The ultimate in sexism
Posted by Don Bryant on July 7, 2009
The new Anglican communion has ruled that women priests are allowed but not women bishops. Huh? Their reason? A bishop must be accepted across the denomination while a priest is purely a local church preference.
The simple biblical line of thought, it seems to me, is that if a woman is allowed to be a priest then she would qualify to be a leader of priests. But the Anglican communion is ruling that the preference of the denomination trumps the biblical teaching. In other words, a woman cannot be a bishop simply because we do not prefer it. And this is true sexism to me.
Some time ago a church contacted me to see if I would be interested in pastoring there. As the discussion developed it became clear to me that we would diverge on the role of women in leadership. They would include women on the elder board but not as pastor though the pastor is but a teaching elder. I asked why they would do one but not the other. Once again, the argument was that the church would accept women on the board but not as pastor. The argument had nothing to do with the biblical data, just the preference of the church. While the church probably felt they were being charitable and inclusive, this kind of arrangement would seem to be to the height of insult to a woman. To say to a woman, “we admit you can be an elder but we prefer, simply because we prefer, that you not be the pastor,” is an incredible admission of accommodation.
I believe that women, by design and appointment of God, are not given the office of eldership. What I want or do not want in the case is not the relevant data. I am what someone would call an essentialist. This is the view that there is an essential male and female identity that is not malleable by cultural circumstance. This is why the Apostle Paul argues from creation for his position. But if I am wrong on this then a woman cannot be restricted to being just a board member but not a pastor, or, in the case of the Anglican communion, just a priest but not a bishop.
The new Anglican communion at some point will divide over the role of women in the church. The immediate division has been over the ordination of homosexuals. But it is the same hermeneutic that is up for grabs. Those who argue for the ordination of homosexuals are not essentialists, and their favorite verse is Gal 3:28 where Paul writes there is neither slave nor free, Jew or gentile, male or female. They further elaborate that since the kingdom of God here on earth should mirror as much as possible the kingdom of heaven that is yet to come in its fullness, where there is neither marriage or giving in marriage, there is no essential difference between men and women.
Of course, Gal 3:28 does not only have to mean what this asserts, interpreted most naturally in context it does not even allow the meaning the non-essentialists attribute to it.
When I was in seminary, women in ministry was a bigger issue than now among Protestants. The argument back then against the ordination of women was that the same hermeneutic that allows the ordination of women is the same hermeneutic that permits the ordination of homosexuals. Of course, the pro-women ordination party coughed and sputtered over such a ridiculous conclusion. But here we are 30 years later, and the big argument is no longer the role of women in leadership but the church’s acceptance of same sex marriage.
Most evangelical women who are supportive of women as priests are upset that the argument for their position is linked in the mind of the traditionalists with homosexuality, much as many blacks are outraged that same sex marriage is linked by some to civil rights. But unquestionably the hermeneutic is the same. And it is the ultimate in discrimination to say that this hermeneutic allows women priests but it does not allow same sex marriage. Why would it allow one and not the other? The only answer that can be given is that one would prefer that it allow one and not the other. And this is true discrimination.
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions have closed the book on this discussion. This is an argument for Protestants alone and even then not all Protestants. In other words, this is a hot topic for a very small subset of the world Christian movement. That does not mean it is unimportant but it does lead me to conclude that our spiritual treasury can best be spent in other areas where the kingdom of God needs to be salt and light.
John CW said
Why have you chosen your hermeneutic or translation? Isn’t it that you prefer one hermeneutic and not the other?
Even IF Paul wrote 1Tim, there are alternate translations that make far more sense. such as “not that i permit a woman to dominate a man”.[a clear reversal of the curse]
Also, the word for silent is translated “quietly” when it refers to men.
Also, this passage seems to fit well with 1 Corinthians 14:34, which jumps around or is missing in much of the manuscript evidence. Not to mention, this passage directly contradicts it’s own letter[1 cor 11].
Paul very clearly blames Adam for the fall in much of his other writing, so it would be strange for this “creation” arguement to be Pauline.
Believe it or not, this is a post of agreement. The inconsistency of preference it quite ridiculous.
For example, I allow gluttonous, proud, greedy, shell fish eating, DIVISIVE men to be pastors but not homosexuals because I prefer certain sins to others.
It seems though, we all pick and choose. My only question: which pick and choose method have you chosen? Strangely, I never receive a straight answer.