A veiled woman from the Priscilla Catacombs. Image from http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/28011

On Women’s Ordination — Introduction

After many years of putting it off, I’ve decided to focus my attention on the topic of women’s ordination. The impetus to spend time working through this topic came from some discussions I had with my wife recently about it. Researching the topic would then, in some ways, be a service I could offer her, not just some topic I find interesting but benefits no one around me (a vice that I indulged too often in the past). Additionally, I am currently in the process of seeking ordination in the Anglican Church in North America to become a chaplain, and women’s ordination is the issue in those circles. I can no longer afford to put it off in hopes of avoiding the difficulties — both intellectually and relationally — that might arise (another vice of mine).

To that end, I’ve already spent the last couple of months digging into the exegetical issues of the typical passages associated with this topic (1 Corinthians 11:2–16; 14:34–35; 1 Timothy 2:8–15) in my spare time with what resources I can get through my local library. I know that I have neither the time nor the resources to do justice to this topic (the literature is vast), so what I write will be exploratory; I will probably have more questions than answers. To help keep me on topic, I will use Dr. William G. Witt’s new book Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination as my guide. I have learned much from Dr. Witt over the years through his blog and I had read many of the original posts that became this book. I always regretted that I could never engage with the posts as much as I wanted, so in some ways writing my reflections on his book is a debt I owe to him that is long overdue. Anything critical that may arise is never meant as a “gotcha!” but merely as a deep, serious, and thoughtful engagement with the arguments of his book.

Before I start working through his book, I should first clarify some points of how I will proceed.

1. Scriptural texts have equal authority. One of the difficulties in addressing the topic of women’s ordination is that one of the controversial texts (1 Corinthians 14:34–35) has text-critical issues surrounding it, and another (1 Timothy) is (often) considered to be pseudonymous/post-apostolic. Regarding the former, the text seems to fit with the flow of the passage so that I’m not really convinced that it is a later addition (though the possibility is there). It also seems too convenient for such a difficult passage to suddenly be found suspect (though again, the possibility is there). Concerning the second issue, because 1 Timothy is considered pseudonymous, I have seen many easily sweep the statements under the rug because “it’s not really Paul.” But this is to forget how Scriptural authority works. It’s not a choose your own adventure (though we all fall prey to such approaches). 1 Timothy is in the canon and must be dealt with as such. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say “I know 1 Timothy says God wants all people to be saved, but, you know, that’s pseudo-Pauline, so it doesn’t really have force for our dogmatic thinking.” In either case, I think it is necessary to deal with the texts as is because they have (or should have) equal authority within the communities for whom women’s ordination is being debated.
2. Assume good faith. As I have begun digging into the topic of women’s ordination, I have found that sometimes people assume the worst of their interlocutors. That is not my approach. I will assume that those in favor of or against women’s ordination are sincere Christians who are trying their best to be faithful to the biblical text. I will assume that it is possible that intelligent well-meaning Christians can genuinely disagree about the meaning of a text. Trying to figure out if the writer/speaker has some alternative motive or trying to discern their intentions distracts from examining their arguments.
3. Avoid Bulverism. C. S. Lewis coined the term Bulverism to describe the confusion of motives for arguments; that is, explaining why someone believes something instead of engaging with what they believe. I find this problem arises often in discussions of women’s ordination. “You are for it because of the influence of secular feminism!” “You are against it because of oppressive patriarchy!” Both may be true, but that does not establish which argument is true. Understanding how someone got to a position may be important for understanding what their position actually is, but it never tells you whether they are right or wrong. A similar fallacy is worldview-ism that tries to refute positions by placing them in their worldview camp (Y), knocking down the worldview, and then claiming that such-and-such position (X) is thus refuted because the more general worldview (Y) upon which it is founded has been refuted. It does no good, I think, to refute Y and assume that X is thereby refuted; “X” must be dealt with specifically, not generically. In both of these fallacies, the problem is the subtle switching of the actual argument for another one. I don’t care where (or when) an argument came from, the question should first be “is it true?” Or, as Lewis put it, “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.”
4. Open the black-box. Finally, I have found that there are many black boxes in the debates surrounding women’s ordination. A black box is where you see inputs and outputs but are ignorant of what is happening inside the black box. We all have black boxes in our thinking where parts of our reasoning just seem obvious to us. In controversial topics, (almost) nothing can be taken as “obvious”. Where something is treated as such, it is often doing more conceptual work than people realize and it is necessary to open up the box and see what is inside and how it is working. It is only when all our assumptions are laid bare and rigorously examined that we can be satisfied that we have done due diligence to the topic at hand, and this must begin with oneself before one’s interlocutors.

With this out of the way, I can now proceed to my examination of Dr. Witt’s arguments. This will not be a book review or a point-by-point examination of every single detail in his book. I will try to stick to what I think are the most relevant parts of the argument, but my primary goal is to think about this topic “out loud” and I invite any constructive feedback.