The teachings of Jesus commenced during the second decade of the first century CE. After his baptism at the hands of John the Baptist, he began proclaiming the Kingdom of God to the people in the small lakeside towns of Galilee in northern Palestine. The Gospel writers tell us that Jesus chose twelve of his disciples to form an inner circle, known as the Apostles, who figure largely in the discussions of Christian ministry. The validity of Christian priesthood has depended on what has been received from what is known as the ‘apostolic succession,’ hence, since the ‘Twelve’ were all male, only males could become ordained. Priests are supposed to have received their powers in an unbroken tradition that can be traced back to the Twelve and to the ministers they ordained to succeed them. As neither Jesus nor the Twelve chose to ordain women, it has been claimed that they would not want to break this tradition for the Church could no longer be regarded as apostolic. However, according to Karen Armstrong, “the word ‘apostle’ did not have the hallowed significance it has acquired since (the first century).” She argues that the noun apostolos (one sent out) was not commonly written in Greek. Originally used as an adjective, it had a neutral meaning of ‘dispatched’ and then came to mean the person was dispatched. This is the word most commonly found in the New Testament but acquired particular importance when concerning a person who had been sent out by Jesus to preach the good news of the Kingdom. There are accounts of the commissioning of the Twelve in the three Synoptic Gospels; however, Luke acknowledges seventy-two other disciples and sent them out as apostoloi (messengers representing him). “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Here, Luke uses the same formula with which Matthew makes for describing Jesus dispatching the Twelve, emphasising the significance of the other apostles. Therefore, the term ‘apostle’ cannot be confined to the Twelve. They were the leaders of the primitive Church, but since the chief qualification of apostleship was to have been directly commissioned by the Lord himself, the office was not communicable to the next generation. It is not doubted that the Twelve were all men. However, is it true that women should not be ordained because Jesus only chose men? It has been argued that the twelve males were to symbolise the twelve sons of Jacob, the ancestors of the Jewish people. That symbolism would have been lost if there had been a woman included.
Throughout the centuries the Church has changed Jesus’ demands upon true discipleship to meet their changed circumstances. For example, celibacy was necessary; however, most Churches today do not make celibacy obligatory for ordained ministers. Therefore, why can’t women be ordained? Was the role of priests meant to be confined to men? Did Jesus intend for the Twelve to enter the priesthood? Or did Jesus intend to found a Church at all? These are moot points, for which there is no agreement by theologians.
In argumentation in favour of female ordination, the Gospels illustrate that the role of women is significant in the works of Jesus. It seems that there were women disciples of Jesus but they did not travel with him. Luke and John tell us of Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, who lived in the village of Bethany near Jerusalem. Luke’s account (10:38ff) is particularly interesting as it presents an unfamiliar view of the woman’s role from that which would later be current in Christianity. In Christianity and Judaism, women were forbidden to study, however, here, Jesus overturns traditional expectations, indicating that women should not be confined to the domestic sphere. The one thing necessary for men and women is faith and attention. The statement made in Luke 10:27,“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself…” applies to both men and women. Women are not required to be silent or kept in the background. In the Gospels they frequently voice their opinions and at times come nearer to the truth than men. All four Evangelists describe how the disciples proved to be woefully inadequate at times of crisis. At the resurrection the primal witnesses were women. John’s account tells of Mary Magdalene, his mother, and sister and other women present. They too were disciples who had the courage to stand by Jesus at the end. Without the women’s witness, the truth of the Gospel was in complete. Theses women were the only believers who actually saw what happened on Golotha on the first Good Friday; and they passed on what they had seen and heard to the men. Thus, women played an important part to the Christian kerygma. This contribution is vital since later Christian forbade women from preaching the gospel, formulating doctrine or contributing to the theology of Christianity.
The ministry of Paul acknowledges that women were not material figures. They were, rather, fully active in Paul’s Churches. He takes it for granted that women would pray and prophesise in the meetings of the ecclesia, as well as men. In the sixteenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, Paul sends greetings to thirty-six of his co-workers, of which eighteen were women. For example he refers to Julia, and Olympas as ‘saints’ (Romans 16:15) who were ‘outstanding apostles.’ Could this personal greeting to these women by Paul be used to illustrate their equal position to that of men? However, as with all New Testament literature this answer will almost certainly remain a mystery. In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 the question addressed is concerning the veiling of women when they pray or prophesise in the church and not the actual right of women to pray and prophesy (even though Paul was highly influenced by the Jewish idea of women’s subordination to the man and that too is expressed here). In Corinthian society, it was only the “loose” woman who was unveiled (Paul appears to regard long hair as nature’s veil). It was decorum, and consideration for the weaker brother who might be offended, that called for the covering of women’s heads when worshipping.
One of the most striking statements found in the Pauline corpus is on this issue in 14:35, “Women are to be silent in the assembly.” However, one could argue that this sentence was used to criticise men for thinking that the ‘word’ was intended solely for them, or was it? Paul followed Jesus’ belief that men and women alike should adhere to God’s laws; then, both could worship and discuss scripture and theology openly.
Luke, Paul’s companion, having highlighted the place of women among the followers of Jesus in his Gospel, further argues the equal position of women in the Church in Acts, in spite of the fact that his main concern is with the geographical spread of the Gospel. The women are mentioned among those who devoted themselves to prayer in Acts 1:14 and their place in a Pentecost experience is assured by the quotation from Joel 3:1-5 (Acts 2:17-21). In the incident that shocked and installed fear into the Church, Ananias and his wife Sapphira received equal treatment on the assumption that they are equally capable in the deceit, which they attempted (Acts 5:1-11). Men and women were committed to prison during Saul’s persecution of the Church (Acts 8:3) and women like Tabitha, Lydia, Priscilla and the four daughters of Philip (all prophetesses) feature strongly in the story.
In contrast, one could oppose female ordination by what is said in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to be kept silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” However, the reader has to ask whether Paul had changed his mind regarding the subject, or was this not his words. It is probably the latter since Paul had gone far to stress the universality of God, and therefore it would have been unlikely for him to have said this. It is evident that the author has reformulated and merged parts of the two letters to Corinth, to produce a categorical relegation of women to an inferior position. Eve was second in order of creation and yet first in order of sin. This is a typical attitude of a patriarchal institution.
What is at stake is much more than whether or not Jesus had women disciples. The question the Church has to ask itself is whether women and men are equally part of the body of Christ. Not everyone is called to become a priest; can everybody become a priest? Where then would the congregation be? People are called for a reason; therefore, why, can some fail to accept that women can also be ‘called.’ Does the Church expect women to play no role in its institution?
The argument could be put forward that since Christ was a man, then in order to represent Christ the priest must be a man. However, God was taking human form so that all human life might be transformed in Jesus Christ. Though Jesus was a man (he could not have been both man and woman) the humanity assumed by Him included both male and female ways of being a human.
It is apparent that there are little, if any, theological arguments against the ordination of women. In the time of Jesus, women participated equally in the religious life of the community. This included participation in synagogue services and regular study sessions that were conducted in the synagogue’s bet midrash (house of study). Although it may appear as a major break with tradition, the very introduction of the priesthood into Christianity was itself a significant split with the past. Like many other Jews of that time, Jesus and the first Christians did not ordain any of their number to the priesthood. The only priests they acknowledged were involved with the Temple cult, where the early Jerusalem Christians worshipped daily. The New Testament writers only speak of the priesthood of Jesus himself. Consequently, the denial by some of female ordination is quite peculiar. However, there is one factor that is confusing: Could it be argued that the ordination of women has come at a time when the Church is in a period of decline and there are fewer males interested in joining the ministry; or is it co-incidental? In other words, the introduction of female priest has been forced in order to preserve the faith. If not, then it could be a sign that the Church has once again begun a period of dramatic reform.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ariarajah, W ‘Did I Betray the Gospel- The letters of Paul and the Place of Women’ WCC Publications, 1996
Armstrong, K ‘The End of Silence- Women and Priesthood’ Fourth Estate Ltd, 1993
Byrne, L ‘Women before God’ SPCK, 1988
France, R ‘Women in the Church’s Ministry’ Didsbury Lectures, 1995
McAdoo, H ‘Anglicans and Tradition and the Ordination of Women’ Canterbury Press, 1997
Moore, P et al ‘Man, Woman and Priesthood’ SPCK, 1979
Radford-Reuther, R ‘Women-Church: Theology and Practice of Feminist Liturgical Communities’
Sacks, J sited in Peter Moore, ‘Man, Woman, Priesthood’ pp43-44
Radford-Reuther, R ‘Women-Church’ p154
Armstrong, K ‘The End of Silence’ p43