APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C
ORDINATION AND AUTHORITY
Importance of the Topic
The ministry of women can, as amply demonstrated in the foregoing historical survey, be exercised in many different ways. Inevitably, however, the question of ordination presses itself to the forefront. The reason for this is clear enough. If ordination admits one to the ranks of the clergy and qualifies that person to perform the church’s highest ministries (such as teaching, preaching, and the administration of the ordinances or sacraments), the admittance of women to that office is an unambiguous statement that sex is of no consequence whatsoever in Christian ministry. Conversely, no matter what other ministries might be open to women in a given church or denomination, if women are barred from ordination, a hierarchical position in which women are subordinate to men is thereby affirmed. But the matter is not that simple.
Diversity of Viewpoints
Concepts of ordination differ from denomination to denomination and church to church. Any resolution of the question depends on two variables: (1) one’s ecclesiology, particularly the definition and the significance of ordination with regard to the functions it permits, and the qualifications it requires, and (2) one’s interpretation of Scripture with regard to the ministries a woman is permitted to perform. The second of these has been touched on earlier under several categories; so attention will now be directed to the meaning of ordination and also to the related matters of church office and the locus of authority.
Recent years, especially since Vatican II, have witnessed many dialogues, spoken and in writing, on the subject of ordination. Discussions about ordination have occasionally resulted in rather extreme positions, just as the practice has been subject to extreme abuses. It is well known that there have been times in history when ordination itself has been challenged, as in such groups as the Quakers and the Plymouth Brethren. One of the early spokesmen for the latter, John Nelson Darby, put the matter into clear and strong terms in a booklet he wrote: “The Notion of a Clergyman: The Sin against the Holy Ghost in This Generation.”1 His thesis was simple: If the Holy Spirit has bestowed spiritual gifts on all believers, for a clergyman to arrogate to himself the sole right to preside at communion and direct the entire service is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit.
Approaching the matter on a different level, Marjorie Warkentin wrote a monograph on the subject, in which she challenged ordination from both a biblical and a historical perspective.2 Her work explores the rise of the clergy, the assumptions that made this possible, and the biblical issues involved.
One example of dialogue on this subject is a work jointly published in Germany by Catholics and Lutherans in which the arguments raised included reference to such topics as the priesthood of all believers, the theology of ministry, and the pastoral role.3
For a sample of traditional thought on ordination the following statement may be quoted:
A new theology of ministry cannot (as some Reformation traditions intended) turn ministry into laity nor eliminate ordination and liturgy as excessively cultic Just the opposite is needed. The social and animal facets of our human nature call for sacramental liturgy. Ordination is a visible affirmation and invocation of charism, a celebration of the church’s diverse life and risky mission, a symbol of the Spirit truly present in the church.4
The Ordination of Women
With such diversity of viewpoints on ordination, it is not surprising that there is no unity on the matter of the ordination of women. Recent years have seen publication of various “pro and con” articles and books.5 A survey of these contributions reveals that proponents of women’s ordination characteristically speak to the matter of women’s equality as human beings, their equality as Christians, the pouring out of the Spirit on both men and women (Acts 2), their equality in the reception of spiritual gifts (the biblical passages on the subject—such as Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4:7–13—make no sexual distinction), and the long history of women’s varied ministries in Scripture and in the church age. Opponents tend to focus on such matters as the restrictive passages (1 Cor. 14:34–36: 1 Tim. 2:11–15), the headship of the man or husband (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 522–24), the idea that women are more easily deceived, the qualifications for elders that are couched in male terms (e.g., “husband of one wife”), the exclusively male priesthood in the Old Testament, the fact that Jesus did not appoint any women apostles, and theories about the nature of Christian ministry and priesthood.
Related Issues
In order to clarify the issues further, three related subjects need attention. One is the nature of authority in the church, including teaching authority. A second is the question of what the term “office” implies and whether women occupied church offices in the New Testament period. The third is the laying on of hands and its relation to ordination. The literature on these subjects is vast, but for the present purposes only summaries of each topic will be offered, with occasional references to pertinent scholarly contributions.
Authority
The reason this is a subject for consideration is that if 1 Timothy 2:12 precludes women having any authority in the church, it is essential to know what that does or does not entail. Of course, if the verb authenteō in that passage refers to some wrongful way of assuming authority rather than to the normal exercise of authority, then it is not necessary to determine where ecclesiastical authority lies. Those, however, who have concluded that women ought not to be in any position of authority need to define what positions are involved.
Several questions call for serious consideration: Where did authority lie in the New Testament church? Was authority attached to an office, such as that of elder or overseer, to the teaching ministry, to the prophetic ministry, to the apostolate, or to some combination of these? Is it appropriate to distinguish between two kinds of authority, that of office and that of personal influence? What kind of authority, if any, did a teacher or prophet have? Was authority inherent in teaching itself? If so, in what kind or level of teaching was it found? Did teaching in the New Testament church include some dimension of judgment or of exercising discipline that it does not have today? Even if the words didaskō (“teach”) and authenteō (“assume authority”) are grammatically independent in 1 Timothy 2:12, were they so closely entwined in people’s minds that the former implied the latter, with the result that it was better for women not to do either?
While these are important questions, something of great significance can easily be lost in the discussion. The great fear many have today about women having authority is based on several questionable assumptions, such as that (1) 1 Timothy 2:12 totally prohibits women from having authority, (2) certain individuals in the church have authority over others, (3) there is an “office” of ministry whose incumbents are vested with authority, and (4) teaching is always an exercise of authority. In all this discussion an important fact is usually overlooked. This fact is that attention is focused almost exclusively on governmental authority of church leaders over other Christians, whereas in the New Testament the greater emphasis is on authority in the spiritual realm.
It may help, therefore, to summarize briefly some of the occasions in the New Testament where it is said that authority was exercised. These include (1) the right of Jesus to forgive sin (Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24); (2) the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 7:29; Mark 122, 27; Luke 4:32); (3) the disciples’ casting out demons (Matt. 10:1; Mark 3:15; 6:7; Luke 4:36; 9:1); (4) healing (Matt. 10:1; Luke 9:1); (5) the activities of Jesus in the temple, and, in comparison, the ministry of John the Baptist (Matt. 2123–25; Mark 1127–33; Luke 20:1–8); (6) authority over snakes, scorpions, and all the power of the Enemy (Luke 10:19–20); (7) the authority God gave to the Son to judge (John 527); (8) power to cast into hell (Luke 12:5); (9) the “rights” Paul had as an apostle (1 Cor. 8:9; 9:4–6, 12, 18; 11:10; 2 Thess. 3:9); (10) the apostolic authority to build up the church (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10); and (11) the right to eat at the altar in contrast to those who ministered at the tabernacle (Heb. 13:10). To these may be added the problematic matter of the keys of the kingdom, though the word exousia does not occur in Jesus’ statement about that (Matt. 16:19). Also Jesus said that all authority was given to him, and on the basis of that he gave the Great Commission. We generally apply the Commission to all believers, not just to the apostles. In that case, should we not assume that whatever kind of authority is thereby conveyed to those who go, make disciples, baptize, and teach, is given to women as well as to men?
But even with respect to the circumstance of church activities, a distinction should be made at this point between actual authority and perceived authority. A church, for example, that has a congregational form of government has vested its authority in the congregation itself. If the church membership has a majority of women, these women can actually be in control of the church, even if that church does not admit women to church office. The pastor would be accountable to this female majority and could be dismissed by them. But in some churches, as is the case with some baptistic “superchurches” today, the pastor dominates the scene. Sometimes he (in such cases it is probably a man) has a great deal of designated authority, such as the power to veto board appointments. But often perceived authority also has great significance. That is, the pastor is thought of as an authority figure even without official bestowal of power. Because of the aura around the figure in the pulpit, it would be difficult for those who withhold all authority from women to accept a woman preacher, even if church polity officially vests authority in the congregation, not in the pastor.
Given not only the fact that the contemporary church is divided today in its concept of authority, but also the humbling probability that all churches have beliefs and practices that depart in some way from those of the New Testament church, it is difficult to lay down simple rules as to lines of authority and the relation of authority to teaching. But it is safe to say that a person teaching the Bible to a local congregation today can hardly be said to have the same authority that a teacher had in New Testament times, especially before the New Testament was completed and readily available.
In ancient times the teacher was highly honored. Jesus noted that those “to whom the word of the Lord came”—i.e., the judges in ancient Israel whose legal decisions were based on their interpretation of divine law—were called “gods” (Ps. 82:6; John 10:34–35). But today, although a teacher may speak in an authoritative manner, no one is bound (with the possible exception of some legalistic sects) to obey every word of that teacher on pain of excommunication. What authority there is resides in the Scripture that is being taught, not in the teacher.
Some question is raised in this respect by Titus 2:15, which is typically translated, as in the NIV: “Encourage and rebuke with all authority.” But the word here is not the familiar exousia, but epitagē. This word was often used in ancient times to refer to a command from God (or, in paganism, from a god) that is to be passed on. Paul uses it to refer to God’s command to himself (1 Tim. 1:1). Revelation came through the prophets by the command of God (Rom. 1626). On some matters Paul had received a specific command of God, probably in the sense of a saying of Jesus (1 Cor. 7:6). The apostle himself had the right to issue a command (2 Cor. 8:8); Timothy and Titus were apostolic delegates. The terminology, therefore, seems not to indicate that Titus was vested with ongoing ecclesiastical authority as an individual, but that he was to convey God’s commands in their full force.
One may ask, then, at what point authority enters into ministry. Apart from, say, the sacramental authority of the Catholic priesthood, is there anything about breaking bread at the Lord’s Supper that involves authority? What about baptizing? And at what point does pastoral counseling become authoritative? If a woman may teach a boy, how is the age beyond which this is wrong determined? What dimension of teaching or authority is inappropriate for a woman? Is it telling people what the Bible says? Is it telling them what the Bible says Christians should do? Is it telling them what they should identify as sin and therefore not do or repent of having done? Is it explaining doctrine? Is it telling them of the nature and attributes of God? Is it telling them they should be baptized? Can they teach in the home but not in church? What is the theological or spiritual difference between the two? Is one authoritative and the other not? If so, in what sense? What kind of spiritual authority does a preacher have that a Sunday school superintendent does not? Such questions deserve consideration. To rethink the matter of authority may result in an allayment of some fears over the ministry of women.
Office
Was there such an institution as “office” in the New Testament church, or did the churches function through charismatic (i.e., gifted) ministries? Was the situation clearcut, or was there a blend of office and charisma, with churches differing in their emphasis, depending on their stage of development and other circumstances? This has been the object of ongoing study. Further, is office something that exists independent of the incumbent, continuing even when the office-holders change, or does office exist only when a capable and designated person is performing the indicated ministry?
Contemporary studies on office and ecclesiastical power have isolated several elements that are considered characteristic. These include the idea of permanency just indicated, recognition by the church, a separation of the designated people from the rest (a separation that exists today in the separation of clergy and laity), an act of commissioning (such as ordination), and financial remuneration.6 But even where there was a ranking of importance of gifts (as Paul seems to do in 1 Corinthians 1227–31—according to their value in edifying the church), it has to be said that “in reality there hardly existed any hierarchical differentiation between the various functions or, in other words, no function at the time of Paul’s letter-writing was legally subordinated to any other.”7
Concepts of power developed rapidly in the early church, however, and Jesus’ words about being servants instead of “lords” like those among the Gentiles were being forgotten. But what about ordination? If that is attested in the New Testament and marked by a distinctive act, such as the laying on of hands, it would seem to establish a separate office of authority to which, as some view the Scriptures on women, only men can be admitted.
A related topic is elderhood and similar governing bodies. The New Testament speaks in terms of a plurality of leadership, rather than of individual authority. Some elders lead well and some are good at teaching (1 Tim. 5:17), but there is no indication that elders in the New Testament church exercised authority as individuals over others. On the contrary, elders were not to “lord it over the flock” (1 Peter 5:3). If a denomination does vest ultimate authority in its elders individually and also holds that 1 Timothy 2:12 precludes authority of any kind whatsoever to women, that denomination would understandably bar women from being elders. But if the biblical picture of elders is seen as shepherding and guarding the flock rather than disciplining it, or if authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12 describes, not normal, but some kind of inordinate authority, then matters are different.
A contemporary arrangement may be worth citing here. One large church has recently restructured its organization into a church council that includes all members of the full-time staff and a number of parishioners chosen by the congregation. The members of this group in turn are divided among various specialized ministries in the church. There are no elders or deacons as such, but the functions of elders and deacons are faithfully carried out by the specialized groups. The church is congregational in government; so the ultimate authority does not reside either with the professional staff or with the council, but with the people themselves. Under this arrangement, women may function on the council and in the various ministries groups. In this way it is possible for them to serve, for example, in some of the ministries that elders normally carry on, but without the problems of “authority” that membership on an elder board as such might bring. What such an arrangement accomplishes, in addition to being a practical and efficient way to carry on the work of a large church, is to return to the New Testament emphasis of function and spiritual ministry rather than to center attention on elevation to an “office.”
However one may evaluate this arrangement, it can serve to stimulate fresh thinking on the matter. The ultimate question is whether the form of government a particular congregation or denomination holds represents biblical principles as closely as possible. Only when that question has been addressed honestly can the participation of women in church ministries and government be properly discussed.
The Laying on of Hands
It is almost universally assumed that the laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6 (possibly also 1 Tim. 522) is an example of ordination to Christian ministry. Calvin, for example, claimed, “It was the custom and ordinary practice of the Apostles to ordain ministers by the laying on of hands.”8 A further common assumption is that the laying on of hands in the Pastoral Epistles takes its meaning from a Jewish custom of ordaining rabbis and thereby bestowing authority to teach and to render judgments. But the assumption that rabbinic ordination was being performed by the laying on of hands at the time of the New Testament is being challenged today. This naturally brings into question the laying on of hands for Christian ordination.
Lest the task of evaluating the evidence seem easy, the observation of a Catholic scholar, may be noted, that “almost every issue related to the subject remains unsolved.”9 A Jewish scholar concludes his study of Jewish ordinations by saying, “The real question, or questions, have yet to be asked…The real challenge of investigating authority structures in Jewish societies past and present should now begin.”10
The laying on of hands was practiced from earliest biblical times (cf. Gen. 48:14–22). It is sometimes overlooked, however, that the practice was used for a number of different reasons, including identification with sacrifices. Perhaps the most familiar use was when Moses designated his successor, Joshua (Num. 27:18–23); cf. Deut. 34:9). In the former passage, it says that Joshua was already filled with the Holy Spirit; in the latter that he became filled with the Spirit. Acts 6:1–6 is reminiscent of the former, 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6 of the latter. In neither New Testament instance, however, is it related to the choice of a successor. Hands were also laid on the Levites to set them apart for the Lord (Num. 8:5–14), but not on the seventy elders to whom Moses gave authority to judge (Num. 11:16–25). Therefore the attempt of the medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides to trace rabbinic ordination to the installation of the seventy elders is not valid, at least as regards the rite used.
It seems significant that the Gospels do not record that Jesus laid hands on the apostles, as one might have expected if this were the way the church should convey authority. There is no instance of it being done either with the group or with individual disciples, in spite of the attention given to Jesus’ call of the disciples. Neither did he lay hands on the disciples to whom he gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16–20).
There are several occasions of the laying on of hands in Acts. Twice the laying on of hands conveyed, or appears to have conveyed, the gift of the Holy Spirit (8:17; 19:6). The appointment in Acts 6:1–6, already noted, was for a particular work in serving others, not to a position of authority. Ananias laid his hands on Paul, having been sent so that Paul might regain his vision and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). In Acts 13:1–3 Barnabas and Paul were commissioned with the laying on of hands for a particular mission, which they are said to have fulfilled at the end of Acts 14. This was not an “ordination” as it is known today. They had already been in Christian ministry. It was not a commissioning to a position but to a particular task. That task was not within the church, but external to it—that is, to missionary work.
The clear impression gained thus far is that the laying on of hands had to do with service, not rank. The appointment of elders by Paul and Barnabas on the return leg of the first missionary journey (Acts 14:23) offers no further data, since it did not include the laying on of hands. In place of the laying on of hands, however, we find a significant expression: to “stretch out the hand” (as one did in voting in the ancient Greek assemblies or in pointing out someone or something). It came to mean “to appoint,” and was used of the appointment of the high priest and of church officials. In 2 Corinthians 8:19 it is used of the appointment of Titus to assist in the offering Paul was taking to Jerusalem. After apostolic times the term came to be used for ordination, a use it did not have in the New Testament. This is not the term used in 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6. Instead, we find the familiar laying on of hands. A spiritual gift was imparted at this time. There is no indication that Timothy was installed into some office or position of authority.
Thus the laying on of hands was different from the later practice of Jewish ordination. Ordination of rabbis meant the conferral of judicial authority. This was also the case with a different practice that was going on at the time of the New Testament: the appointment of the Sanhedrin by the laying on of hands. That was purely judicial and unrelated to teaching ministry. As regards rabbinic ordination, no saying referring to the laying on of hands is attributed to any rabbi prior to the time of Rabina (4th century, C.E.), who asked R. Ashi, “Is ordination practiced by the laying on of hands?” (B. Sanhedrin 13.b).
Perhaps the strongest position on Jewish antecedents to Christian ordination has been taken by Hoffman, who says, “In modern times, the analogy with Christian ordination has led to a search for something comparable in early Jewish tradition. So scholars have built an elaborate structure of notions presumed to correspond to early ordination ceremonial. There is no evidence to support any of this.”11 Any conclusion has to be expressed with caution, but it would seem that 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6 do not describe an ordination as we think of it today, nor did Acts 6:6 or 13:3. The laying on of hands was a charismatic act that had points of comparison with various other impositions of hands in Scripture, but it cannot be identified with any uniform rite practiced in New Testament times. Therefore it would appear that while arguments concerning women’s ordination (whether pro or con) may be meaningful with regard to denominational polity, there is no passage within the New Testament dealing with ordination to clerical office as usually conceived today on which such arguments can be based.