|
|---|
|
(David R.Stuart is the pseudonym of an Episcopal clergyman who has requested that he remain anonymous.)
I have been asked to write on the non-theological objections to ordaining women and it was only after considerable reflection that I agreed to do so. The importance of the subject is obvious, for the beloved church which nurtures us and which we attempt to serve is in danger, in real danger, and this should constitute a clear call for us all to think and pray that we may be concerned actively for the church's spiritual welfare. On the other hand, the topic is dangerous, for anyone who ventures to speak out against a popular movement is in personal danger, the danger of being misunderstood and misrepresented, of losing one's privacy and the humility that is more easily maintained in quiet service rather than public debate. However, the cause of defending truth is a claim which overrides personal reluctance, if not individual anonymity.
While I agreed to let another speak on the theological reasons against the ordination of women to the priesthood I would like to say a word or two on that matter because it has bearing on the rest of my contribution. I am one who believes there are weighty theological reasons against women's ordination, sufficient and complementary to the case that I shall argue, but I am aware that they are not convincing to everyone. Part of the reason, I submit, is because neither the Jewish tradition, the biblical church nor the church of the first nineteen centuries was remotely interested in such a venture! They never discussed it theologically because it would have been preposterous of them to do so. If they had, I have no doubt they would have condemned it clearly and unequivocally, and upon such judgment we today would dismiss it.
The reason the church did not consider it in times past (and this is important to know) is that.they knew in their bones that it would be wrong psychologically, sociologically, and spiritually. But in our era, aptly referred to as post-Christian, the church exists in a secular culture which inculcates in the unwary a variety of attitudes destructive to Christian tradition and human happiness. We are the product of an age of broken families, of disturbed children, of a very high rate of divorce, an age of drug abuse, of racial antagonism, and of abandoned moral values.
The scene is no better on the national level, we have not learned how to control our technological systems so we are in grave danger of destroying ourselves; we have not removed poverty from our land even though we are the richest country in the world. This is an age of war, violence and famine. Is it any wonder that our society can no longer be trusted to lead us in the paths of peace and fulfillment? Is it any wonder that men and women lose their faith for very fear that God has deserted his world? And yet it is this very contemporary secular public opinion which has brought the idea of the ordination of women to the church! Hence church people, who live, inevitably, in both the world and the church, are understandably confused.
In this chapter, I would like to examine those secular elements of our heritage and suggest how they have distorted our expectations of what the good life is and, in particular, what the good state of the church is. I am not one who decries the time as altogether evil. Far from it, through the magnificent efforts of brilliant researchers and the very hard labor of our forefathers many of us are the inheritors of a rich and comfortable way of life. But gratitude does not preclude criticism, and comfort is not the same as fulfillment. Nor am I against women's consciousness raising and women's liberation; there are many wrongs in our society which need to be righted and I support the movement in principle. But it would be a unique movement which did not engender excesses within it, did not provide that extra degree of swing to the pendulum which in due time will have to be corrected. Such an excess is represented by the intrusion of the movement into the province of priesthood and I believe it is to be resisted.
I will divide the topic into three areas, first the psychological, then the sociological, and, finally, the ecclesiastical. However, these areas overlap and you may find a particular subject straying over the boundaries of a discipline and back again. In taking up this task I am aware of the very many who share in silence my opinion; they may not share each one of my objections; they may wish to put greater emphasis on some points, or have better arguments than I to sustain them, but, together, we represent a considerable element of our denomination and, joined with our Orthodox and Roman Catholic brethren, we constitute the large majority of Christians. In this article I hope to convince some enthusiasts to withdraw their support for this radical change and others to hesitate sufficiently so that they may delay what promises otherwise to be a headlong dash to schism.
Psychological
The argument from psychology is a delicate one. It touches on human pride, on feelings of inferiority and superiority; it conjures up sexual images which are confusing and which cannot be dealt with on a rational level alone for they raise deep issues of who we are and what God intended us to be. If in heaven there is neither giving nor taking in marriage, on earth the sexual differences are of vital importance and God so created them for his good purposes. In the Old Testament, God is continually given the male gender and those pagan apostasies of worshiping female deities into which the Israelites occasionally strayed were uniformly condemned. It should also be noted that the Levitical priesthood was restricted to males.
In the New Testament, when God chose to reveal himself in our world he did so at the Kairos. The term Kairosis used by New Testament writers to signify that it was at the “right” time—not just any time—that Christ was born. In the first century the conditions were correct for a full revelation to take place: The Jews were ready, some to receive the Messiah, others to reject him; the Roman Empire was ready to transmit the Gospel through its channels of trade and communication; John the Baptist was ready; Mary was ready and so the Messiah was born and he was a man-child of the lineage of David. None of the elements in that story was accidental, all were required and the alternatives were not chosen. No woman could have performed the role of Messiah, it had to be a man. If it were possible for God to have incarnated a woman to be his agent of revelation he would have had to choose a different time and place, even a different people, and certainly it would have had a different psychological and spiritual impact. But this line of thought is sheer speculation, for the reality to which we must be faithful is that the mystery of incarnation was only revealed in the man Jesus of Nazareth.
Now the role of a priest is partly to be the representative of mankind (used generically) to God. Christ himself chose men to be apostles, the early church ordained men to be priests and consecrated men to be bishops. For generations the worshiper has heard the sounds of a male voice reading the prayers of consecration, for centuries the priest-confessor has been a man. Men were and continue to be the leaders, the initiators, the heads of households familial and ecclesiastical and it would be psychologically confusing as well as historically disruptive to substitute women for that office. The long history of the Holy Catholic Church has been that of a male priesthood—this tradition is not hastily or lightly to be broken.
Reflect for a moment, putting aside those canons of good taste which normally and rightfully govern our thoughts regarding worship, how would you react to the appearance of a pregnant woman in the pulpit? Giving absolution? How would you, the reader—male or female—react to the sight of a beautiful long-haired woman celebrating the Eucharist? Attractive, yes, but also distracting. And I do not believe that the reverse is true, that a handsome male priest produces sexual distractions in the minds of women, for the dynamics of sexual attractiveness work differently for each sex. A handsome young male priest might well elicit feelings of admiration and even love in some women, but it would seldom be inclusive of the sexual phantasies which, for physiological and psychological reasons, occur in a man placed in a similar position vis-à-vis a woman.
Again on a matter which has both psychological and theological implications, a priest is not only the liturgical representative of mankind before God as was Adam in biblical mythology, the priest is also the liturgical representative of God to mankind in declaring God's absolution. To change the sex of the priest alters the image of God, and that has to be done for greater reasons than a contemporary movement for raising women's consciousness! The priesthood is a symbol of transcendental significance and therefore cannot be changed for worldly reasons whose validity have not been adequately tested in other areas of life and whose effect would be severely to confuse the faith of the faithful. Ministry for women in many different forms, yes; but priesthood is a different function and tradition and psychology argue no.
Sociological
I have already overlapped in the last section with the field of sociology, however, what I will have now to say is primarily sociological and cultural, although the reader may also detect psychological and theological overtones.
The crucial question of role differentiation which is central in all cultures is essentially a product of physiological distinctions. In nearly all primitive cultures the male was the hunter, the woman the housekeeper. Both of them worked, indeed when one adds raising crops to the duties of women as occurred in some societies, women sometimes worked harder than their husbands who spent their time in discussion of government and the preparation and practice of religious rituals. The differentiation, however apportioned, was always there and it served deep psychic and societal purposes. It also served some very practical physical needs, for the women were the child bearers, and that social function which is of primary importance, not only gave them great status within their society, but also necessitated, because of its accompanying bodily inconveniences and occasional restrictions, a division and a sharing of tribal tasks not required of males.
Today we are a long way from primitive society, but we are still, unless some highly dangerous biological tricks are perfected and foolishly adopted, in a situation where for nine months of each pregnancy the woman carries and nurtures one or more babies. And while definitive scientific studies have yet to be made, it is a likely hypothesis that it is the mother who is normally the best person to remain in that close personal proximity to an infant that will ensure its healthiest upbringing, until as a child it gains satisfaction from participating m group behavior. These responsibilities require considerable time away from other duties, and society, far from denying them, affords and encourages their appropriation. Do we really want to impose on married women the onerous, around-the-clock and around-the-year demends of a parish priest? I would argue that such a role is in conflict with the best interests of motherhood, probably with that of the baby, and often with that of the congregation.
The unique glory of a woman is that she is capable of conceiving, gestating, and giving birth to another human being. It is almost divine in its creative analogies and, while the man's sexual role is important, it is not so complex and rich in its significance. There is plenty in her function of potential motherhood to guarantee a status of equality with man, perhaps even superiority. But the right to equal status is not the same as the right to similar roles and it is a sign of a sick society, if not a sick individual, that tries to achieve it.
There are some women who argue that all they want is the right to be ordained, even if they do not, themselves, wish to appropriate that right. I suggest this reveals a deep insecurity and feelings of inferiority which certainly deserve sensitive and careful attention. If this is a problem then let us all look for appropriate means of its healing, of making whole that which is deficient. However, it would be a deep irony if the sought-for cure of ordination brought, not healing to feelings of inferiority, but greater sickness! To gain such a right and to find it unfulfilling of the hope that occasioned it would be truly a tragedy. If the problem is psychological, political or social in origin then it must be treated on those levels—it could not be cured by ecclesiastical or theological changes, even if they had secondary social effects. The problem of the status of women is too deep and too important to think that it can be cured by a few Episcopal ordinations. We should recognize such a cure, however sincerely advocated, as quackery.
Ecclesiastical
If women were to be ordained priests in the Episcopal Church do you really believe that they would achieve any greater success than those who have been ordained as ministers in some of the Protestant denominations of our land? From my conversations with members of Methodist and Presbyterian denominations, including some who were themselves in favor of women ministers, the experience of ordained women has been a disappointing one. Able, well educated, and prayerful women have received seminary training, have been ordained and then have been unable to find anything but the least responsible work to do. Even after many years of experience, women ministers have not been able to gain positions of leadership, pastorates of congregations of a size commensurate with their talents. It is an unhappy story and very likely to be repeated within the Episcopal Church if women are ordained among us. And it is interesting to note that it is not other ministers (who sometimes are accused of objecting to women being ordained because it would threaten their advancement), but rather the laypeople, both men and women, who do not feel comfortable, who for a variety of reasons simply do not want women as their chief ministers. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us something through the experience of our fellow Christains....
Of course, many women say they have been “called” to the priesthood and believe it is their God-given vocation. I do not doubt their personal talents nor their sincerity. However, unlike some denominations which permit any person “called” to be in effect self-ordained and to exercise his or her ministry according to individual whim, the Episcopal Church is part of the greater Catholic tradition which has always tested a “call” against the spirit-led wisdom of the larger church. There are many men who are both able and sincere and yet have not passed the necessary academic and psychological tests, have not gained Episcopal recognition of their call and hence have been refused ordination. Ordination to the priesthood in the Catholic Church is not and never has been a right, rather it has been a summons both by God and by his body on earth, the church. If we were to stray from Catholic and Orthodox tradition in such a central matter as the priesthood, some believe we will have lost the Apostolic validity of the orders we presently have, that the priesthood now given us will be cheapened, and all recognise it will greatly dim the hope of important ecumenical cooperation and progress.
Finally, a plea for delay and a time for sober reflection and prayer. To those who, at this time, think women should be ordained—festina lente—there are grounds for hastening slowly. The action of the ordaining of two women in the Anglican province of Hong Kong was an isolated event in a missionary area beset with severe manpower problems. The most recent change promulgated by the Anglican Church in Canada has yet to be tested sufficiently and is subject to all of the criticisms in this paper. Episcopalians need to proceed from this point, in whatever direction we move, in a disciplined and united manner. That takes time, more time than has been available to us to evaluate this issue in a manner it requires.
The argument that we must move quickly to ordain women cannot be wise. Think for a moment how many errors of judgment the various churches have made when hotheads forced premature judgment: our Roman Catholic brethren on the issue of papal infallibility and our Protestant brethren in forgoing Episcopacy, to name but two. Within less than a century the Anglican Church has had to reverse itself on birth control—in 1908 Lambeth Conference condemned it, in 1958 Lambeth Conference in effect declared it was a sin for some people not to practice it! Festina lente—let us hasten slowly.
The manner in which the campaign for women's ordination has been conducted hardly inspires confidence in its religious merits. If we are to judge a movement by its fruits, it has brought disorder, disobedience and divisiveness. The conflict between bishops and bishops, between bishops and clergy, between clergy and clergy, between clergy and laity and amongst laity themselves, between man and woman, between parent and child, what confusions and bitterness has come upon us! Charges, trials, illegal celebrations, angry recriminations—is this chaos to be understood as God the Holy Spirit working his good will among us?
The analogy to the civil rights movement sometimes is made to justify current disobedience to canon law and the administration of our church. This is nonsense—many blacks have said so themselves. For the recent suffering of a handful of women postulants, severe though I know it to be, is nothing compared to the centuries of slavery and oppression which has been and still is visited upon millions of blacks. Civil disobedience to laws of segregation is one thing, a dispute regarding the meaning of the Episcopal Church's canon law is another.
There are deep mysteries in Christianity and feelings are as important as rationality when we seek to probe mysteries. Many of us feel a positive move for ordination at this time would be wrong. Do not dismiss us, have respect for our prayerful petitions—festina lente. There is heartfelt confusion and doubt among us—let us not be tempted to move to a position where schism becomes for many an option and for some a necessity. Rather respecting our honest differences and the historical, theological, ecumenical, psychological and social complexity of this matter, let us now say “no” to women's ordinations.
|
|
|---|
Please, credit this document
as published by www.ministryforwomen.org!
