Should women be pastors? A VFR discussion.

Rick Darby of the Reflecting Light blog writes:

I’m not sure what inference to draw from your June 21 posting, “Can Women Be Pastors?” You are uncharacteristically noncommittal about your own reaction to Bill Keller’s pronouncement, and I won’t assume you are endorsing it.

Anyway, I’d like to give you my response, and feel free to quote me. This Mr. Keller or Reverend Keller, “the next big thing in mass media religion,” as he says the press has crowned him, is the sort who gives narrow-minded, fundamentalist, Bible-pounding nutters a bad name.

So “God gave us His inspired, inerrant Word which represents Absolute Truth and is our FINAL AUTHORITY IN ALL MATTERS”? Gee, I guess there’s no disputing that, unless you are such a hard case that you suspect that we humans have a notable tendency to be fallible, and perhaps do not always know what God wants us to do—assuming, of course, that God expects us to consult a rulebook for every aspect of our lives rather than try to work things out for ourselves in the light of such spiritual wisdom as we acquire through our own efforts.

As for Timothy and the other apostles whose word Mr. Keller quotes as offering further unarguable proof, it is conceivable—I’m sorry to shock the good reverend—that these early Christian preachers were also fallible and partook of some of the prejudices of their time and place.

I’m glad to see, though, that Mr. Keller’s closed circuit mind doesn’t discriminate, since he knows for a fact that a divorced man is unfit to lead a congregation as well. Being a servant of the Lord who knows right from wrong, he would surely turn down a woman or divorced man who wanted to “REACH THE NATION WITH YOUR PRODUCT OR SERVICE FOR AS LITTLE AS $5,000 A WEEK WITH ONLY A ONE WEEK MINIMUM ON THE LIVEPRAYER TV PROGRAM!”

Since Bill Keller’s site does not keep an archive of past sermons, here is the complete text of the sermon, after which I will give my own comments:

Is it OK for women to be pastors, deacons, and elders? With the recent election of Katharine Jefferts Schori to lead the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the issue of women being pastors and in positions of church leadership is once again being debated. I am always amazed when issues like this come up and the one and only authority we have is rarely mentioned. God gave us His inspired, inerrant Word which represents Absolute Truth and is our FINAL AUTHORITY IN ALL MATTERS! So in answering the question, is it OK for women to be pastors, deacons, and elders, let’s see what God says.

The answer is without question NO. A woman is NOT supposed to be a pastor, a deacon, or an elder in the church. I have heard all of the tortured arguments to justify those who are, but the Word of God not only speaks directly to this issue, it is crystal clear on this issue. In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, Chapter 2 Verse 12 states that a woman is not to hold a position of authority in the church, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

To further support the Biblical case for women not being pastors, deacons, or elders, you have the qualifications for those who lead the church in 1 Timothy Chapter 3 as well as in Titus Chapter 1. In these passages that define the qualifications for those who lead the church, the Bible clearly states over and over “the husband of one wife.” It does not say “the wife of one husband!” Breaking down this exact description of who God has called to be in leadership positions in the church, it not only disqualifies a woman but it also disqualifies a divorced man! Again, I have heard all of the tortured “Biblical spin” to justify a divorced man being a pastor, a deacon, or an elder, but a close study of these passages clearly and without doubt disqualifies a divorced man from being in a position of church leadership just like it disqualifies a woman.

In the culture of the day when Paul wrote to Timothy, women, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were treated as little more than property. The Biblically illiterate claim Paul hated women and was a male chauvinist, however, a further study and understanding of what God wrote through Paul proves just the opposite. Paul was a modern-day champion of women’s rights. He taught that God created women equal with men, an unheard of concept in that day, however they simply had different roles to play. That is the clear teaching of the whole counsel of God. Men and women are 100% equal, however God has given each very different and clearly defined roles to play.

This actually brings to light an issue I have spoken of in the past and is a huge part of the reason we see churches turning to women to take on leadership roles God never intended them to have. We have gotten so far from Biblical Truth in our society today, we have become so Biblically illiterate, that men and women are no longer taught what roles God has called them to play in marriage, in raising the family, in society, and in the church. A huge problem is the fact men have failed to be the leaders God has called them to be and in their failure, they have left a leadership void women have stepped in and tried to fill. Men are as much to blame for failing to lead as women are in trying to perform roles God never intended for them to have.

So does this mean a woman is not supposed to serve God? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! A woman is COMMANDED to serve the Lord just like a man is. Even though a woman is not qualified to be a pastor, deacon, or elder, she can hold any other office in the church. She can be a teacher, an evangelist, a missionary, lead worship, she can serve God in many different ways. Again, the key to this issue is not to keep women from serving God, it is about women serving God in the roles He has called them to fill.

This is also true for divorced men. Even though they are disqualified from being a pastor, deacon, or elder, they are commanded to serve God and able to serve the Lord in any other capacity. On a personal note, as a divorced man, I will never be qualified to pastor a church. This is a consequence for my sin in this area earlier in my life. However, as an evangelist God still uses my life every day to bring His Truth and hope to the lost and hurting in this world. The leadership positions in the church are reserved for those who God has called forth and are qualified to hold them as defined in His Word.

I love you and care about you so much. I realize that due to the poor and often misleading teaching on this topic, there are many who will be very upset today. I find it interesting that all of the churches we read about today supporting gross sins like homosexuality and abortion, started out years ago violating God’s Word by ordaining women pastors, deacons, and elders. EVERY SINGLE ONE! You see, once you decide to go against the authority of God’s Word on one issue, it makes it easy to go against the authority of God’s Word on other issues. It is like sin in our personal life. Once we open the door to sin in one area of our life, pretty soon we open the door to sin in other areas.

I pray that this message today will not discourage but encourage women to serve. After all, God has commended ALL of His children to serve Him. We simply need to be aware of what areas of service we are not qualified to serve in and put our time and energy into the areas we are qualified to serve in. This issue is as much about being obedient and following God’s Word as it is anything else. Never forget that God’s Word says to obey is better than sacrifice. God blesses our obedience to Him and His Word.

If you are currently attending a church with a woman or divorced man as pastor, deacon, or elder, I can’t tell you what do to. However, you should seriously pray if that is where God wants you to be. I can guarantee you that if your church is ignoring God’s Word in this area, they are ignoring God’s Word in other areas. I am well aware that there are women and divorced men pastors, deacons, and elders who do tremendous things for the Lord, but that doesn’t justify their rebellion to God by serving in a capacity God’s Word says they are not qualified to serve in. That is something they will have to answer to God for since God’s Word is immutable, it never changes.

God created men and women 100% equal, however, each has their own unique and special roles God has called them to perform. There are some roles God has designated for a woman to perform, others He has designated for a man to perform. In the church, God has clearly called for the role of pastor, deacon, and elder to filled by men. Additionally, God gives very strict guidelines to the exact qualifications a man must have to fill these leadership positions. Like everything, God’s way works, man’s way doesn’t. Consequences are the result of rebelling against God and blessings the result of obeying God. May you enjoy His blessings as you obediently follow Him!

LA writes:

Rick Darby asked me what I thought about this. While I am not deeply versed in this issue, the general drift of what Keller is saying seems correct to me. Mr. Darby may not like the fact, but the New Testament is authoritative, and at least is deserving of a high degree of deference, and it says there shall be no women pastors. Catholics base the male priesthood on a different argument, namely that Jesus’ twelve apostles were all men. This to me is not the strongest argument, since it’s not based on any principle or teaching, but a historical happenstance. However, it is the firm doctrine of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II, in what I think was the only time in his papacy that he issued a statement based on the pope’s “infallible” authority, said that women cannot be priests. So, Mr. Darby may dismiss Keller as a “low-class” evangelical preacher. Is he going to do the same with the pope?

As I see it, there are two main bases for the prohibition on female pastors: biblical teaching, and nature/common sense. Nature and common sense tell us that the particular qualities needed in the priesthood cannot be exercised properly by a woman. This is obviously the case in any church with a traditional liturgy. There the priest during the Eucharist is a stand-in for Christ. He needs to embody the impersonal and transcendent aspect of Christ and God. A woman cannot do this. The moment you have women priests—and I’ve attended Episcopal churches with women priests conducting the mass—you have the physical particularities of a woman, her soft, lustrous hair (and what does a woman priest do with her hair?) drawing attention to the woman’s own physicality, that militate against the transcendent and impersonal aspect of the priest’s symbolic function. Women simply cannot carry out an impersonal, transcendent function the way a man can; the focus ends up on the woman, her emotionality, her physicality, rather than on the transcendent. A man’s being draws us to something beyond himself, to something larger than himself. A woman’s being draws us to herself, her personality. This doesn’t mean men are superior to women. But as Keller point out, it does mean than men and women naturally exercise different functions, since man and woman each embody a different aspect of truth. And by the way, it’s not just I or Keller who says this. Wherever women become priests, they start to move the religion in a more “personalist” direction, and they do this specifically on the basis of the immanent, female qualities that they boast they are bringing to the priesthood, relieving us of the “dry,” transcendent qualities of the male.

What I have said here is similar to the argument I make against non-discriminatory immigration. Culturally and racially diverse immigrants are allowed into our country on the assumption that they are basically like us and are assimilable. But as soon as they are here, it becomes evident that they are not like us. So then we have to do a 180 and instead of expecting the immigrants to assimilate to our culture, we are supposed to adjust to the immigrants’ culture. In the same way, women priestesses are favored on the basis that they are equally qualified to perform the job as men and that it’s narrow-minded and bigoted to suggest otherwise. But as soon as they becomes priests, they start to alter the nature and “culture” of the priesthood and the church in all kinds of ways, and they base this on their femaleness. The bait-and-switch from sameness to multiculturalism is a master paradigm of our age.

In a non-liturgical, “low” church, the problem of a woman’s lack of impersonal authority is less pronounced, but it is still a problem. And here the New Testament’s teaching comes to the rescue. Paul, who I daresay knows a good deal more about the matter than Mr. Darby, says in no uncertain terms that women shall not be pastors. This makes sense to me.

Mr. Darby professes to be offended by Keller’s appeal to the New Testament, and presumably he is offended by Catholic teaching as well. But since, as I seem to remember (though I could be mistaken), Mr. Darby he is not a Christian, why does it matter to him? And what standing does he have to be annoyed at Christian teaching on a matter of internal church government in any case?

Rick Darby replies:

What set me off about Bill Keller¹s pronouncement was less the conclusion—I¹ll get to that—but the authoritarian tone. Of course, Christians accept the Bible as the authority in spiritual matters, but the history of the Church and the variety of denominations show there is plenty of room for interpretation and even rejection of parts of the scripture that some believers think are peripheral to the central theological meaning.

You are correct that I don¹t consider myself a Christian, although there are many things about the Christian tradition that I appreciate, and I include the spiritual tradition, not just the secular, “do-good” side. But I cannot accept that there was one revelation at one point in time only, and that all mankind after that attains salvation through the recipient of that revelation. My view is that God reveals himself to some degree to each of us, and the more we ask for it, look for it, listen for it, intuit for it, the more of that revelation we will receive. That doesn¹t mean that individuals shouldn¹t look for God within a particular religious framework if it¹s helpful to them, only that the spiritual light ultimately has to be found within our own experience, not from a set of teachings.

The above is not meant to try to convince anyone to follow my path to truth, just as background for my comments about Keller and your discussion.

I don¹t know enough about Christian history and theology to say whether limiting the ministry and priesthood to men is solidly orthodox or not (although I¹d wager that there are at least some theologians who consider themselves good Christians who would dispute it). But assume that it is firmly based on scriptural sources. You still have to ask: is it an essential part of the Christian message, or is it a historical accident? Keller would say it¹s essential, because he believes that every word between the Bible¹s covers is essential, and as he says, “absolute truth.” But the Bible is a composite of writings from various sources, times, and places (scholars dispute the dates and authorship of practically every line) and to consider it a source of absolute truth in every particular goes against my epistemological principles.

Unlike Keller, you supplement the argument from authority with one based on “nature/common sense,” and I appreciate the thinking that has gone into your discussion. I believe I can paraphrase it by saying you believe a woman can¹t be a mediator between this world and the transcendent because it is the nature of a woman to be inherently of the world (for the purpose of acting as a priest or minister) because of her physical characteristics and emotional tendencies.

My impression is that the Catholic Church, at least, decided long ago that the priest¹s authority as a divine intermediary resides in his office, not in his person; thus, even if a priest has sinned, sacraments by that priest are still valid. That seems to me a wise principle, because it says the power is in the Holy Spirit, not the man as a conveyor. Then why should the same not apply to a woman? We can agree that some women should not be ordained because they have the wrong attitude about spiritually important matters, or for various other reason would not make good ministers (the same is true for male candidates), but I fail to see why that should apply as a generality.

The Christian tradition includes many revered women mystics whom even the Church acknowledges to have received a special grace from God: St. Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Theresa of Avila, and Julian of Norwich, to mention a few. From all accounts they were as spiritually oriented and unworldly as a person can get. Would such as these be unable to express “the transcendent and impersonal aspect of the priest’s symbolic function”? [LA answers: Yes. As Keller rightly said, the church welcomes women as teachers and in all kinds of other roles. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is the role of priest or pastor, which both biblically and by nature women are not suited for.]

Finally, as to my standing to comment on these matters, being only a Christian sympathizer rather than a proclaimed Christian: I recognize the right of any denomination to decide on its own rules, so long as they don¹t infringe on anyone else¹s freedom of belief, since those who disagree enough can walk away. Keller can organize his television ministry as he sees fit, but when you quote him in a public forum, I think I have a right to express my distaste for his ignorant and doctrinaire claims.

LA replies:

This is a watery, liberal argument: you don’t like “authoritatian” statements, and there are “lots of ways” to understand Christianity. So what’s new? Keller expressed his view with authoritarian certitude that he bases on the New Testament. His style of argumentation is not mine, but the substance of what he said seemed biblically based.

Your complaint comes down to a complaint about tone. Rest assured that I myself am not a “fundamentalist.” As I understand it, the Bible requires commentary and a tradition to apply it. But the tradition must still be based on the Bible. Yet from your perspective, that would still be “authoritarian.”

The real problem here, if you don’t mind my saying so, is that you are uncomfortable with Christianity itself.

Robert Locke writes:

I see a theological and practical problems with women priests:

1. If one takes the position that whenever Biblical revelation conflicts with worldly (here and now, liberal, but it has been otherwise) values, Biblical revelation must give way, one has ultimately taken the position that Christianity has nothing to offer that the world doesn’t. It is no accident that denominations that embrace this view wither.

2. Christianity is a teleological monotheism: God made the things in the world the way they are for good reasons. So if you declare that male-female differences are irrelevant, and that there are no naturally different roles for women and men, this is a direct assault on the idea that we live in a Divinely-ordered world.

3. Christianity, being a religion of self-sacrifice, love and compassion, centered on a promise of love from a Man, is naturally female-dominated—a fact reflected in the demographics of most congregations. In order to prevent it from being completely swallowed up by this dynamic, and ending up as either a witches’ coven or a sorority house for cat ladies, untrue to its full content and unable to speak to society as a whole, it needs masculinizing constraints, like the male priesthood. (Similar reasons require antihomosexualism.)

Jim Kalb replies:

Your thought No. 2 can be given additional point I think. The Incarnation and the Resurrection of the Flesh show that in Christianity the human body means quite a lot. The radical sexual egalitarianism that gives us feminism, women’s ordination and for that matter “gay marriage” says that sexual differentiation means nothing. The two POVs don’t go together.

I suppose I’d add that in a liturgical church the most important role of the priest is ritual and therefore symbolic and expressive. Among human beings a woman does not work symbolically the same way a man does. You just can’t substitute one for the other.

Ben quotes Rick Darby:

“As for Timothy and the other apostles whose word Mr. Keller quotes as offering further unarguable proof, it is conceivable—I’m sorry to shock the good reverend—that these early Christian preachers were also fallible and partook of some of the prejudices of their time and place”

Typical answer of the secular liberal world of today. This is exactly what you not only hear on the streets of America (naturally) but that can also be heard widespread in the Church itself. When you are not a Christian, you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God hence you do not believe it is inerrant. You believe that just a few men wrote it and since liberalism is the new religion that has made us more enlightened, then it is up to liberalism to correct Paul, Timothy, and Jesus. Since tolerance has to be total, then the bible must either be either ignored, or corrected.

This is the whole reason you see the ECUSA doing what it is doing now. It believes that the Word of God is not the final authority and once you go down that road, then you can just pick and choose whatever parts of the Bible you want to believe. Whatever part lines up with liberalism and modern thinking are the ones you subscribe to and the rest are brushed off as men who were subscribing to the prejudices of their day. Doing this subscribes to liberalism by saying we are growing as a human race and getting better so we must not look back at dogmatic teaching designed to hold the human race back from enlightenment..

The whole fact of the matter is this, what good is a Church that doesn’t follow the Word of God? How can a Church be of any use if it subscribes to liberalism? Why even go? The Church is suppose to be different from the world, not follow after it. If it follows after the world, I’d rather spend my Sundays watching football than going to Church. Coincidentally, this is exactly what is happening in Western civilization. The churches are emptying out because they offer no inspiration or meaning. They are lifeless and empty as the people you see walking around the streets of America today..

This subject is taboo in churches all across America as well, there is no way in hell the ordinary liberal man or women in America can ever conceive of this teaching of women not being pastors. We are not even close to that point yet. That’s why I was glad Mr. Auster posted Mr. Keller’s letter. A man who has rejected liberalism and only follows the Word of God. Naturally this is an enigma in the West because this does not follow up with the teachings of total tolerance.

I recognize because of liberalism, this teaching of women not being pastors cannot and will not be taught in the Church today, it goes against liberalism which has infiltrated every area of public life. This teaching is unthinkable so what this means is the further decline of the Church. A Church being led by feelings instead of the cold hard truth and the Word of God.

Laura writes:

Why your lengthy quoting of Rick Darby? He has no genuine sympathy for the basic tenets of Christianity and yet thinks he is somehow more virtuous for his phony tolerance of the faith. Oh, thank goodness, there are intelligent men who “appreciate” Christians and like their spirituality to boot!

Altogether I found your defense of an all-male clergy tepid. Regarding the practical difficulties of women priests, I agree with your observations, but would like to add a few. Though women are not priests in the Catholic Church, some nuns now play fairly central roles at the parish level (weakening the argument that they lack power.) They seem to become extremely energetic social workers, adept at organizing parishioners and helping the helpless. I find it hard to believe women priests wouldn’t bring these maternal skills to the vocation. Personal relationships are the essence of a woman’s life and no amount of wishful thinking can make it otherwise. [LA note: it sounds here as though you’re promoting females as priests, but you make clear in the next paragraph that you’re not.]

For Catholics, there would be dire consequences to women being priests as this would absolutely necessitate the acceptance of both married and divorced clergy. Catholic clergy live in close quarters and to expect many women and men to live this way without falling in love is to laugh in the face of nature. The Church would have to allow those who do fall in love to marry and to allow those who fall out of love to divorce. Furthermore, parishes, already strapped with the burden of supporting an entire school system, would need to support the large families conceived (let us hope) without contraceptives. You mentioned the jarring physical appearance of a woman on the altar. Consider the jarring appearance of a pregnant woman on the altar.

So for Catholics, the whole house would come tumbling down if women were made priests. Men would no longer wish to be priests (freedom from domestic relations with women is one of the few perks of the existing order) and the priesthood would become totally female. Ultimately, Catholics would be forced to accept the notion of a female pope, something for which there is absolutely no basis in scripture or tradition.

In short, the issue of women clergy is not simply a matter of principle, and it is obnoxious when people speak of it so. Nor is it simply a question to put before scripture and tradition. There are practical differences between men and women in everyday life and we mock our Creator when we pretend they are not there.

LA replies:

I think Laura has added a useful point with her emphasis on the practicality problem. However, I must say that I’ve never had a statement of mine criticized as being both obnoxious and tepid. Usually it’s one or the other. :-)

Van Wijk writes:

You and the reader Ben sum this problem with Mr. Darby up very well, I think.

If Mr. Darby thinks that certain things in the Bible are suspect due to the writers being fallible humans, is there a single passage that is safe from this fallibility? Liberals like Darby will simply plow through whatever parts they do not care for and rationalize them away until the truth of them dissipates like a ripple in a pond.

Your remark about his argument being “watery” was quite apt. When someone says that they are very spiritual but deny being religious, you are generally looking at an agnostic or atheist. Their god is a god who approves of whatever they do. For this reason, I think all arguments of faith between a true Christian and a non-Christian are futile and not worth the effort. The Christian lives by concrete rules as laid out in the Bible. The non-Christian, be he deist/agnostic/atheist does not live by any rules save those that he creates for himself (which is usually not written down and so is impossible to reference), so he is able to squirm out of any argument that seeks to pin him down. This is why being a Christian requires fortitude, strength of character, and patience. Being agnostic or atheist require nothing but the denial of God.

Randy writes:

Van Wijk writes: “This is why being a Christian requires fortitude, strength of character, and patience. Being agnostic or atheist require nothing but the denial of God.”

Over the years it has astounded me how simplistic the liberal viewpoint is.

How easy it is to accept the idea that the government should take over and “run” society—and solve all the problems. Blame failure on our “environment.” I had to do much reading and thinking to understand the concepts of limited government, personal responsibility, and free market economics. I have noted over the years that liberal students don’t have any real interest in pursuing truth or learning. They were lazy and just wanted an easy answer that required no effort on their part to understand. I believe Van Wijk identifies the reason why in his comment. The concept carries over into our temporal life. The adage comes to mind: I think (and am willing to work at learning), therefore I am a Republican.

Laura clarifies:

In fairness, you were tepid, not obnoxious. You had also raised the practicality issue.

Gordon writes:

As a life-long Catholic, I would like to add a few comments to the insight offered by Laura regarding the idea of women priests:

Laura writes: “For Catholics, there would be dire consequences to women being priests as this would absolutely necessitate the acceptance of both married and divorced clergy … The Church would have to allow those who do fall in love to marry and to allow those who fall out of love to divorce.”

My response: Close on the heels of married clergy would be the demand for the recognition of gay marriage because a gay priest would argue that the Church is allowing sexual pleasure between heterosexual clergy, so why not homosexual clergy?

Laura writes: “So for Catholics, the whole house would come tumbling down if women were made priests. Men would no longer wish to be priests … and the priesthood would become totally female.”

My response: This is absolutely true. Not only would men not want to be priests, but male parishioners would drift away, and soon there would be only women attending church. American liberal elitists who doubt this must remember that the Catholic Church, by definition, is a universal church (the word “Catholic” means universal), and the non-American world does not always accept the liberal American jet-set “in” thought of the day. Indeed, the letter, Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of October 28, 1995, states, “ … the Church does not find the source of her faith and her constitutive structure in the principles of the social order of any historical period.” Another poster noted that the Church’s mission is to teach the truth as the Church believes it and hope the culture changes to it, NOT to be changed BY the culture. Also, the priesthood does not exist to provide career opportunities to anyone, which seems to be the crux of the demand for women priests.

One final note. Should women come to dominate the priesthood, we’d start hearing complaints like, “You men always con the women into fixing the meal and washing the dishes.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 23, 2006 01:24 AM | Send