Edwin G. Wappler
Dean, Bloy Episcopal School of Theology
in affiliation with the School of Theology at Claremont, Claremont, California
published in The St Luke’s Journal of Theology Vol XVIII no 4 1975
and reproduced here with the necessary permissions
The task of our discussion group was to develop theological arguments against the ordination of women to the presbyterate and the episcopate. We tried to approach the task in an objective manner, not as polemicists, but as scholars concerned to state the negative case as strongly as possible. It would be less than candid to say that we came to the forum with our minds totally open on the hotly debated topic of women in the ordained ministry of the church. As a matter of fact, most of us tended to favor the ordination of women. However, we were not discussing the issue as partisans but as theologians concerned to deepen our understanding of the validity of the negative arguments frequently offered by those who object to women in the priesthood and episcopate. We hoped also to be able to discover new approaches which might support a negative judgment of the question.
It became obvious as we discussed the matter before us that there were at least two classes of theological reasons against the ordination of women of which we had to take account. One category of negative reasons could be referred to as prudential, practical, or pastoral considerations. The other category we denoted by the term dogmatic. Both of these classes of reasons seemed to us to possess a valid claim to be considered as theological since theology is concerned with a wide range of issues touching faith and life. Our task was to look at the question from a broad rather than a narrow theological perspective, and we proceeded to do so.
Very early in our discussion a proposal was made that the issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood should be dealt with in a manner similar to the way the Church of England dealt with the question of non-episcopal ordination between World Wars I and II. When faced with the question of deciding on the ultimate theological issue of whether episcopal ordination was absolutely necessary to valid ministry, the church allowed theologians the privilege of challenging the rule in print while always adhering to it rigidly in practice. In other words, the question of the validity of non-episcopal ministries was left open to speculation but was never allowed to change ecclesiastical regulations or procedures at ordination time. From this point of view, the best negative response to the ordination of women would be to say that we should keep the status quo in force while tolerating or even encouraging speculative exploration of the possibility of women’s ordination.
Several vigorous objections were immediately posed against that approach, however. The first concerned the fact of recent ordinations of women and the statements of bishops intending to ordain more in the future. The second was a more weighty plea to look at the deeper bases of the church’s present practice of refusing priestly ordination to women and asking what the theological and anthropological implications of that refusal might be. The group concluded that the time for the sort of Anglican compromise once thought applicable to the older ecumenical issue of episcopal versus non-episcopal ministry had passed and that the issue had now to be faced on dogmatic as well as practical grounds.
This consensus did not mean, however, that the discussants had decided to ignore the prudential side of the negative case. While they could not take refuge in a “reverent agnosticism” about the question of women’s ordination, they did recognize that a responsible answer to the question would not emerge in a vacuum or an ivory tower. They thought that the first significant pastoral issue to be considered from the negative side was the lack of a Catholic consensus in favor of women’s ordination. Neither Rome nor Orthodoxy has made any move comparable to the Episcopal Church’s to bring the issue to the fore. Neither communion shows any signs of changing its policy of excluding women from the ministry, although there is some speculation and even a degree of ferment in Rome. Thus the first question to be answered is, Can the Episcopal Church take the unilateral step of ordaining women without seriously setting back ecumenical relations with these other branches of Catholic Christianity which embrace so many of the faithful throughout the world?
Coming closer to home, the group recognized secondly that a lack of consensus exists within Anglicanism as well on this issue. Already within our own ecclesiastical family in the United States and in other countries threats of schism are heard. No one can say how many of these threats will be finally carried out, but even if many are not driven to formal separation, will not the church suffer grievously from the defection and demoralization of so many whose faith has been undermined by such a departure from historical precedent as the ordination of women? The second major pastoral consideration, therefore, was the scandal which the ordination of women would cause to many within our own fellowship of faith.
Thirdly, the group recognized how intimately the church’s pastoral practice had been tied to the symbol of the male priesthood and the bishop as father of the ecclesiastical family. Everyone agreed that the family in modern society was under great stress and that sexual roles, particularly among the young, were in confusion. The church must carefully consider the allegation that ordaining women to the priesthood and episcopate would add to the present confusion of sexual identity in modern society. There has been a very evident value to the masculine priesthood throughout the centuries of the church’s life. Would this not be lost or compromised if women were ordained to this office?
Closely allied to the question of the sexual identity is, fourthly, the issue of co-worker sexual relationships between men and women in the ordained ministry. While this aspect is sometimes brushed aside as unworthy of serious consideration, the group felt that it needed to be faced. The Episcopal Church already has a number of problems relating to the inability of its ministers to work together, to trust one another, and to provide mutual support. Would not the introduction of sexual tensions and temptations into the co-worker relationship produce even more difficulties, jealousies, animosities and scandals than we presently have with an all-male priesthood? Certainly our present tensions and disputes give us little reason for optimism that we could avoid further trouble along these lines.
Turning to the dogmatic side of the matter, the group agreed that a very strong prima facie case is found in Holy Scripture and Tradition against the ordination of women. Since the time of Richard Hooker, Anglicans have believed that the truth could be found by discerning the convergence of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Scripture and Tradition, going back to the largely male imagery for the deity in the Old Testament through the example of our Lord in appointing an all-male apostolate and up to relatively recent times in ecclesiastical practice, give us little indication that women were intended to exercise the office of priest and bishop in the church of God.
The question, of course, remains of how we are to interpret Scripture and Tradition. As Anglicans we do not want to look for proof texts or take a literalist view of the sources of truth. We are bound to take account of the historical perspective which influenced Scripture and Tradition as we seek to interpret them, but we must do so with reverence for their witness. Thus, our group felt obliged to warn all those who seek to interpret basic sources of faith that they not historicize them away. We must listen carefully to the whole of Scripture and Tradition remembering that our outlook, too, is conditioned by the times in which we live. We need to be clear about our own normative principles when we approach the hermenuetical task. On what grounds do we affirm or reject the witness of Scripture and Tradition? Is it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit or by listening only to the spirit of the age in which we live?
In harmony with the witness of Scripture and Tradition has been a strong patriarchal consciousness in western society. This patriarchal social structure has also existed and does presently exist in most parts of the earth today. The group recognized that these facts bring into question the feminist tendencies of American society in recent years. Are we experiencing a new sense of liberation and mutual equality or are we rather manifesting an aspect of Spenglerian decline? Heretofore, Christians have regarded male leadership in the home and in society as a kind of human reflection of the divine order of creation. The church, as the paradigm of creation, held to a male ordained ministry because to do otherwise would have seemed to go against the order of creation. Now we are asked to set this judgment aside and proceed to affirm a new non-patriarchal relationship by ordaining women to all ministerial offices in the church. The risk involved in taking this step appears to be very great indeed for the good order of church and society.
Finally, the group thought that a significant negative argument could be built on the assertion that a difference of function does not imply superiority or inferiority. What this means is that we must take the witness of Scripture and Tradition seriously and recognize that men and women have different functions in the economy of salvation. However, to affirm this difference of function is not to imply a hierarchy in which men are better than or superior to women. From this perspective our task is to understand the emergence of women in the church not from the point of view of including them in the presbyterate or episcopate but in helping to develop whatever new forms of ministry God is calling them to embrace in our time. To open the priesthood and episcopate to women is to subsume the unique and distinctive ministry of women under male categories. Such a step frustrates the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing about a new thing, i.e. the true ministry of women. Therefore, what is represented as being a very progressive movement—the ordination of women—may be instead a counter-productive side-step on the pathway of history.
The above arguments against the ordination of women as priests or bishops have been presented in summary form only. They are not meant to be a complete statement of the negative case but rather an outline of the conclusions our group came to as we attempted to carry out our task of exploring the theological reasons why one might oppose any change in the Episcopal Church’s present practice. We have not attempted to set down our personal points of reservation with regard to any of the negative arguments. What we hope we have accomplished is to offer to the church a reasonable statement of why a responsible Christian might oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate at this time.