Why Godly Women Can Have A True Calling to the Ordained Ministry

This article on the ordination of women is offered as a contribution to the worldwide debate within the Anglican Communion on the rightness of this practice, given the fact that several provinces have been ordaining women, and others are considering it. It is complemented by another article presenting a different approach, written by Dr. Rodney Whitacre. While Trinity has ordained women on its board and faculty and among its alumni, and while many women have trained for ordination at Trinity, there remains a quiet, friendly debate among the faculty as to the biblical basis for the practice of ordaining women as presbyters. While most faculty are in favor, others are not, but given our mutual commitment to the work of training men and women for ministry, we do not fight over this issue and respect each other's right to hold contradictory opinions. We offer this article and that by Prof. Whitacre as contributions to the ongoing debate.

IF GOD calls women to the ordained ministry, they should, of course, be trained, equipped, ordained, and sent forth. A controversial question lurks behind this assertion, however: does God ever call women to such a ministry?

To this fundamental question, some answer an unequivocal no. They say no on one of two grounds. Either they believe that tradition dictates that only men can be ordained priests in the Church of God. This is the "traditionalist" view. Or they believe that Scripture forbids women to usurp leadership. They argue that leadership in general, including ordination, belongs to men. I will call this the "scriptural conservative" view.

The traditionalist view

A great heritage of Christian thinking undergirds the traditionalist view. It is on this ground that neither the Orthodox Churches nor the Roman Catholic Church permit women to be ordained. Historically, Anglicans have agreed with this position, and only recently — as recently as the 1960’s — have some branches of the Anglican Communion begun ordaining women to the priesthood.

Traditionalists argue as follows: In the Old Testament, only men were priests. Jesus chose only men as his Apostles. These Apostles then became the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament priesthood. They in turn ordained only men to follow them. It is likely that these early Christians believed that only a male could truly image Jesus Christ to the world, and hence a woman priest would have been a contradiction in terms.

In a traditionalist setting, women are permitted to exercise a variety of ministries within the Church, and may have leadership roles. But ordination — with its central role of presiding as chief celebrant at the Eucharist — is denied them. Precedent, tradition, and logical consistency imply that the ordained ministry of the Church should be reserved for those who, because of gender as well as calling, can walk in the steps of the Apostles.

Scriptural conservative view

Scriptural conservatives argue their objections to women’s ordination differently from traditionalists, but they come to much the same conclusion. Rather than arguing that the New Testament ministry is the heir in some senses of the Old Testament priesthood, they begin by recognizing a radical discontinuity between the two: The Old Testament priesthood is primarily a sacerdotal role in which the priest’s central duty is to carry out the sacrifices to God. The New Testament ministry is primarily a pastoral and teaching role. The scriptural conservatives also point out that Jesus called only men, sent out only men, and seemed to live comfortably within a social structure in which men had a distinct and divinely-given headship role.

Some scriptural conservatives find the explicit teachings of St. Paul on the role of women in the churches he founded more telling than Jesus’ implicit support for an all-male ministry. In several passages, Paul reinforced the primary leadership role of men. These passages (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:9-15; 1 Corinthians 14:33-40) indicate that the Apostle was troubled by the apparent encroachment of some women into key positions of authority over men, and wrote to curtail the trend. For some, this settles the matter. They argue that, just as certain trends within the churches threatened to undermine the leadership of godly men in the first century, so men today are undermined by aggressive and pushy women who have forgotten that theirs is to be a supportive role and not a headship one. Male headship is not only here to stay, they believe, but it is part of the order of creation (Genesis 2:18; 3;16).

Assessing the objections

These two perspectives, the traditionalist one and the scriptural conservative one, seem to settle the matter for a great number of sincere Christians. They believe with all their hearts that they are following our Lord and seeking to be faithful to his Word and will.

I have great respect for those who hold these positions, even though I disagree with them as I will go on to show. I also believe that there will always be those who object to the ordination of women, and their position will continue to be respected among faithful, orthodox Christians. Furthermore, I deplore any effort to force these believers to change their views. Recent actions by two General Conventions (1997, 2000) indicate that respect for their position has drastically eroded within the Episcopal Church. Gradual reception of women’s ordination is not to be permitted any longer. Instead some form of coercion appears to be the order of the day.

Despite the strong recommendation of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, which — significantly — was backed by several women bishops, that no member Province of the Anglican Communion force women clergy on dioceses that are opposed to them, the Episcopal Church seems determined to act otherwise. This is an ill-advised, and deeply regrettable strategy.

That aside, I believe that the ordination of women is not only compatible with Scripture, but actually called for, once the true development of scriptural thought is grasped.

Of course, "development" is the key to my argument. I must begin by saying right here that an attempt to ground the ordination of women on specific biblical texts cannot be supported. Instead, I would argue that it is consistent with the development of the roles and ministries of women found in Scripture.

Development is a key concept in Scripture. Even the most conservative of biblical interpreters accepts the idea of progressive revelation as scriptural. By the same token, I would argue that the whole idea of an ordained ministry as we know it, while it is present in embryonic form in the New Testament, is an extension of biblical patterns rather than something firmly fixed in Scripture itself.

Early patterns of ministry

In New Testament days, the Apostles appointed leaders in various locations to ensure the proper oversight of young believers. Some of these were deacons, people who took care of the practical needs of the believing community, while others were presbyters or bishops (episcopoi) people given general oversight of local congregations.

There is no evidence that the deacons we find in the New Testament were what we now call "transitional deacons," that is, people who are ordained for a short testing period, and then advanced to the priesthood. Nor is there any clear evidence that the bishops were meant to be "pastors to the pastors," people given authority over the ministries in an entire region. As far as we can tell bishops were "primus inter pares," that is, first among equals. They were local pastors who were honored for their seniority, wisdom, and leadership gifts. They may have looked after other congregations in their areas, but we cannot be absolutely sure of this from New Testament evidence alone.

As for a ministry order called "priests," we hear absolutely nothing about it in the New Testament. The only uses of the word for priest refer either to Jesus Christ himself, whose offering of himself is "hapax," ( a Greek word meaning once for all, and therefore unrepeatable (Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:12), or to the whole people of God, who are now a "nation of priests" offering sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. (1 Peter 2:9)

Most Anglicans are quick to point out that the New Testament word "presbyter," (elder) entered the English language in the altered form of "priest." Hence our Anglican understanding of priesthood does not hinge so much on the Old Testament idea of a priest who offers sacrifices to the Lord, as on the New Testament idea of an elder who presides at the Lord’s Table in place of Christ. The Anglican priest stands before the people as a representative of the Lord and before God as a representative of the people. But this sort of thinking, however sincerely held, is a development from patterns of ministry that are implicit in Scripture. It cannot be said to be derived from a direct statement in the scriptural text itself. What we do know about New Testament presbyters is that they were primarily leaders, people gifted by the Holy Spirit with charisms of teaching, preaching, guiding congregations, and the maintenance of good order and sound faith.

Development is part of virtually every doctrine of the ministry, just as it is part of our gradual understanding of God as Scripture unfolds. What developments do we observe in the place and role of women throughout the course of salvation history?

Women in the Old Testament

From Genesis we learn that women were created alongside of man — as one commentator pointed out, "not out of man’s head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be ruled by him, but from his side, to stand alongside of him as a partner and helper in the task of exercising dominion over creation." Women bore the image of God equally with men (Genesis 1:27) and are seen as "very good" (Genesis 1:31).

From the Fall onward (Genesis 3), we see a new relationship between men and women emerge. Deception enters in; both man and woman participate in that deception, which is coupled with a yearning for dominance and leads to shame and fear. In the end, both man and woman are banished by the Lord from the Garden, and the relationship between them is altered. "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Genesis 3:16).

Throughout the Old Testament, we see this distortion in male-female relations played out. Men gain the upper hand in the Old Testament, but women are not portrayed as mere victims. In return for personal advantage, they are often complicit in a culture that relegates them to second class status. Rebekah’s duplicitous role in securing the blessing for Jacob is followed by Rachel’s deception of her father Laban, then Zipporah’s strange rejection of the leadership of her husband, Moses. They are followed by a succession of legendary femmes fatale such as Jezebel, Delilah, and Athaliah. The faithless Gomer (Hosea’s wife) and the unsympathetic wife of long-suffering Job seem to perpetuate an image of women as morally unreliable.

But that is not the whole story. Some Old Testament women demonstrate unique gifts of godliness and leadership: Deborah who leads the armies of Israel to victory, Abigail, Hannah, Esther, Ruth, and the redoubtable woman of Proverbs 31, and even Rahab all stand out as playing a key role in the unfolding of salvation history. In several cases, they do things that the culture expected only men to do.

Women in the New Testament

In the ministry of Jesus, we see something new unfold. Women are drawn into the inner circle of the Apostles and given responsible roles, unusual for women of the day. Some play a traditional role, traveling with Jesus and his band and taking care of their physical needs. Others, like Mary Magdalene and Mary and Martha of Bethany achieve a larger significance in the meaning of the story. Several women, including Mary Magdalene and (presumably) Mary of Bethany, are commissioned as the first witnesses of the resurrection (Matthew 28:1ff). Significantly, these women are not female relatives of Jesus, but his friends. Jesus also treats the notorious Woman at the Well in Samaria with dignity, indicating that he is prepared to transgress social barriers and speak with women as freely as he does with men.

By the time the young Church emerges on the scene, women are given even more significant roles. The Holy Spirit is bestowed on both men and women, regardless of age, rank, or social position (Acts 2:17, 41). A woman is also the first convert in Europe (Acts 16:14). Leading women become key to the spread of the Gospel in Greek society (Acts 17:4,12). Priscilla and her husband Aquila (and by the way, Priscilla is almost always mentioned in Scripture before him) are given the responsibility by the Spirit for instructing the eloquent but uninspired Apollos in "the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18:26).

In his epistles, Paul mentions a number of women who exercise some sort of leadership in the infant Church. Phoebe (Romans16:1); Mary (Romans 16:6); Priscilla (often called by the diminutive and familiar "Prisca," and mentioned several times); Euodia and Syntyche (who, although temporarily out of sorts with each other, are nevertheless described as "fellow laborers in the Gospel" with Paul (Phil. 4:2); Nympha, who has a church "in her house" (Colossians 4:15); and perhaps most significantly, Junia, who is said to be "of note" among the apostles (Romans 16:7).

The name "Junia" which is feminine, has often been rendered as "Junius" (see, for example, KJV, RSV). This change makes the name masculine, and translators have then proceeded to add the word "men" to the Greek text. But this alteration is widely believed to have been introduced by later editors who had difficulty believing that a woman could have been included in the larger group of apostles. Hers was clearly an honored position of leadership among the first generation of Christian ministers. Some scholars have linked Junia with Priscilla and Aquilla, and have argued that her ministry was of the same nature as theirs. However, they are never mentioned in the same breath as "apostles" the way Junia is.

I should mention that Paul uses the word "apostles" in at least two senses. He uses it to refer to the Twelve, a group in which he includes himself, as one "born out of due time" (1 Corinthians 15:8). He also uses the word "apostles" to refer to a wider group of missionaries, whom he sometimes calls "apostles of the churches" (2 Corinthians 8:23). It was in this latter group that he almost certainly included Junia and Andronicus (Romans 16:7).

The "elect lady" in 2 John 1 is sometimes cited as an example of a woman who held a leadership role in the early Church. Unfortunately, we do not really know who or what the "elect lady" of 2 John 1 is. Is she a woman who hosted a church in her house? Or is she an allegorical name that John gives to the Church as a whole? If she was a real person, then we would have evidence that, at least in the absence of men, women were given responsibility for whole congregations.

Finally, there appears to have been a group of people in the early Church that exercised the office, or at least the ministry, of prophets (Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:28). Women are included in this group, functioning as both true — and false — prophets (Acts 21:9; Revelation 2:20).

Assessing the development to date

At this point we should pause to marvel at the development of the place and role of women. From near obscurity in large parts of the Old Testament, they have risen to prominence in the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles, far beyond what might be expected, given the culture of the day. They are equipped with the Holy Spirit, sent on missions, at the center of congregational life, called to instruct unenlightened preachers, given prophetic messages, and commissioned to be primary witnesses to the resurrection (Matthew 28:7).

What is, perhaps even more significant, is that women are addressed as people who bear full responsibility for their own spiritual lives, alongside of men. Far from simply being a subset of the male community, they are called to personal holiness of life even when their husbands do not demonstrate genuine faith or the fruit of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 7:13ff; Ephesians 5:22; 1 Peter 3:1ff). In several situations, wives are mentioned before their husbands, which suggests that their spirituality and involvement in the Church was more evident than that of their husbands.

At this point, the reader might well ask, "Yes, women were important, even vital, to the young Church. But what does that tell us about whether women can be part of the ordained ministry today?" My response is that we must look at the pattern of development. Just as the ordained ministry is a development from biblical patterns, so the role of women is a developing pattern within the scriptural revelation. I will return to this theme in a moment. First, I must confront a more serious issue.

The New Testament prohibitions

What are we to make of the prohibitions of women’s leadership roles within the several churches to which the Epistles are addressed? To opponents of women’s ordination, these passages are pivotal, and they must be considered carefully by all sides in this debate.

However, the key question is, are these strictures rules for all time or they governing principles for churches that functioned in first century Roman and Jewish culture, where women’s roles were severely restricted? Even people who oppose women’s ordination are not always consistent about this. They do not make much of Paul’s instruction that women are not to be seen in church with their heads uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:6). Most churches do not make any attempt to enforce this rule today, even though Paul clearly considered bare-headed women to be scandalous. Why the discrepancy? Is it because our culture today no longer considers head coverings an issue?

The Apostle Paul sometimes had to accommodate the culture of his day in more serious issues. For example, many fault him for not denouncing the first century practice of slavery. But if had openly attacked slavery, he would have brought the infant Church into direct conflict with the entire social order of his time. The Church’s survival was already threatened by Jewish opposition and, much more seriously, by the Roman emperor’s divine pretensions. Paul seems to have chosen to undermine slavery by treating all men and women, whether slave or free, as potential brothers and sisters in Christ.

Can a "developmental" argument also be used for homosexual practices?

If times have so radically changed, and if there is development in the place and role of women, and in the idea of slavery, mutatis mutandis, should not active homosexuals be given full rights and honor within the body of Christ? This line of reasoning ignores the fact that homosexual behavior is universally condemned throughout Scripture. Even those most adept at "reinterpreting" biblical texts have failed to establish development in the Bible’s view of it.

Are women permitted a leadership role in churches?

Paul says that he does not permit women to have authority over men or to speak in church (1 Timothy 2:9-15), and he reminds his readers of the traditional view that women are more susceptible to deception. But what Paul "permits" and what Paul "preaches" may be two different things. It is conceivable that Paul intends his words to be taken absolutely. But few would say so. If he was serious, many of the women whom he credits with helping him and other pioneers in the early Church would have been forced to be silent and inactive. In order for women’s total silence to be secured today, we would have to eliminate women Sunday School teachers, women missionaries, women Bible teachers, and women who give testimony in church.

Surely, Paul was dealing with a situation where some women have "taken over," advanced themselves, and undermined the men in the congregation. Paul’s policy on women in leadership should be taken in the same way as his policy that women should not adorn themselves extravagantly and immodestly. It hints that some women have sensed an opportunity to take unwarranted, and perhaps ungodly, liberties in the name of "Christian freedom." In the context of first century Jewish and Roman society, a female takeover would have been scandalous and would have hinted at social disorder, giving persecutors the upper hand in persuading authorities to suppress the cult.

Paul’s teaching in the Pastoral Epistles that deacons and presbyters (or episcopoi, bishops) should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2,12; Titus 1:5) is cited as implying an exclusively male ministry. But this passage more likely implies that no unmarried (or polygamous) men should be advanced to leadership within the Church. Or it could mean that divorced (and remarried) men should not be raised up as leaders to the flock. Which of these possibilities is the correct one remains open to debate, but Paul’s concern here is not about women’s roles. Rather, his (strikingly contemporary) concern is to hold up as leaders men whose sexual moral standards reflect well on the Church.

Is male headship the Scriptural mandate?

What, then, of the concept of male headship? Some have argued that this idea is grounded in the creation itself, and is not a result of the Fall. While the connection between headship and authority has been challenged by several writers who see headship more associated with responsibility than rulership, the fact remains that man was created before woman (rather than the two simultaneously) and woman’s role is that of a "helper." But does this fact really mean that God’s intention is that no woman should ever exercise leadership over men?

Clearly, the story of redemption does not bear this argument up, any more than do Scripture, tradition or reason. Why do we have the stories of Deborah, Abigail, Priscilla, and Esther in Scripture? Each of these women exercised leadership over men in a particular context that advanced salvation history. Moreover, the history of the Christian Church is filled with the stories of godly women who have exercised leadership in a wide variety of spheres from Joan of Arc to Florence Nightingale to Mother Theresa to Cicely Saunders, the founder of the Hospice Movement. All four of these women had to exercise leadership to forge paths where men had not gone and did not want to go, and they found themselves in conflict with men who tried to hinder their ministry. What if they had submitted to those men?

The creation stories clearly indicate that women as well as men are to "have dominion" (Genesis 1:26) over the created order. Both women and men are held accountable for their moral choices, and are judged jointly for their transgression. Again, woman is not a subset of man, but is a fully responsible moral creature with a relationship with God.

Hierarchy and dominion

I find arguments against the ordination of women based on hierarchy particularly unappealing. Some have argued that since hierarchy is rooted in the Trinity (which it is), it should be expressed in human terms in the submission of woman to man (a concept I find more questionable). The fact that Adam "names" Eve "woman" does express authority (perhaps in the sense of priority); but the naming of animals and the exercising of dominion appear to be logically separable, for while Adam alone names the animals, Adam and Eve together "exercise dominion." My problem with applying the hierarchy that exists within the Trinity (wherein Son and Spirit submit to Father) to male/female relations is that it manifestly overlooks the fact that both men and women throughout Scripture are called to submit to God (James 4:7). Our submission to God’s hierarchy is expressed in a variety of ways, such as submission to ruling authorities, to elders, and to each other (1 Peter 2:13; 5:5, Ephesians 5:21). Within the marital relationship hierarchy is expressed through our common reverence for Christ.

We have seen, then, that the relationship between male and female within the Garden of Eden, that is from Creation itself, is one of mutuality, joint responsibility, shared dominion, and co-equal reflection of the image of God. True, Adam has priority over Eve; but it is not clear that priority includes dominance, authority, oversight, rulership, or ultimate responsibility. To ground the headship of the male over the female in the account in Genesis raises as many questions as it answers.

It is quite true that since the Fall the relations between male and female, at least within the bond of marriage, are dramatically altered. From that fateful moment onwards, woman is subject to man as a fact of life. This is not held up as a virtue, although it serves as a guideline for harmonious marriage (Ephesians 5:22 ff). History bears out the fact that women have, in general, been subject to men for a variety of reasons, of differing moral character. In any society, someone has to lead. Women who are responsible for children must spend large amounts of time and energy to do the job properly, while men can fulfill a large part of their responsibility simply by providing. A final reason is sheer physical strength. Most men are stronger than most women, and throughout history, strength has been significant in human affairs.

Order of creation

Almost all societies have reflected this "order of creation" — and here I use the term "creation" to refer to the period after the Fall. Roman society, as well as first century Jewish society, was based on an agrarian, domestic, hierarchical model. Within that model Jesus grew up, exercised his ministry, and sent forth his disciples to announce the arrival of the Kingdom.

Jesus did not directly challenge the order of creation, but he did not acquiesce in it either. His redefinition of the family (Matthew 12:48), his crossing of social barriers to include women in his inner circle (John 4:7-38), his unwillingness to let men speak for women (John 8:2-11), his commissioning of two women to be bearers of the resurrection message (Matthew 28:7), even his particular sensitivity to women’s health problems (Luke 13:10-17; Matthew. 8:14-17; Mark 5:25-34) all show a desire to draw women into hitherto largely male territory, and to think "outside the box" of Jewish patriarchy.

Although St. Paul is usually thought of as the Bible’s misogynist par excellence, his reputation obscures the many ways in which he, following his Master, reached out to women and included them as full partners in the cause of the gospel. I have already pointed out various texts that illustrate this. But one text remains, and for the argument of this paper, it is the key text.

Order of redemption

Galatians 3:28 depicts the believer’s release from the control of guardians. St. Paul argues that the Law was a guardian, restraining us from sin, until the time of the gospel had come. After the arrival of the gospel, inner constraint, as opposed to outer restraint, will lead us into the freedom that is ours in Christ. Our freedom bids us conform to the image of Christ, not because of threats of punishment but because of the prospect of enjoying the full promises of the new age.

In this context, St. Paul says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This must have been revolutionary in the world of the first century, and its implications are still unfolding two thousand years later.

St. Paul is talking about a new way of ordering of human relationships. It is an order governed not by external restraints or societal norms, but by the new freedom that is ours in the gospel. As distinct from the "order of creation," we might call this the "order of redemption."

As a pattern that governed all human relationships, the promise of Galatians 3:28 lay far in the future. Slavery continued, and while Christians were in the forefront of the move to eradicate it, centuries passed before Christian thinking came in line with biblical revelation. Moreover, the barrier between Jew and Gentile, even within the Body of Christ, is not totally healed, as we can see from the experience of messianic congregations of Jewish believers today. Jewish conversion is still seen largely in terms of assimilation, although that is far from what the Apostle Paul had in mind (Ephesians 2:14). And, thirdly, the relations of men and women, both within the Christian community and within Christian families, have a long way to go to catch up with Paul’s vision.

Promise and fulfillment

In Paul’s dramatic statement about equality, we are looking at an eschatological promise, that is, a promise of the end times. The day will come when full equality is realized because of the gracious work of Christ. In the kingdom, we can expect all male supremacy to have vanished — along with the institution of marriage itself (1 Corinthians 8:5,6; 15:27,28). But the present situation is different. We live, as theologians are fond of saying, between the already and the not yet. We already have a foretaste of the kingdom to come, but we are not yet able to see it fully realized, even within the Christian community.

However, we do receive hints of the coming kingdom. These are in the form of the "arrabon" (the Greek word for "foretaste," or "downpayment"), which is the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives and within the Church (2 Corinthians 1:21; see Ephesians 4:30). Other hints are the mighty works that God does in and through believers, beginning with the dramatic healings we see in the Gospels, in the early Church, and throughout the ages. Another hint is the measure of unity that is ours, as witnessed by the amazing oneness that characterizes the Church across cultures, races, languages, and social structures — especially when the Church permits the Gospel free reign, and lives in obedience to that gospel.

But — and this is my point — it is also seen in the breaking down of hostility between the sexes: "There is neither male nor female." This radical breakthrough is not fully ours, but it is the direction in which God’s kingly rule would have us move.

Our changing context

In our day, a number of societal breakthroughs have led to the emancipation of women from traditional roles. Contraception, technology, government aid to families, affluence, urbanization have all contributed to a new environment in which the Church can contemplate what it might mean for there to be "no male or female."

Many men work under women in the workforce: in education, in charitable organizations, in hospitals, in business, in government. Is this something to be lamented or celebrated? Does it lead to the breakdown of marriage and the family, or to its strengthening? Unquestionably, the growing awareness of women’s rights has put a strain on male-female relationships in every sphere. But it need not, if both men and women realize that these new breakthroughs, like all societal breakthroughs, offer both promise and challenge, and lead to new forms of sin as well as new opportunities for grace.

I am led, therefore, to think that our age, as no age before, has an opportunity to look afresh at the biblical promise that "there is neither male nor female." We are given a glimpse of what society might become, and one day — in the kingdom — will become. This is the order of redemption, and will only be ours as Christ’s kingly rule is incarnated in our human relationships. Sin will persist, and in many parts of the world the "order of creation" is the appropriate way to maintain stability. In those settings, the signs of a new order coming will be few and far between. But that should not stop Christians from being in the forefront of welcoming what God has promised.

God’s call to a Godly woman

Should godly women who sense a true call to the ordained ministry, and whose call has been tested by others in leadership and proven genuine, be ordained and sent forth to serve, to preach and to lead? Most certainly yes. Women, as well as men, bear the image of God, newly recreated in us through the atoning work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit. They too have been gifted by the Holy Spirit. They have received a call similar to the one men have received through the ages. Women have already done everything on the mission field that men have done, and now that the West has become a new mission field, have gifts needed in our secular society.

Will a woman’s presidency at the Lord’s Table undermine the male role within the family? Not unless it is exercised in a way that emasculates men and reestablishes the age-old tension between the sexes. Will a woman’s leadership of a congregation cause men to withdraw and to vanish? Not if that leadership bears the true marks of grace and manifests the fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Will children grow up incapable of imagining God as Father, because the person at the Lord’s Table is a woman? Not if the father’s role in the home is exemplary, and if the woman pastor herself is manifestly submitted to her heavenly Father. Will a woman bishop wreck havoc within the diocese, undermining men’s roles and inhibiting the development of healthy men’s ministries? No, for all the same reasons that apply above.

Let me close with a final word: Scripture, it seems, points to the coming of a new age in which the traditional roles of men and women are altered, and in which — under the headship of Jesus Christ — a new order is to be realized. This new order cannot be established by following the world’s agenda, nor by advancing women into leadership roles in the Church just because they are women. God is not governed by our views of affirmative action. But there are godly women who have a genuine call, who are truly submitted to our Lord, who have abundant gifts, and who sense a call within themselves. It would be a shame to withhold from them the anointing that comes when the Church sets a person apart for the full range of ministry: pastoral, teaching, evangelistic and sacramental. It would be an especial shame to do so on the basis of an order that for centuries has served society fairly well, but has outlived its day. And, finally, it would be a shame to do so in the light of the reality that will one day be ours.

The Very Rev. Dr. Peter Moore is Dean and President Emeritus of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. He is the author of the award-winning Disarming the Secular Gods (IVP), One Lord, One Faith (Nelson), and A Church to Believe In (Latimer), and most recently the editor of Can a Bishop Be Wrong?: Ten Scholars Challenge John Shelby Spong (Morehouse, 1998).