A white paper written and distributed by JSS Patterson, “Ordaining Women As Deacons“, was written a few years ago and sent to many of the influential bishops and clergy in the conservative movement of the Episcopal and Anglican churches. In my opinion it has done damage to the church by refusing to acknowledge that God calls both women and men into ministry.
As a seminarian I have tried to have this rebuttal published in some of the places where Rev. Patterson’s white paper has been published, but have had no success, so I’ll publish it here. Anyone who agrees with me is invited to link to this page from your own blog to help counter this harmful opinion.
Note: This rebuttal was written before I began seminary and so should be read as coming from an average layperson, which it is. I will append some seminary-era notes and corrections at the end. The full text of Rev Patterson’s paper may be found here. Patterson’s points & comments are in regular text, my responses are in bold.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Informal response to “Ordaining Women as Deacons”
Foreward, page two, paragraph one: “If the ordination of women deacons is a godly and wholesome doctrine, the church that does not allow women to be deacons is sinning against God and man.”
That’s right. The church needs to be very careful and prayerful about this subject, and be sure it is not calling ‘unclean’ what God has called ‘clean’.
Introduction, page 1, paragraph 3 – The author raises two factors against women’s ordination in this paragraph: (1) the teaching of scripture, and (2) the practice of the historic church.
(1) Scripture as I understand it does not specifically command the ordination of women, nor does it specifically prohibit it. Scripture references can be found to support arguments both pro and con.
(2) In talking about “the historic church”the author points to the 1662 Prayer Book. The main purpose of this book was to correct inconsistencies and injustices found in Roman Catholic practices, not to address the issue of ordaining women (which would have been socially unthinkable at the time.) At any rate it is important not to put the Prayer Book (1662 or any other) on an equal footing with scripture.
Introduction, page 1, paragraph 4 – This paragraph quotes from the AMiA Report, which refers to “the historic threefold ministry” and calls the ordination of women an “innovation”.
It is my belief that the church’s hierarchy and structure (as we know it today) is in itself an “innovation” – one that began to be introduced by the Roman Catholic Church in the 300’s A.D. It was never used in the Celtic Catholic Church. As someone who conciously chose the Anglican/Episcopal Church as an adult, I appreciate certain aspects of the structure but I put no faith in church structure where it comes to matters of salvation or scriptural accuracy (look how far the Roman church, with the same structure, had fallen into error by the beginning of the second millenium). It’s a nice set of customs – but that’s all.
Introduction, page 2, paragraphs 3 & 4 – Here Patterson hints that the ordination of women is a cultural, worldly thing brought on by modern influences, and that scripture must be “interpreted” in a certain way in order to admit women to the clergy (that is, to make the church fit the world).
This argument is essentially a red herring, but since many people get taken in by it, I’ll address it briefly. The “world” has been right, and the church wrong, many times. How many ‘heretics’ were burned at the stake before the church admitted the earth revolved around the sun? (After all, it says in the Bible that “the sun stood still”.) How many Africans were sold into slavery before the church admitted slavery was wrong? (After all, people in the Bible owned slaves, and even St. Paul commanded slaves to “obey their masters”.) How many people were martyred before the church admitted that the Bible should be translated into the language of the people, and belonged in the hands of the people and not just the clergy? (After all, God only knows what heresies the people would come up with if they were allowed to read scriptures for themselves!) What’s happening culturally has no effect on God’s eternal truth… but sometimes the culture recognizes the church’s untruths and injustices long before the entrenched interests of the church’s institutions do.
Introduction, page 3, paragraph 4 – “Because the ability to function as an economic provider conveys a sense of paternal moral authority, modern womanhood bears a far greater resemblance to traditional manhood than ever before in human history.”
Good heavens!!!! This is either misogyny or utter ignorance. Earning a living doesn’t make a woman paternal, authoritative, or manly any more than being able to cook makes a man maternal, wussy, or womanly.
Here’s the scriptural answer. From Proverbs 31, vs. 10-11, 16-18a, 26:
“A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for their tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable… She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.”
So the Godly woman provides economically for her household, does real estate deals, works with strong arms, earns a profit, and teaches with wisdom. What would Patterson add to this list if he were describing “traditional manhood”? Proverbs isn’t modern but it calls this woman “noble”.
Introduction, page 4, paragraphs 2 & 3 – Re: “liberationist” movements.
I am not a feminist or a womens liberationist. Those terms (and the implications that go with them) belong to the generation before mine. There is no need to liberate someone who is already free. What I am is a woman created by God, of equal value in His sight to any other human being (male or female) and gifted for ministry according to His plan and purpose.
Introduction, page 5, entire – Re: deaconesses becoming deacons
This is all about church tradition and has no parallel in scripture. But if we must talk about church tradition, even in the Roman Catholic tradition there are women saints and there have been women abbesses who had authority over men.
Introduction, page 6, paragraph 1 – Re: secularization in the church
I agree there is a great deal of secularization in the church – particularly in areas like catering to the wealthy, powerful, and popular, as well as sexual permissiveness and sexual aberrations. Male dominancy might also be seen as a form of secularization, albeit a longstanding one – it certainly wasn’t taught by Jesus.
As mentioned earlier, the church has been wrong before… if the church has been wrong about this issue, it is not “secularization” to admit it and take corrective action.
Introduction, page 6, paragraph 4 – Re: “not… framing the discussion in terms of what women can do, but what they should do”
The correct frame isn’t about “can” or “should”. It is: “what is God’s calling and purpose for a person’s life?” The answer will be different for every individual.
Introduction, page 7, paragraph 1 – Re: The 1662 Ordinal, etc…
I like being Anglican as much as Patterson does, but there comes a point where we need to get over ourselves. If all traces of the Anglican Church disappeared tomorrow, how would we worship? Our first loyalty must be to Christ, not to ancient ordinals.
Introduction, page 7, paragraph 2 – Re: deaconesses & deacons being traditionally distinct
Might this have something to do with the fact that many deaconesses and deacons back in the day were members of religious orders (convents/abbeys/etc), and therefore had separate living quarters, different spiritual directors, and different mission statements?
Introduction, page 8, paragraph 3 – Re: “an office with authority”
Do we not believe in the priesthood of all believers?
Introduction, page 9, paragraph 1 – Re: “women are not to have authority over men in the church”
Yes, St. Paul said this. The quotation in context is as follows:
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
This passage raises a lot of questions. Setting aside the ‘authority’ issue for a moment…
- If a woman is to be silent, what if she has questions? In another passage St. Paul answers “she should ask her husband later” – but what if she has no husband? Who does she ask and when? Does the church make provision for this?
- What if a male teacher/preacher is in error, or knows less than a woman does? Is it a loving thing for a woman to let a man to fall flat on his face in public when she could prevent it?
- Does the church really teach that a woman is saved through childbearing? What if through no fault of her own she has no children? And more to the point, what then becomes of salvation by faith alone – is this only for men?
Back to the authority issue, Paul says “I do not permit…”. Paul does not say “God does not permit…”. In another passage he says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”And in another he says: “For as in Adam [not ‘as in Eve’] all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” These passages must be given equal weight with the original passage quoted.
Here’s another example. In another passage St. Paul says: “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved… Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”
So, based on Paul’s teaching, do women cover their heads in church? Do we shame men with long hair? Isn’t it the accepted teaching that Paul’s instructions were for that time and place in order that the name of God not be maligned among non-believers? And perhaps more to the point of this debate…Paul says “every man who prays or prophesies… and every woman who prays or prophesies…” – Paul has been talking about what they’re wearing, not what they’re doing – the men and women in this passage are both doing the exact same thing. In church.
Getting back to Paul’s argument re: Adam and Eve – in Genesis it says:
“To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
This passage takes place after the fall – “he will rule over you” is a result of sin, not part of God’s original perfect plan. It describes life in a fallen world. So should the church just shrug its shoulders and say “oh well, that’s how life is in a fallen world, tough luck ladies”? Is this a Christian attitude?
One other comment on the authority issue. It is my personal rule of thumb, and I think it’s soundly based in Jesus’ teaching, that Christian authority has its foundations in love… not in hierarchy or rank, and certainly not in establishing one’s own position at the expense of another. (by the way, many people who oppose the ordination of women call their position “tough love”, which is a twisting of the original concept of tough love. I don’t buy it for one moment. Real love is patient, kind, open-hearted, generous, and trusting even when disagreements arise.) I recognize the authority of anyone, man or woman, who loves Jesus with their whole heart and loves their neighbor as themselves; without that love I do not recognize anyone’s authority, no matter what position they may hold in the church.
Introduction, page 12, paragraph 3 – “I still feel free to encourage women to take on positions of leadership within their local churches…” but “women are forbidden to ‘teach or have authority’ over a man…”
Name me some positions of leadership in the church that don’t involve having ‘authority’ over men…? I’d like to see a list. I’d also like to see the church put as much effort and resources into seeking out and equipping women leaders as it puts into seeking out and equipping male leaders.
An Appraisal of the AMiA’s Report, page 16, paragraph 1 – Referring to womens’ sense of call: “The sense or the feeling of a call must not be equated with the call of God.”
Interesting. So how do men know when they are called?
An Appraisal of the AMiA’s Report, page 17, paragraphs 1 & 2
As far as I can see the AMiA’s report is correct, as is the author’s evaluation – it’s wrong to stop with just ordaining women to the diaconate. The only reason I can see to stop there – and it is a sound reason, but only temporarily – is to avoid further divisions within the church.
Re: “Does the author of this comment think that ordained people are more gifted than the laity? Why would ordaining a woman be a sign of her gifting?”
I should hope the people being ordained in the church are the most gifted people the church can find! The role of the ordained clergy is to tend to people’s eternal souls – why on earth would you not put the most gifted people possible in this role? The issue where women are concerned is not giftedness, but lack of opportunities to use their gifts. On Judgement Day, if the Lord asks “why did you not use the gifts I gave you?” I can’t imagine He would accept “because the guys wouldn’t let me” as an answer.
An Appraisal of the AMiA’s Report, page 19, paragraphs 1 & 2 and also p. 23
This is an issue of scripture vs. church tradition again. If the church’s diaconate is not what the New Testament’s diaconate is, which needs to change? The formality of a “deacon” in the Anglican church has its roots directly in the Roman Catholic church, not the Bible.
An Appraisal of the AMiA’s Report, page 20, Re: Phoebe
Questions: What did Phoebe do? How and why was she considered equal to the apostles? What services did she render to the church? And by what authority?
From An Appraisal of the AMiA’s Report, page 27 – “Phoebe, then, was probably a woman of high social standing and some wealth, who put her status, resources, and time at the services of traveling Christians, like Paul, who needed help and support…”
In other words, men have no problem using women’s money, they just don’t want to listen to our words…?
An Appraisal of the AMiA’s Report, page 32, paragraphs 1, 2, & 3 – “Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (3:12)” and “Because he has made the issue of marital status and fidelity an explicit requirement for the bishop, the deacon and the widow, if Paul were
writing about women deacons in v. 11 the reader would expect comments about the necessity of the woman deacon having a marital life that was above reproach.”
Is Patterson saying that scripture says all clergymen must be married? If so, this goes directly contrary to St. Paul’s teaching that it is better to remain unmarried unless one simply can’t.
As for women – must we also be married? Is there no place in the church for the woman who devotes her entire life to the Lord rather than dividing her time between the Lord and a husband?
Historical Considerations: An Abbreviated Summary, page 46, paragraph 2 – Re: “exercise the sacred ministry”
Having just finished a quick study of the early church, this phrase is used in the writings of the early historian Bede and others – always in the context of serving communion. In other words, the Novellae is describing what we might call a Lay Eucharistic Minister.
Historical Considerations: An Abbreviated Summary, page 50, paragraph 1 – Re: women historically not being permitted to serve communion
Yes, this is for the most part true – because of the teaching of the Roman Catholic church, to which this piece of history belongs. In the RC Church, communion has to do with “the altar” and “the sacrifice”, that is, transubstantiation… and women were not permitted to perform “the sacrifice”. As far as I understand it, the Anglican church does not teach transubstantiation, so the Roman Catholic objection to women serving communion doesn’t apply.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Postscript: In my studies since this rebuttal was written, I have discovered who Phoebe was. She is mentioned in Romans 16:1 where Paul calls her “sister” and uses the Greek word “diakonon” (deacon) to describe her. Patterson’s paper goes to great (and convoluted) lengths to get around Paul’s plain words.
Furthermore he completely ignores Romans 16:7 in which Paul calls the woman Junia an “apostolos” (apostle) – someone who was an eyewitness to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Junia is probably ‘overlooked’ because certain translations of the Bible after the mid-1800s have insisted that Junia was a man (Junias). This view was not shared by the churches down through the ages, and indeed was not even suggested until the 1200s. Early saints such as Origen, John Chyrsostom, Jerome and Abelard make reference to the woman Junia, and Chyrsostom comments that it was a significant thing that Paul recognized her as an apostle.
Historical studies have shown that while Junia was a common name in ancient Rome, the male form (Junias) was never recorded in any books or inscriptions. In other words, it was a name invented by the church 1,000 years later.
For more information on Junia see Junia: The First Woman Apostle. This book is very deep and is not an easy read — most laypeople will find what they need to know in the introduction — nonetheless I recommend it highly as a resource of impeccable scholarship.
Getting Started 
I was reading your post and found it wonderfully thought provoking. you refrenced the teachings of paul that referenced women. I myself have done some study on this. for these scriptures it is helpfull to get back to the greek which had 3 different words that we tranlate as women. 1word was used for a married woman one was used for a sungle adult woman and the third was more generic and would occasionaly be used for both. The greek word used in most of them is the one for a married woman. in the other passages of his more generic one was used. however when you look at the context it was used in it the scripture allways used talks in terms of a marriage referencing their husband. so in my study of the scriptures I have found no refrences that would preclude a single woman from being able to serve the church. in fact in Pauls 1st letter to the corinthians he commands the people to the house of stephanaeus and calls all in the house servants of christ. this would apply to both the women and men of the house.
Good thoughts, thanks!
Another Greek word to look for is diakonon (or variations of it) from which we get the word “deacon”. These were the first appointed roles in the early church, and they were positions of service. Deacons were servants of the church, chosen because they were “full of wisdom and the Holy Spirit”. Very much a servant-leadership role.
I agree the Greek is really helpful and the more I get into it the more I realize that Jesus and the early church were (especially for their time) radically into gender equality. They didn’t make a huge fuss about it, they just accepted women as co-workers in Christ on an everyday basis.
Peg you are absolutly right. in fact that is what caused paul to right to the corinths about the role of women in the first place. in the jewish culture women had no rights and in the roman culture they were even worse off. then Christ came and said All are equal. there is no male or female. etc etc. the church in corinth started going overboard and the females in the name of equality where disrespecting the men. and where usurping their god given role. the purpose the texts in Pauls letters was to reinstate the familial roles and bring the respect for men back. and had less to do with worship then it had to do with societal and family roles.
I have slowly been working on a study of the role of women as precented in the bible
Hi Aaron,
Your study on the role of women sounds really interesting — when you have a moment I would enjoy hearing more about it. Do you have an online link to any of your notes?
As always I appreciate your comments!
Peg
Having been in ministry for almost 30 years, I find it curious that there are still some that question whether or not the Lord calls women to ministry.
Working within numerous nations across four continents, no one questioned my gender while I was outside the nation of my birth. The work is flourishing to this day…since He is the One that ordained it’s beginning…He is well able to sustain the work.
A fellow minister mailed some sermons I’d taught a couple years ago, to a church in a nearby state. That pastor quickly emailed me and asked if I would be willing to be one of the ministers for their fall convention (2007). He sent me a basic outline of the activites for that week. He let me know that I needed to give him an answer by the following month. There were five different ministers that would preach throughout the week…I was to be one of the five.
He let me know that the sermons that he’d read would benefit their local body of Believers. I checked my schedule…and it, indeed, was free for that week in the fall.
We emailed back and forth several times. Everything was set, flight, hotel, rental car, etc…they took care of everything.
There are no words to express what I felt when I showed up and he realized I was a woman. Suddenly, I was no longer welcome. He said I should have told him I was a woman.
I let him know that he had contacted me based on sermons I’d written and ministered in numerous places. Since he freely admitted, in his emails, that they touched his spirit and wanted his congregation to blessed…that it would never have occurred to me to tell him “I’m a woman”.
From this experiecne I make sure I always put my entire name on all work and correspondence…not just first initial and last name. I was very grieved in my spirit at this attitude.
I have since learned that this has happened to several others that are also Ordained ministers…that happen to be women.
Michelle
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for writing and sharing your experiences. The reaction you received angers me but unfortunately I can’t say it surprises me. It’s sad to say these attitudes still exist in far too many places. IMO sadder still is when the person(s) standing against ordained women are other women (which I find more often than men tho certainly not exclusively).
As I remarked to a couple fellow seminarians the other day, it’s difficult to find solid ground to stand on these days. On the one side of the argument are those who re-write or radically re-interpret scripture in ways the historic church never knew, and (when they’re being honest) know themselves to be revisionists (I call them neo-Saduccees); on the other side are those who re-write and re-interpret scripture in ways the historic church never knew but claim to be preserving the historic faith (neo-Pharisees).
The middle road between the extremes — a path along which one digs deeply into God’s word to understand and know Him, and then does one’s best to follow Him — seems to be becoming narrower and narrower… but the ‘via media’ in its truest sense is the road I choose.
Thank you for your many years of faithful ministry, which have helped prepare the road for those of us who are only now being called to it.
Peg
Hello from Ireland… I think that almost all of what you have written here is correct and should be considered so by anyone. The case for the ordination of women to the priesthood (and diaconate, and indeed episcopate) is unanswerable.
The only comment you make about which I would have doubts is that about church order. The threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, with bishops in apostolic succession, seems to me to be of the essence in Anglicanism. It is definitely more than a ‘nice set of customs’! Without it, I doubt there would be much of a case for a separate Anglican denomination.
Otherwise I agree wholly with you. Well written!
Ferdinand
Hi Ferdinand,
It’s a pleasure to hear from across the pond! Thanks for your kind words. I hope the new Anglican province in America (which will be coming into being in the next few months) will see the same reasoning you have, otherwise things are going to get REALLY interesting, and not in a good way.
And you’re probably right about bishops, priests and deacons being a little more than ‘a nice set of customs’. At very least it’s a very longstanding tradition! The apostolic succession is a concept of much interest to me and I could rattle on about it for hours. It troubles me deeply when churches treat the succession like it’s some kind of magical thing. IMO it *should* be something like a spiritual genealogy — not merely hands-on-heads but rather “I have taught this person the faith as it was given to the apostles and I vouch for his/her mastery of it in both theology and practice”.
But I digress…. thanks again for your note!
Peg
Michelle,
Gtreat insite and well written biblicaly sound response to women in Ministry. This needs to be presented everywhere as God is calling more women to lead for such a time as this. I agree whole heartedly on your commentary of thode scriptures. Most people seem to use those out of context to justify what they believe. I thank God for His Holy Spirit who leads us into ALL truth. Clearly stated and understood manuscript.Thanks for a job well done!
Hi Sheri,
Thanks for the kind words! I hope it will be an encouragement to all women, whatever their calling, to follow the Lord’s leading no matter what roadblocks we find in our way. God bless!
Peg
You posted this mass of words several years ago, before you went into ‘seminary.’
Hint–When you have to refer to the 1662 BCP, you’re done! Big done! As a vestry member, I would vote against, adamantly vote against, any goof that actually refers to the 1662 BCP for support of a thesis/response/rebuttal to an article written by a clergy-man older than Moses.
Also, I found your ‘pre-seminary’ disclaimer most distasteful. If you were entering ‘seminary’ with your faith so up in the air that you expected ‘seminary’ to define your relationship with God, then I must share that I do not think you have any business seeking a clergy vocation. Maybe, your time and effort in ‘seminary,’ was wasted.
Here’s my way of blasting through all that wordy, researchy, BCP 1662 crap: ‘Christ taught that we each have a personal relationship with God.’
Douglas, it was Patterson who brought the 1662 BCP into the argument, I was merely responding to his comments. On the other hand it’s helpful to know the historical documents on which one’s denomination rests; and Cranmer’s BCP was, for its time, a truly remarkable work. Why the negative attitude against it?
My comment on this being a pre-seminary piece was meant to point out that what I write here was based on information any average person in the pew could easily get their hands on. My faith was quite solid before seminary and remains so within it.
I happened across this piece for no good reason. But, I am glad that I did. I loved the tone and the thoughtfulness. It seems to me that it is a sign of maturity and confidence that is all too rare in discussions of faith.
Thanks Kevin!
Peg, you are right 🙂 Deaconesses were there in the early church and have been kept in the Eastern church ever since. Sure, there’s no very many, and more although some Orthodox are pushing for more to be ordained, but the evidence from church history in the *most conservative* part of Christendom is to have deaconesses 🙂 The 3-fold order in the historic church was in place by AD100 (not 300) as evidenced in St Ignatius’s writings as well as many others well before 300. Being pro-Women’s Deacon-ordination (not priesthood) is not necessarily a liberal plot 😉
peace,
in Christ, Fr. John D’Alton, 50 y.o. Antiochian Orthodox Church priest. and President Melbourne Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies.
But Father, I thought women deacons traditionally were nuns, and were needed to minister to other women because it was improper for a man to go into a woman’s home (to visit the sick, for example) or to baptize a woman since it would inappropriate for a man to touch a woman (or even to see her since adults used to be baptized naked).
I’ve only heard of one ordained (Orthodox) deaconess in current times, and she’s a monastic. Are there more, living out in the world? I can’t imagine a need for them in American parishes…not that I wouldn’t love to wear those vestments 🙂
Actually diaconal orders and religious orders for nuns are two different things. I’m not sure how this worked out in medieval days, but in today’s churches it would be unlikely for a person to be ordained to both. An ordained deacon reports directly to the bishop, while a nun reports to the head of the convent.
You’re right, though, in saying it was traditional for women to minister to other women, particularly for baptism and in visiting the sick. This could be done by either a deacon or a nun (or a layperson for that matter).
I can’t speak for the Orthodox church, but I know my own (Anglican) has been re-discovering the role of the ordained deacon in the past few decades and has seen a lot of benefit from it! I imagine (I hope) the same might be true of the Orthodox church.
Greetings Fr. John and thanks for your post! One of the things I have noticed over and over is how very much we Protestants are *still* “protesting” against the Roman church, to the point that we neglect the Eastern church and its teachings… which is a great loss, and one I hope to correct here locally. It is good to hear that the Eastern church has always approved women deacons! That means a great deal to those of us who are called to serve in the church.
In re: the 300’s AD, I think in my own defense what I meant was the Roman church and its hierarchy became established around then. The New Testament texts certainly make mention of overseers (“bishops”) and deacons but I doubt the NT church was anywhere near as formal about assigning or delineating these roles as the churches are today. Jesus Himself said to His disciples that “the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you” – and Paul had similar things to say about relationships among believers. I doubt either one of them would approve of the hierarchy of the churches as they are now… but those of us who live in these times must deal with the hierarchies as they are in our time.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”And in another he says: “For as in Adam [not ‘as in Eve’] all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” These passages must be given equal weight with the original passage quoted.”
Galatians 3:28 here is taken out of context. Galatians 3 is a passage that explains SALVATION not leadership roles in the church.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Galatians 3:28-29
Salvation through Jesus Christ is available to every person regardless of sex, status or race.
“Does the church really teach that a woman is saved through childbearing? What if through no fault of her own she has no children? And more to the point, what then becomes of salvation by faith alone – is this only for men?”
I don’t see a response to this in your post; however, it would be a misinterpretation to say that a woman’s salvation comes through having children. This text refers to Eve and the lineage of Christ. Throughout all of Scripture, it is clear that it is through Adam that sin reigns and through Christ that we are able to be reconciled to God. For example, Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…”
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” 1 Timothy 2:13-15
I think it would be extremely helpful for you to include textual references to the Bible in order to validate your statements and force you to include context, that the reader may not misunderstand the authoritative Word of the God of the universe.
“It is my personal rule of thumb, and I think it’s soundly based in Jesus’ teaching…”
Your personal opinion means nothing if not entirely founded upon the Bible. Back up your statements with the Truth and specific references. Teaching is a weighty thing for which all of us will be accountable.
Hi Lauren,
Your post raises more questions than it answers, so I’ll limit my response to this:
When writing on the blog, unless I’m commenting on a large passage of scripture, I deliberately do not list references because:
1) it’s distracting. The blog is meant to read like a conversation not an academic paper.
2) I have had too many conversations with people who get puffed up with pride at their ability to quote chapter and verse… I don’t want that going on here.
3) to focus the reader’s attention on what Scripture passages mean. I am aware of context, and am also aware that our knowledge is not yet perfect.
And I must take exception to this: “Your personal opinion means nothing if not entirely founded upon the Bible.”
Jesus does not negate our personalities like that. To be certain our words need to be informed by Scripture, but Christian conversation is not meant to be limited only to Scripture quotations. And to say one’s personal opinion means nothing is basically just another way of saying “shut up”. Care to try a more gentle approach?
[…] A Defense of Women In Ministry « Getting StartedAs far as I can see the AMiA’s report is correct, as is the author’s evaluation – it’s wrong to stop with just ordaining women to the diaconate. The only reason I can … […]
The original link to Patterson’s paper is missing. Please fix.
Hi Chris, Thanks for the heads-up. The new location has been found and the link has been fixed.
Great article, Peg!! I wonder how I missed it! I know, we only met in 2009. Your analysis is excellent. Re pre-seminary value, I personally think God uses Seminary to sharpen/hone what you already have, i.e., the knowledge of the truth and gifts He’s already given. If you don’t have it before Seminary, I doubt that Seminary will give it to you, as it’s something that comes directly from the Father through the Holy Spirit. All I’m trying to say is “you’ve got it, girl!”
God bless you!
Thank you so much! It’s so easy to get discouraged sometimes… I appreciate your gift of encouragement!
Peg, some interesting reading. My take is that God created men and women different, not just for reproductive roles, but also for many other gender-specific roles. In the secular world men and women can probably do 90% of jobs equally well (midwifery and commando warrior are examples in the 10% section). In marriage and in the church (one of which is a smaller unit of the other) men are beholden to take the role of headship. Marriages and churches where this is not the case, are either dysfunctional, or breakdown completely sooner or later. Quite why God implemented a creation with specific genders we will not know in this life. Would things have been different if Jesus had come as a woman perhaps? Should women have important roles in the church – absolutely! Is gender important – I should say so. We all have to submit to those over us who have our best interests at heart.
best regards, Brandon