by Bishop Tony Nichols
This article was published as the debate about Women's ordination reached its height in the Anglican Church of Australia in 1992. The debate was revisited in November 1996 at the Synod of Sydney Diocese. An ordinance to adopt legislation to ordain women to the "priesthood" in Sydney Diocese was defeated.
In this article Bishop Nichols gives some helpful teaching on this controversial subject.
The role of women has changed dramatically in modern times - in western countries at least.
All the professions have been thrown open to them and there is an expectation that the church should fall into line. To fail to do so, it is said, would be discriminating and even contrary to the thrust of the New Testament.
For Anglicans, the Scriptures must be our final court of appeal.
"It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another."
(Article XX)
Interpreting the Bible
The problem is that apparently equally scholarly and godly people claim to appeal to the Scriptures and yet they reach different conclusions.
This is firstly because we all come to the Bible with our own "spectacles" coloured by our own particular culture, traditions and personal experiences.
Some of us have witnessed women giving impressive leadership in other denominations. The Salvation Army would be a case in point. But their effectiveness does not legitimize female leadership in church any more than it legitimizes their military style organization or their rejection of the sacraments.
The issue is not whether female leadership is equally competent but what is the will of God for His people.
Secondly, the method by which we interpret the Bible may also predetermine our different conclusions.
In studying the Bible, on this or any other issue, we need to recognise certain principles, e.g.
- Any part of Scripture must be understood in the context of the whole. Jesus taught that the whole Bible witnessed to Him. That is why we may not "expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another".
- The structure of the Bible as the Book of the Covenant points to a progression in God's revelation. This means that if we want to understand a passage we must note its place in the history of salvation. That is why we do not observe the food laws of Leviticus.
- We need to distinguish between what the Bible describes and what it prescribes. There is much that Biblical writers record but do not condone or lay upon us as a pattern to be followed. The polygamy of many Old Testament heroes is an example.
- Finally we have to be prepared to correct our "spectacles" and jettison cultural baggage as we read and reread the Bible (in the fellowship of the church). For Jesus said we "cannot live by bread alone but by every word that God has spoken".
A Sketch of the Biblical Data
Our Lord Jesus and his apostle Paul appeal to the first two chapters of Genesis (especially Genesis 2) in their teaching on male/female relationships.
Here we find creation described from two aspects. Genesis chapter 1 focusses on God the Creator and the overall picture of His handiwork culminating in the creation of humankind - "in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them".
We see from the beginning that men and women were equally image-bearers of God, equal in value and destiny.
Genesis chapter 2 focusses on Adam and his relationships - with the Lord God, with the plants and animals, and especially with the woman.
Equal but Different
Whereas Genesis 1 emphasises those features common to the sexes, Genesis 2 elaborates those that are not shared.
God created woman from a different material, for a different purpose (for man) and at a different time. Adam expressed his authority over her by naming her. The woman is subordinate to her husband but is not his inferior (just as the Son is subordinate in relation to the Father but equally God).
God's Self-Revelation
Throughout the Old and New Testaments the male-female relationship is repeatedly used as an analogy of the relationship between God and His people.
Recently it has been fashionable to draw attention to some feminine attributes of God (e.g. Isaiah 42:14 - He "groans like a woman in labour") but these are insignificant compared to the male imagery. In fact such feminine imagery is also applied to Moses and Paul.
Are we not capable ourselves of using such language without suggesting a person is bisexual? - e.g. He 'gave birth' to the scheme, 'nursed' the project in its early stages but finally decided to 'abort' it.
We have to face up to the fact that in the Bible God has revealed himself as father, never mother; king, never queen; husband, never wife.
Remember too, this revelation came into a world teeming with goddesses and priestesses.
The Fall of humankind (described in Genesis 3) damaged the relationship between the sexes, as it did everything else. A struggle for supremacy of wills results in male domination - a situation that will only be remedied by divine grace. Those of us who have lived in Cultures untouched by the Biblical revelation know how oppressive and brutal this male domination can be.
Godly Women
The law given to Israel alleviated this subjugation of women, who were regarded as an integral part of the covenant community.
Godly and enterprising women such as Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Naomi, Ruth and Esther are extolled. Marriage was to be modelled on the Lord's faithful love for Israel, and widows must be cared for.
The prophets foresaw that when the Messiah came, God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh, men and women, without distinction. Actually there were women prophets before Pentecost. The change would be one of degree not kind. What would be new, was that all flesh would do it regardless of age, sex or class.
Jesus' Example
Without any fuss or publicity, Jesus demonstrated in his everyday relationships that, in his new community, women would have the dignity and equality that was theirs before the Fall.
It is to Jesus in fact that the contemporary liberation of women is primarily due, even if many of his followers have been slow to query unjust discrimination based on sex. However, Jesus did not question traditional gender roles of men and women.
"Neither Male Nor Female"?
Paul's charter of freedom is well known: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
Each of these groups were still distinctive. But, in Christ, such racial, social and sexual distinctions are irrelevant, as regards our standing before God.
In Galatians Paul is arguing about justification. He is affirming that all are accepted by God, through faith in Christ, without any discrimination.
Many moderns are keen to quote what Paul says in Galatians about our fundamental equality in Christ but do not want to heed what he teaches about the distinctive roles of men and women in other passages.
Paul certainly taught the equality of men and women in Christ. He also commended the ministry of many women who were his fellow workers (e.g. Romans 16, Philippians 4:2). However, he taught that women must not exercise leadership over men.
Likewise the apostle Peter, who for some reason attracts less flack, enjoins the submission of wives to their husbands in the strongest terms while affirming that both are "joint heirs of the grace of life". (1 Peter 3:1-7)
Other Passages
In Ephesians 5:21-33 the husband is to be head of his wife in exactly the same manner as Christ is head of the church. We do not doubt that the church is subordinate to her Head.
In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul teaches that the women may pray and even prophesy in church provided that she demonstrates respect for the ordered relationship between husband and wife. He justifies this by appeal to Genesis 2 and to the practice of the churches. He does not base his teaching on social and cultural conditions.
Likewise in 1 Corinthians 14 we find Paul's notorious command that women keep silent in church. It seems he is excluding them from dialogue with the teachers or from the evaluation of prophecy in the church gathering.
He does not say that the women were less educated, or less able, or gossips, but rather appeals to Genesis to show that they should keep their comments and questions for their husbands in the privacy of the home.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 has provoked the most feminist wrath. It is the one passage where Paul expressly considers the issue of women becoming teachers in church and forbids it.
Again, Paul's prohibition relates to appropriate gender roles not competence, and it is once again based on the teaching of Genesis, not culture.
It is not surprising therefore that though there were prominent women in the early Christian movement we cannot find in Acts or the Epistles even one woman presbyter.
Conclusion
We can see that the apostolic prohibition of women in leadership roles in church does not imply inequality or inferiority in any way. Rather this teaching is grounded in God's revelation about human relationships.
The real issue then is not ordination, but leadership, and ultimately the authority of Scripture. Are gender distinctions relative or absolute; a product of culture or creation?
The challenge to the various sections of the Anglican Church is not to resort to entrenched positions or to unilateral action on a single issue. Rather we need to expose the whole of our church life and structures and our families to Biblical scrutiny.
We need a renewed ministry with men and women co-operating in God's service as Paul and his fellow workers did.
We cannot, however, expect God's blessing if we fudge on those Scriptural teachings that are unpalatable to our particular society.
Anthony H. Nichols
Bishop Tony Nichols is Bishop of the Diocese of North West Australia. This article was originally published in North West Australia's Diocesan newspaper and is used here by permission.
(Copyright A.H. Nichols and ACL News October 1992)