons. The two aren't separable, they are necessary for each other. You can't be a person without being either a male or female. There is no gender-less parenting, people always parent as a mother or father. They do the same things, but they do them as a mother or father. Men aren't priests because God only calls men to the priesthood, men are priests because only men can be fathers, and that's what the priesthood is.  The ministry aspect of it is secondary to being transformed into a father who offers himself as a victim for his children. Priests in cloisters are just as necessary for the world because of who they are when they offer mass. Fatherhood can't be removed from the priesthood.

As a side note, I find it interesting that in the VS the idea of motherhood/bridal aspect is easily understood to be essential to who a consecrated woman is, and cloistered women are appreciated because of who they are, not what they do, whereas the priesthood is sometimes not quite seen that way. Not saying I've overtly seen that anywhere- just saying it seems to be more openly understood. Probably because women are more discussed in the VS. 

Going back to the article, Baptism is a rite of initiation into God's family, which applies to everyone. We don't need separate rites to work on souls, obviously the physical universe (water, bread, gravity, ect) "works" the same way for men and women, we don't need two Eucharists for people to eat. Holy orders is a rite into spiritual fatherhood, so it follows it simply can't "work" on a female. That's why women who go through the motions of ordination with a valid bishop and everything aren't really ordained, they just can't be made fathers. 

So yes, understanding theology of the body is essential to understanding this issue. Actually it's hard to address any of the major problems we see nowadays without TOB. I second BM's recommendations, and check out what Scott Hahn has written on the priesthood in the OT and the NT for a different angle. I think the divorce of male and female from the human soul is problematic and leads to some wacky theology. 

[Credo in Deum]

Womens ordination is an attack on the patriarchy God created.  They use equality of nature (male and female are both human) to try and say that a matriarchy is just as good as a patriarchy. Yet in the patriarchy God created, God, created, men are not greater because their nature is greater, but because the order of procession. Because man was created first, his responsibilitis are greater than the womans. This is what makes him greater and it has nothing to do with his nature being different.  This greatness from procession is in imitation of the Trinity of Persons where the Father is greater than the Son because of the order of procession and not because one is greater in nature than the other.  Furthermore in Christ dwelt the Father and the Son. He who sees Christ sees the Father. Christ being the new Adam cannot be represented by a woman because a woman was not first in the order of procession.  

What people fail to understand is God did not just create us in the order He did for no reason. He has ordained man to be head of the family. Because of this there are only certain graces he will give to the family, both ecclesiastical and lay, which can only come through man.  The responsibility of humanity's failures rests on us men.  Why so many woman pine for our role is just stupid since your judgement on the last days will not be as severe us ours.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

Tl;dr: A woman can no more be in persona Christi (Christ; New Adam] as a man could be the Virgin Mary (Eve).

[Papist]

Pope John Paul II put this to rest in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2ordin.htm

[CatherineM]

Yep. We aren't allowed to debate it. We can explain why it isn't up for debate, but we must surrender to the teaching. Had an older lay convert in class try to debate it once, and all the seminarians got up and left. He looked at me as if I was going to be on his side with the half dozen other stunned lay students. I told him his RCIA instructors did him a real disservice and went to the lounge to do a puzzle with the youngsters. 

[Maggyie]

14 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Womens ordination is an attack on the patriarchy God created.  They use equality of nature (male and female are both human) to try and say that a matriarchy is just as good as a patriarchy. Yet in the patriarchy God created, God, created, men are not greater because their nature is greater, but because the order of procession. Because man was created first, his responsibilitis are greater than the womans. This is what makes him greater and it has nothing to do with his nature being different.  This greatness from procession is in imitation of the Trinity of Persons where the Father is greater than the Son because of the order of procession and not because one is greater in nature than the other.  Furthermore in Christ dwelt the Father and the Son. He who sees Christ sees the Father. Christ being the new Adam cannot be represented by a woman because a woman was not first in the order of procession.  

What people fail to understand is God did not just create us in the order He did for no reason. He has ordained man to be head of the family. Because of this there are only certain graces he will give to the family, both ecclesiastical and lay, which can only come through man.  The responsibility of humanity's failures rests on us men.  Why so many woman pine for our role is just stupid since your judgement on the last days will not be as severe us ours.

I'm totally on board with the church's teaching about the priesthood, but I think the above is in some ways malarkey-ish. For instance I am sure that the Lord had his reasons for creating us in a certain order but I don't think your punishment will be "harsher" because of your XY chromosomes. Nor do I think Jesus will pat any of us ladies on the head and say "now now sweetie I know you didn't mean it" because of our XX chromosomes. 

[Credo in Deum]

10 hours ago, Maggyie said:

I'm totally on board with the church's teaching about the priesthood, but I think the above is in some ways malarkey-ish. For instance I am sure that the Lord had his reasons for creating us in a certain order but I don't think your punishment will be "harsher" because of your XY chromosomes. Nor do I think Jesus will pat any of us ladies on the head and say "now now sweetie I know you didn't mean it" because of our XX chromosomes. 

Youre welcome to think it's malarkey-ish, but the fact remains God created men to be patriarchs and so he gave men a greater responsibility. Do you think the judgment of a child will be equal to that of the parents who are responsible for the child? No, they won't be, because God will judge based on the leve of responsibilities he has assigned to them.  Likewise God will judge all men based on the level of responsibility he has given us as heads of the family and mankind.

Maybe I hurt your pride, but I also don't believe God will be patting you on the head saying "there there little lady", no you will also be judged based on how well you have fulfilled God's will as a woman. But if you're butthurt because you won't be held to a rougher judgment than men because our responsibilities are greater, then I don't know what to tell you.  It seems like a ridiculous thing to be butthurt about. Had God made women first, I would say you would have the rougher judgment and I would have been thankfull to not be a woman because of it. Maybe you miss the point of it but our responsibilities will be rougher not because we have xy chromosomes but because God created us first. Those who are first always have the greater responsibility.

As the Bible says through ONE MAN sin entered he world. One Man. Eve is not charged with introducing sin into the world. No that blame is given to Adam since as the patriarch he was responsible for the entire world.  He f'd up his responsibilities and the entire world suffered for it.  His judgement, based on the level of his responsibilities, is greater than Eve's since she is not and can never be a patriarch.  Likewise men who do not do their duty as patriarchs, ruin the entire world and will answer for it to a higher degree than women who's duty is not to be a patriarch.

 

[PhuturePriest]

My life would be improved if people kept going back and forth on this thread. It's highly entertaining and this long break is making it very hard for me to procrastinate the paper I'm supposed to be doing.

[Maggyie]

7 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Youre welcome to think it's malarkey-ish, but the fact remains God created men to be patriarchs and so he gave men a greater responsibility. Do you think the judgment of a child will be equal to that of the parents who are responsible for the child? No, they won't be, because God will judge based on the leve of responsibilities he has assigned to them.  Likewise God will judge all men based on the level of responsibility he has given us as heads of the family and mankind.

Maybe I hurt your pride, but I also don't believe God will be patting you on the head saying "there there little lady", no you will also be judged based on how well you have fulfilled God's will as a woman. But if you're butthurt because you won't be held to a rougher judgment than men because our responsibilities are greater, then I don't know what to tell you.  It seems like a ridiculous thing to be butthurt about. Had God made women first, I would say you would have the rougher judgment and I would have been thankfull to not be a woman because of it. Maybe you miss the point of it but our responsibilities will be rougher not because we have xy chromosomes but because God created us first. Those who are first always have the greater responsibility.

As the Bible says through ONE MAN sin entered he world. One Man. Eve is not charged with introducing sin into the world. No that blame is given to Adam since as the patriarch he was responsible for the entire world.  He f'd up his responsibilities and the entire world suffered for it.  His judgement, based on the level of his responsibilities, is greater than Eve's since she is not and can never be a patriarch.  Likewise men who do not do their duty as patriarchs, ruin the entire world and will answer for it to a higher degree than women who's duty is not to be a patriarch.

 

 

I think the comparison you use of parents and child is telling. Women are not "junior" members of humanity. You think that having a lesser judgement would be amesome and yet this would greatly harm women's dignity. In fact while men and women have DIFFERENT responsibilities, they are equally responsible. Nowhere in the Gospel does Jesus indicate that men are subject to a greater judgement.

 

5 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

My life would be improved if people kept going back and forth on this thread. It's highly entertaining and this long break is making it very hard for me to procrastinate the paper I'm supposed to be doing.

I'm happy to oblige you