Report of Special Committee on the House of Bishops, on the Ordination of Women
Diocesan Press Service. November 3, 1972 [72165]
At the 1971 meeting of the House of Bishops, a resolution was presented by the Committee on ministry (Bishop of Newark) in substance asking the House to state that it was "the mind of the House that it endorses the principle of the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood and of the Ordination and Consecration of Women to the Episcopate", and further asking the Committee on Canons to prepare the amendments necessary to establish this principle at the 1973 General Convention. After discussion, on motion, the matter was referred to a Special Committee of the House. It is now the privilege of that Committee to report.
We were not asked to make a specific proposal or proposals to the House for action, and we do not do so. A committee of seven bishops is a small fraction of the House; and any attempt on our part to count our own noses and possibly emerge with some such verdict as 2 Yes/2 No/2 Wait/l Undecided would have been stultifying and useless to the House as a guide for action.
In our two meetings and in the various circulated drafts, we uncovered a surprising degree of unanimity among ourselves as to the considerations which seem to us the fundamental ones on which, in our judgment, the Church's decisions should be based. The differences among us as to the specific issues were clear; but we were in substantial agreement as to the main biblical and theological evidence which must be considered in reaching any conclusion. We came to feel that our usefulness to the House might lie in a report which would sketch these fundamental considerations and thus perhaps provide a somewhat-disciplined theater for debate and decision. In other words, what follows is mainly a discussion of the matters which all of us felt were the decisive elements in the debate. On these we were generally of one mind, even though we might differ quite sharply on what we should therefore do about the specific issues. The report is in four parts, dealing respectively with The Ministry; Scripture, Tradition and Images; Evangelism and Development; and A Penumbra of Practicalities.
I: The Ministry
A. The Diaconate is the one order of sacred ministers to which women are ordained, in our church. That this is so no doubt reflects the fact that the diaconate, in the New Testament, seems clearly a ministry to which women were admitted (cf. Romans 16:1, Acts 5:36). By the time I Timothy (3:8-13) was written, the diaconate seems to be a recognized "holy order". St. Paul's use of the word diakonos for Phoebe may well not have echoed those more formalized overtones, but C. H. Dodd's comment is appropriate, that "we may fairly suppose that the order of deacons which emerges in the second century . . . had its origin in Paul's own time; and that it included women as well as men" (The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, p.235).
The ministry of the deacon, as generally understood in the contemporary church, is murky and confused. To some it is no more than a "one-armed priesthood" -- a brief stepping-stone in a professional career. To others it seems almost indistinguishable from the ministry of a lay person, save for the privilege of reading the Gospel at public worship. Perhaps because of such confusion, the admission of women to this order has appeared to present few serious difficulties, particularly because the New Testament evidence supports it. The main exception to this is the resistance of some to the substitution of "deacon" for the traditional "deaconess". In our mind, the fact that women are accepted as deacons is true to the New Testament evidence, and may well lead to a long-needed, fresh statement of the work of the ordained deacon. We think, however, that it bears only indirectly, if at all, on the present issue.
If the ordained diaconate is not merely a vestigial historical fragment, or an apprenticeship, it seems clearly to be a ministry of service. It may be distinguished from the service to which all Christians are called simply by intensity and by the authority and accountability conveyed in ordination, of which perhaps the liturgical privilege of reading the Gospel is a token. In Christian history, administration and teaching have been two ministries frequently associated with the diaconate. Further, the diaconate has also been closely associated with the bishop. The liturgical aspects of the diaconate -- baptism, administration of the Holy Communion, unction et al -- now tend to be blurred by the increasing participation of un-ordained persons in those functions. Should the diaconate be seen as primarily a work of advocacy of the poor, the sick, the dispossessed ? All this enters into the Church's need for a fresh statement. But it is clear that the diaconate is a ministry for both men and women, with firm scriptural authority, which needs and deserves to be seen in its own unique terms, however they may be phrased. Yet we have not come to the core of the matter until we look at priesthood and episcopacy.
B. The Priesthood: What we say here about priesthood is a brief statement of a contemporary understanding of ordained priesthood which we generally share. The mystery of the priesthood far outruns any attempt to "describe" it. The New Testament seems to know of only one Priest, the Lord, in Whom the ancient High Priesthood of Israel culminates and is once for all fulfilled (Hebrews 5). The "Royal Priesthood"of I St. Peter 2:9 is derivative from Christ's High Priesthood -- it refers to the ministry of loving service which all Christians share because of their inclusion, through baptism, in His Priestly Body. The word "priest" as applied to individual ministers seems not to have found its way into the Church's vocabulary until the end of the second century. Any developed doctrine of ministerial priesthood is still slower to appear; indeed it may be said that the Church, in our time, is still unfolding the truths about the ministry of the ordained and the un-ordained alike hidden in the mystery of priesthood.
Some things seem to have been securely learned. The ministry shared and exercized by those ordained as priests partakes in and expresses both the High Priesthood of Christ and also the Royal Priesthood into which Christians enter in baptism. Priesthood is also perceived in the way in which this reconciling act is mediated, generation after generation, in and through Christ's Body, the Church, and all its members share in that mediation. The ordained priest is deeply linked to both these perceptions. By ordination, certain members of the Body are called of God and authorized by the Body to speak and act for the High Priest toward the Church and the world. They also speak and act for the Church and the world in making offering for them, through the Son, to the Father. To say, as we do, that ordained priesthood is representative" is to say that the priest is, in ways far beyond our understanding, acting for both the Lord and His Church. His priesthood is not derived from the Church nor has anyone a right to claim priesthood; the priest is called to receive a gift, in ordination, which comes from the Father. But his call and the gift are alike recognized and ratified by the Church; he acts for them in receiving and exercizing the gift. Thus the authority and accountability conveyed in ordination has a double reference. No man exercizes priesthood in a vacuum.
The priest is not set "above' the Laos, or against it. He is rather within the Laos as a particular focus or symbol or effective means of Christ's action toward the Church and the world, and of the Church's thankful response, through Christ, to the Father. This duality in no way implies two separate authorities or credentials or accountabilities. There is only One Priest. In Fr. Herbert's words "The whole meaning of priesthood and sacrifice in the Church is gathered up in the one Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ. He is recorded to have committed to the leader of the apostles the keys of stewardship, and to have instituted a sacrificial and sacramental rite; but the Christian minister does not hold a separate and individual priesthood . . . In whatever sense the church and its ministers are priestly, Christ must remain the one Priest . . . As He has once for all offered Himself up for us, so that same sacrificial oblation is continued in us . . ."(The Apostolic Ministry, p.519).
In sum, we found ourselves often using the word "representative", in its two separate contexts, as expressive of part of the central mystery of priesthood. This duality of role, in quite different ways, seemed to several of us to pose the question whether representation implied or required male-ness as a necessary attribute. In Part II some further thoughts on this are recorded.
C. The Episcopate again, and in still greater depth, seems to us marked by the mystery of representation. All that has been said of priesthood applies to the bishop, of course. What is added is his peculiar ministry of continuity, of unity, of wholeness, of oversight. This ministry, shared with the clergy and laity, and fully collegial, is an incarnation of Christ's actions and qualities. The bishop represents the Lord to His Body and the world. That is to say, it is the eternity of the Son which is the continuity mediated through ordination; it is the complex unity of the person of Jesus Christ -- a unity of disciplined, single-minded obedience to mission -- which is the source of the unity of the Church; it is the health and wholeness of the Incarnate Lord which is given in the whole state of His Church; it is Christ's compassionate and vigilant care which is mediated in the ministry of the overseer and the pastor. And in all this, the bishop represents the Church and the world before the Father, in and through the Son. He is the called, authorized, accountable personification of these gifts of God in Christ, and of the Church's stewardship of them. More than one of us felt deeply that the accountability of the bishop is a primary factor in keeping him faithful in the midst of the perplexities and demands he faces.
In the case of episcopacy as in that of priesthood, the suggestion of a duality of representative roles raised in some of our minds the question as to the significance of male-ness as a necessary attribute or characteristic of the bishop. Perhaps even more than the priest, the episcopal Father-in-God imagery is that of a male figure and none of us doubts the extraordinary tensions and problems which would confront the church were women to be chosen to be bishops. But the question remains, in some of our minds, whether it can be said that female-ness is a diriment impediment to their consecration as bishops. We have recited these statements about the Church's ordained ministry simply to set down a broad outline of the understandings we all felt we shared and within which we approached the question of the ordination of women. Now we turn to that question.
II: Scripture, Tradition and Images
(N.B. Rather than attempting to conflate two divergent drafts on this theme, they are both included as clear statements of thoughtful points of view. In both cases, the Committee felt the statements presented arguments and evidences which had to be considered and faced. The two writers remain in full communion.
(The following material, to page IO presents the position of an opponent to the ordination of women.)
"The New Testament takes it for granted that men will usually exercise the ministry of bishop-presbyter or deacon. Romans 16:1-2 is an exception, where Phoebe is spoken of as diakonos of the church in Cenchrea. In I Timothy 3:11, the writer may be speaking of female deacons, or of the deacons' wives. The use of hosautos ('even so') shows a close connection between the women and the deacons and suggests that a new class is being introduced, analogous to the preceding order of deacons. Another argument for this is that no special requirements have been mentioned for the wives of bishop-presbyters. Certainly, the solemnity of the requirement that these women shall be pistas en pasi, ('absolutely faithful', says Moffat) seems to point to the requirements of some office in the church. Junia, apparently the wife of Andronicus (Romans 16:7), is like him 'eminent among the Apostles'. Dr. Dodd has pointed out that the word 'apostle' is not used in the New Testament to mean only one of the Twelve, but is applied to one 'properly commissioned by the church to preach the Gospel'. Another husband-wife team is that of Priscilla and Aquila. These women are teachers and evangelists, but there is no evidence that they were bishop-presbyters. Other women who are prominent in the formation of the early church are Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2) who 'labored with me in the Gospel' and Dorcas (Acts 9:36).
"Dorcas is a special case, for to her alone is the technical name mathetria given. The plain sense of the passage is that she had been a disciple of the Lord in the days of his flesh, and that 'disciple' must be given its official and technical meaning. There are other evidences of women's ministries: in Acts 21:9 the four daughters of Philip are 'Prophets', and women are said to pray and prophesy in the meetings of the church in Corinth (I Corinthians 11:5), though St. Paul wishes them to observe the conventions about head coverings as they do so. In Acts and the Pauline epistles there is ample evidence of the part that women played in the establishing of the Christian Church. Contrary to vulgar superstition, Paul welcomed his women colleagues, and praised them highly and judiciously.
"In this he only follows the example of his Lord. It appears from the linguistic usage in Luke 17:27 and Mark 12:25 (egamoun, egamizonto, gamousin, gamiskontai) that there is no 'equality' between the sexes, in Jesus' teaching; but we never hear a derogatory word from Him concerning women. His parables often illustrate the anxieties and joys of women. He will observe the proprieties (lark 5:40), but he will also break with Jewish customs and laws when it is necessary. He is surrounded by a band of women who travel with him (Luke 3:2) and help to support him. Women are near him in his suffering (Mark 15:40ff) and in his triumph (John 20). But he does not choose a woman to be one of the Twelve, nor (unless Dorcas is an exception, unnamed in the Gospels) to be one of the Seventy.
"In the Apostolic Church there is no doubt about the full membership of women (Acts 1:14, 12:12); and as Christian men are called 'brothers', so the technical word for a woman Christian is 'sister', as in Romans 16, I Corinthians 9, and elsewhere. In the teaching o. St. Paul, woman is equal to man in Baptism (Galatians 3:26ff), yet she is subordinate to man in leadership, and the full removal of sexual distinction must await the Coming Age (I Corinthians 7:29-31). Much perverse ingenuity has been expended in pitting Galatians against Corinthians, and we have had to endure the unedifying spectacle of Galatians 3:26ff being canonized by those who reject the traditional Catholic doctrine of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, to belong to the cultic ministry is no part of the perfection of Christian membership in Christ. That the church acted as if it were, and as if lay people were second-class Christians, is only too true. It is only too true that lay women have been excluded from the decision-making processes of the church; this is one of the causes of their present anger and frustration. But we cannot right this wrong by committing another.
'"That the 'marriage-image' that Scripture uses to denote the relationship between God and his people must not be pressed too far in our thinking, is a common-place. Those who have anxieties about these images (more than forty references to bride-bridegroom in the Old Testament and New Testament) must ask themselves whether their concern is to understand them, or to explain them away.
"Fr. John Heidt (Marquette University) has pointed out that the Christian priest, unlike the pagan priest, is a sacrament of the givenness of the Christian religion -- of the initial creative and recreative act of God towards mankind. On the human level, this is symbolized in masculinity as biologically expressed in the male. A woman priest, therefore, must lack the full symbolic expression of the meaning of Christian priesthood, and to that extent must be defective. The difficulties that many people have with symbolic statement and practice are too evident. 'Masculine' is always interpreted as 'male'. although as C. S. Lewis has reminded us, maleness is only a part of masculinity, and the same is true of femaleness and femininity, while masculinity and femininity are part of the make-up of both men and women. In religion (and this is the usual language of Holy Scripture), mankind is feminine towards God, in that we receive and respond to Him. He is masculine towards us, in that He gives and creates.
"All of this does not mean that men only give and never respond, or that women only respond and never give. All men and women do both. It is possible, where no real alternative exists, for a woman to perform a masculine role -- or how would the children of widows grow into real adulthood 7 But a woman cannot symbolize a masculine role; she is not the visible sacrament of God's giving act towards mankind. On the other hand, if it were not for the gross devaluation of womanhood in our culture, would not a sensitive mind see in a woman the visible sacrament of the soul's openness and receptivity towards God?
"In the Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Women and Holy Orders (CIO London, 1x6), Canon Demant reminds us that in the non-theistic cults, religion centers in men's response to nature's fertility. In these cults, a female priesthood is common and appropriate. But the Christian cultic minister symbolizes the fact that the Church exists through the initiating act of God as transcending nature, and this symbolism is normally and adequately expressed in a male priesthood. I should add to this statement the thought that the ordained Christian priest must act officially in the person of Christ, and male-ness is therefore required for a priest to act in this way.
"All of this has its background in the Old Testament. The cultic priesthood there belongs to males, by divine ordinance. One must not exaggerate the significance of this for women's participation. Women are not religious nonentities in the Old Testament. They have part in the national festivals (2 Samuel 6:19, Deuteronomy 12:12); they lead the cultic dances (Judges 21:12); they have a part in the sacrificial meals, and in the Passover. They too enter into Covenant with Yahweh in Deuteronomy 29:10ff. Some of them are God's prophets -- Airiam, Huldah and others -- and some of them serve the Tent of Revelation in Exodus 38:8. Nevertheless, they are not chosen by God to serve the altar; that belongs in the old Testament to males alone. The usual explanation given for all of this is that the Old Testament culture was a 'patriarchal' one, and that women were subordinated to men in that culture. The discovery that there are other cultures known to human history is not a new one, but the inferences being drawn from this discovery are new -- the inference, for instance, that Scripture need not be right in saying that humanity comes in two kinds, masculine and feminine; that the woman is not inferior to the man (although not 'equal' to him, for his is the task of leadership). There are some matters that cannot be settled by comparative anthropology alone, just as there are matters in Scripture that demand the light of all the science at our command. The existence of two stories of creation cannot be said to invalidate the insights about man and woman that are found in chapter 2 of Genesis. The Genesis I story speaks in completely general terms; the second deals from a rather different standpoint with a, single locality and a specific pair of individuals. The dramatic narrative in chapter 2 of Genesis is meant to exemplify the biblical idea of monogamic marriage. It should not be used to nullify the plain teaching of scripture in other places, that man has a special responsibility of leadership in the man-woman unity.
"Such is the background of Our Lord's ministry. To speculate that He would have done this or that if things had been all different is a sign of skepticism. What Jesus did is normative for His people. The Apostles had no doubt about that. They chose another man to replace Judas, although there were women present who fulfilled the other conditions that are mentioned in Acts 1:21 and 22. When they admitted first Samaritans, and then Gentiles, to the infant Church, they did so in response to a direct intervention by the Spirit of Jesus. On the basis of this experience, they formed their attitude towards circumcision. Those who represent such matters as mere happenstance offer us an amazingly a-pneumatic church, and substitute ideologies for evidences.
"But is there no place for development in doctrine and practice in the Church ? If it is true (and the evidence is overwhelming) that there are no women presbyters in the early church, may it not now be the time to admit women to the priesthood and episcopate ? Questions of 'The Spirit of the Age' must be set aside, and will be by all candid persons. The existence of a demand for priesthood by some women is not a priori evidence of an unmistakable intervention by the Holy Spirit, such as we find in Acts. To the plea that some women now genuinely believe themselves called by God to priesthood, one must reply that it has always been the duty of the church to tell a man whether or not he has a true vocation to priesthood, and the church has this task today. If the Church says 'No' to these aspirants, it would seem proper to assume that their question had been answered by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
"That there have been developments in the life of the church is undeniable. The Canon of the Holy Scripture was a development. The Threefold i4inistry was a development. The full Conciliar faith about the person of Christ was a development. They were developments of that which was implicitly present from the beginning. From the beginning of the church, the cultic priesthood of the church has been restricted to males, and no new light has broken forth from God's Holy Word on this matter. For the Scriptures are not just a troublesome ghost; they are the 'lively oracles of God', as the old Prayer Book said. Those who relativize certain passages that are troublesome to them, cannot stop there. Then they have put Scripture out of court as a guide. And the Church, all its life long, must stand under the judgment of scripture. There is no other guide for her and for the Christian.
"Some of the confusion in the Episcopal Church on this question stems from the fact that in 1970 the General Convention affirmed that it is the mind of our church that deaconesses, so-called, are simply women deacons. Many (even professors of theology) have gone on to say 'then why can't women be admitted to full orders' ? They betray the fallen state of our church in saying so. The Diaconate is 'full' ordination. In the New Testament, it is the only Order exercised by a woman. (To speak of it simply as 'Order' in the New Testament is anachronistic to some extent, but the intention is clear.) Woman had their place in the ministry of the early church, and it was a prominent and honored place. They have an honored place today, and that place will be fully understood only when the church reforms herself, and understands that the only authority of ministry is the authority of service. But diaconate is not presbyterate.
"On the evidence, to admit women as bishops and priests is to overturn the practice of the New Testament church, and the Catholic church ever since. (And it is not the mark of a reactionary to believe that the universal and unanimous testimony of the Catholic Church may be thought binding upon a man's conscience.) The evidence of the Bible may seem to some to be insufficient to declare women incapable of priesthood. It is strong enough to establish a very great improbability that women should be admitted to priesthood and episcopate. In the light of this, such a revolution of Christian practice cannot be undertaken by us. The abolition of clerical celibacy at the Reformation was not a parallel -- like the restoration of the chalice to the laity, that was a taking back of something illegitimately denied. To marry is a natural right. There is no natural right to priesthood. This momentous step must not be taken by a small branch of a particular Catholic Church on its own initiative, without reference to the remainder of catholic Christendom, and I am sure, against the convictions and sentiments of a majority of its own members."
(N.B. The following portion of Part II presents the position of an advocate of the ordination of women. It covers the same basic ground as does the preceding draft.)
"There is no question that, in the New Testament, women are the exception and not the rule, in the ministry of the church. It is only in the diaconate that the ministry of a woman can be established with assurance. The inclusion of Junia (and perhaps others) among 'The Apostles' has significance according to what meaning is attached to the word, but in any case it does not refer to bishop or presbyter. To teach, to pray, to 'prophesy', to evangelize -- again, these are not functions restricted to men, but neither are they limited to bishops or presbyters. Nor is there any question as to the Old Testament evidence. Women exercised many ministries, but not that of priesthood.
"But to argue that because women were not included in various forms of ministry -- Aaronic priesthood, episcopate/presbyterate -- they never should or can be, simply cannot be sustained. If the adoption of the Canon of Holy Scripture or the three-fold ministry or the conciliar faith can be defended as legitimate development of what was implicit in the revelation of God in Christ from the beginning, there is no reason why the ordination of women cannot similarly be defended.
"Those who say that it cannot be defended guard their position by arguments from four quarters: The relation of man and woman in Creation; the analogy of Christian priesthood to the Aaronic priesthood or pagan priesthood; the argument, broadly put, that God is male toward humanity, and humanity female toward God; and the fact that the Church has overwhelmingly said that women may not -- or even can not -- be ordained. Comments on these four areas follow.
"A. The evidence of the two accounts of Creation: It is claimed that the Bible sees God as establishing in the natural order a hierarchy in which man, for purposes of the government and preservation of the race, is set over woman. The root evidence for this view is the account of Creation and the Fall in Genesis 2:4b - 3:24. In this account the male was created first; the female was taken from him; the female yielded to the tempting serpent; the female led the male to join her in eating; the female was condemned by God to sorrow in childbirth and to domination by the male.
"From this basic source flow most of the arguments for the male/female hierarchy. The other account of Creation (Genesis 1:1- 2:4a) knows nothing of such a hierarchy. God creates male and female together, in His image; together they are to share God's blessing; together they are to subdue and rule the earth. If this account were all we had, the Biblical root of the common hierarchical understanding would have been decisively cut. But it is not the only account, and therefore the teaching in Genesis about hierarchy in creation is not as unambiguously clear as is often claimed. Professor Andre Dumas (in an article included in the 1964 WCC report Concerning the Ordination of Women) has an important comment on this:
'Genesis de-sexualised God the Creator, by correcting the sacred myths and rites of the Middle East. On the other hand it strongly insisted on the importance of the sex-differentiation among mankind. It is the only differentiation between human beings which is described as inherent, preceding the fall; it is also the only differentiation which is directly related to the likeness of God (Gen. 1:26 and 27:"So God created man in his own image . . .: male and female He created them") and to God's purpose in the creation (the whole of Genesis, chapter 2, especially verse 18: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him"). The origins of these two accounts are very different: the sacerdotal source (which is quite recent) is a 'genealogy of the heavens and of the earth" (Gen. 2:4a) formulated so that Israel should have a creed about the creation of the world, with which to confront the cosmogonies of the nations by which it was surrounded. The Jahvist source, which is older, is quite different. It is an aetiological description of what happens between man and woman in their intimate relationship, where man's sex-instinct attracts him to the woman and proves stronger than his patriarchal attachment to his parents (v.24). This relationship also includes shame, fear and enmity between the sexes (Gen. 3:7, 12, 16), and after this perversion it also includes the desire to propagate and have children (Gen. 3:20) until the possible day of deliverance, after the necessary time of fragility and protection. But although these two versions are so different, they both stress that originally there was a human couple. In this respect they complete one another. Genesis, chapter 1, describes God's creative act in entrusting dominion over the creation not to man in the singular, but in the plural. This plural is used already in verse 26b, even before the mention of "male and female' in verse 27. Note also that their common mission is primarily to rule (v.26b and 28b), while their fruitfulness (expressed in the same terms as the fruitfulness of the fish and the birds on the 5th day of creation, v.28a = v.22) is described as God's blessing upon them. But human fruitfulness is not a sign of the species, as animal fruitfulness is ("according to their kinds", v.21, 24, 25); it is placed under the sign of that joint authority which characterises the mission of man and woman. Genesis, chapter 2, in a sense confirms in human terms the order of divine creation described by chapter 1. The male exercises his authority by giving names to all the living animals. But this leaves him with "no helper like himself" (2:20). God then created woman, and in her man discovered his feminine counterpart.
'If one stops at this stage in reading 'the order of creation", one sees that it consists of a "joint authority" entrusted by God to man and woman over the whole creation (Gen. 1). This joint authority is ratified by the male, who felt very lonely in his domination until God created his counterpart (Gen. 2). In that case, the order of creation would be the joint exercise of authority, thus expressing the likeness of God.' (Ibid, pp 24-25)
"Dumas goes on to point out that in the New Testament, notably in the Pauline Epistles, the emphasis is heavily on the second account (Genesis 2:4b - 3:24). Indeed St. Paul seems never to have quoted Genesis 1. In approaching this, Dumas describes three main factors which operated (in the Old Testament world) to discourage the inclusion of women in the priesthood. One was the patriarchal regime of the nation, in which women were part of their husbands' households. The second was the often-mentioned fear of women leading people astray (as Potiphar's wife, for example) culminating in the exegesis of Ecclesiasticus 25:24: "It is through woman that sin began, and it is because of woman that we shall all die". This exegesis (as in I Timothy 2) played a powerful role in the beginning Church.
"The third factor -- Dumas says it is 'the only one which is really theological' -- was that before the birth of Christ, woman was blessed as the mother of all living people. 'Her true and special priesthood was to bring into the world sons who would perpetrate the Chosen People until the coming of the Messiah By giving the people male children, women mediated the grace of God; whereas men mediated that grace through sacrifice and (in Judaism after the Exile) more and more through the Torah.'
"What of those factors carried over to the New Testament ? The patriarchal regime, much modified, certainly did. The fear of seduction into idolatry again carried over, as in I Corinthians 11:10 or Revelation 2:20, but against this must be balanced the Bride images and the many others which testify to the sanctifying grace of women. The third, the most significant factor, disappeared completely. 'Since the birth of Christ maternity in itself is no longer a vocation which mediates grace.'
"Dumas summarizes thus: 'Of the three reasons for excluding women from the priesthood in the Old Testament, the New Testament therefore regards the first two as conventions observed for reasons of prudence, and it fundamentally rejects the third as an anti- messianic regression. Therefore one can no longer say: The ministry is for men, and maternity is for women'. (Ibid., p.33)
"To quote so extensively from Prof. Dumas is in no way to propose his answers as authoritative for us. It is, rather, to present important Biblical consideration as concisely as possible. To this member of the Committee, the conclusion reached by Dumas seems correct. To another it may not. In any case, the complex evidence must be dealt with reverently and carefully.
"B. The analogy of Christian priesthood with Aaronic or pagan priesthood: The Christian priesthood is analogous to the Aaronic priesthood only for purposes of contrast -- 'Types and shadows have their ending . . .' In Christ's High Priestly offering and sacrifice, the old priesthood of Israel was completed, fulfilled, ended. Whatever priesthood is to develop in the Church will be in no way a continuation or revival of the old; it will be, in some way, an expression of the totally-new ministry of the crucified and risen Lord. Therefore it would be misleading to draw on a supposed analogy, as if the Epistle to the Hebrews had never been written. The Royal Priesthood into which all the baptized enter is a far wider concept than the later doctrines about the ministry of ordained priests. But both priesthoods are rooted in a new fact, a new creation. As circumcision has given way to baptism, as a new Israel has taken the place of the old, as men and women alike have 'put on Christ' and 'put off the old nature', so has priesthood found a totally-new meaning.
"It must also be clear that Christian and pagan priesthoods are not analogous, unless one wishes to remain at the level of trivialities such as the fact that both Christian and Shinto priests wear curious hats, both Christian and animist altars often have flowers on them, both Christian and voodoo celebrations involve considerable talk about death, etc. The basically sexual frame of reference of so much ancient (and contemporary) pagan worship has no counterpart in Christian understandings of priesthood. The control over deity characteristic of so much pagan worship has no counterpart in Christian faith. So one could continue; but the commanding fact remains, the fact of the new creature in Christ, which is not analogous to anything for there has never been anything like it. To press for analogies is anthropological pettifoggery.
"C. God is male toward humanity; humanity is female toward God: This includes the implication that therefore priesthood must be male toward the Church and female toward God. There are significant meanings to be discerned here, and also significant correctives. For example, the notion of creation or creativity has often been perceived in a basically-masculine or male frame of reference, no doubt phallic at base. In earlier times, many of the great myths of creation were of this character. The gods were seen as super-men and women, of often stupendous erotic capability, who in their coupling create the heavens and the earth or whatever. No doubt this sexual reference was widespread because it reflected very deep human awarenesses.
"The cardinal truth is that the religion of Yahweh came into existence in the midst of a galaxy of such myths, and from the very beginning rejected them. Yahweh was alone. To pluck phrases from Prof. Dumas again, 'Yahweh is the Creator; but He is never the procreator, as Baal was, in the form of a bull (Exodus 32, I Kings 12:28-30). The Person of God is completely severed from the web of myths and rites which worshipped sexuality. God is unique, which means that He is not in the likeness of man, nor of woman, nor of them together.' (Ibid, p.22) As in the Priestly Creation story (Genesis 1) man and woman together are in the image of God; He holds both maleness and femaleness in Himself, yet He is not limited to them or by them.
"This is a corrective reflection, not an attempt to say that male or female imagery is automatically untrue in human experience. There is a giving-ness about God which we call love or revelation or providence, and it is the sense of the divine initiative in that which we, in our habitual cultural milieu, commonly associate with the responsible initiative of male figures -- husband, father. Indeed we come honestly by both those images. There is, equally a notion of humanity's receiving God's gifts which, again quite understandably, we commonly associate with female figures -- wife, daughter.
"The point here is not to attempt to rule out the reality of such imagery but rather to see it in both its power and its limitations. Its power is derived from deep springs in the human spirit and from important forces in our culture and history. Insofar as it reflects truths about masculinity and femininity, it can be a significant instrument in our grapple with reality. Its limitations lie of course in the fact that there is no analogy in Deity to such imagery, no way to identify in Deity the anguish and the beauty inescapably part of the man-woman differentiation in humanity.
"The whole question of imagery is extraordinarily complex, not to say murky, and it would be folly to try to pretend to any of the easy approaches to it. Mere rationality -- i.e., the approach which simply denies the reality of the 'primordial mythologies in the unconscious background of the race' -- is of no importance. Mere egalitarianism -- i.e., the approach which simply asserts the 'equality' of men and women -- is of no assistance. Neither is it of value to write off the influence of cultural and historical forces in developing social attitudes and expectations. The attitudes of western men and women toward each other are the result of many forces which have played on us through our history as well as of interior forces which in their turn have found certain outlets and acceptable forms of expression. It is not helpful to brush all this aside as irrelevant to the theological issue. Neither is it helpful to canonize particular understandings and attitudes as being de fide.
"Are we then doomed to paralysis, not knowing what we wish we did about ourselves, fearful lest we cast ourselves and our companions in mistaken roles, anxious not to leave a known set of images to seek others ? The answer cannot simply be that we will not change -- we are changing, we are being changed by the immense cultural changes going on in our society, for good or ill. If we decide to keep our present arrangements, we shall be keeping them with men and women who are themselves profoundly changed. For a woman of today to choose to play the part her grandmother played in society would be an exercise in dramatic lunacy, and the same is true of a man. The problem for Christians is not how to get back to what was, but to bear their witness in the midst of what is; and even the choice to stay where we are, if we make it, will be a choice of a new position which has got to be made in the presence of real people, not ghostly memories.
"To say this much is not to say that the only answer is to admit women to priest's and bishop's orders, though many will wish to do so. It is rather to point out the very positive and indeed decisive character of whatever the Church decides; there is no safety in doing nothing.
"D. The fact that the Church has overwhelmingly denied women admission to priest's and bishop's orders: This is a fact, though currently 'overwhelmingly' may be fairly said to be a rather strong modifier to use. More than 70 member churches of the WCC now admit women to all orders of ministry as against 48 fifteen years ago. More than 85 women are now studying in our Episcopal seminaries alone, 62 of them candidates for the Div. degree. This compares with 55 last year, 27 being Div. candidates.
"What does this say to us ? It certainly does not say that such statistics answer our question for us. No decision that this Church makes can be a right decision if it is in truth a surrender to a popularity contest or to the women's liberation movement. No doubt if we do in the end decide to admit women to priesthood our action will be seen in those terms -- there is no help for that. But it should not be a surrender and it need not be. The question we are facing is not how to keep up with the pack or how to live in peace with crusading women. The question is, Is God now calling women to priesthood ?"
We add to these two statements this note: It should be recorded that several members of the Committee, while recognizing both the fact and the urgency of the male imagery of priesthood wished also to note the fact and the cogency of female imagery. Mention was made of this in Part I, when we touched on the two directions of priesthood -- toward the Church, toward God. Receiving, molding, delivering the Word of God, for example, is analogous to the role of the Blessed Virgin, but we do not therefore feel that it is wrong for men to preach, or particularly appropriate for women to do so. The shepherd is a male image, no doubt, but the passionate search of a woman for her lost money is not, even though it speaks as clearly as the shepherd does of the obligations of a pastor. The members who share this feeling about female imagery wonder whether it is not true that Christ's priesthood is too comprehensive to be contained by the symbolism of one sex, that in fact its variety and depth call for full sacramental feminine expression in order to represent a God who sustains both masculinity and femininity ? If this is true, might we not be on the threshold of a new dimension and awareness of the unsearchable riches of Christ ? Far from confusing sexual roles or affirming unisex values, might not the ordination of women assure the enrichment of our understanding of humanity in Christ by guaranteeing the presence of both its components visibly present in the offering of the Oblation which is Christ's and ours ?
III: Evangelism and Development
One of the Church's greatest departures from tradition, in order and doctrine, occurred in the first century when the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) ruled that persons could become Christians without circumcision. The decision was buttressed by theology, scriptural references and close reason. The dynamic for its consideration was inspired by visions and dreams, and the issue took on the coloration of a liberal-conservative polarization already present among the disciples. However, the root reason for the decision to eliminate circumcision as a requirement for admission to the Church was the overwhelming imperative of missionary strategy, before which even the Master's words "I am not sent but unto the lost of the House of Israel" were overridden.
At that Council, the issue was clearly stated by Peter and even more vividly illustrated by the leadership of Paul and Barnabas. Circumcision, that ancient and honorable symbol of man's covenant with God, must go. The rite of circumcision was freighted with sexual imagery, religious symbolism and anthropological significance, but against the imperative of spreading the gospel it could not stand. Once the decision was made, the implications and consequences of it grew apparent, and the Church's life was deepened and strengthened in many ways.
The parallel with our present situation is not exact. We are not first-century Christians and there is no Peter or Paul or Barnabas to move us. Even more important, there is now no equivalent to the single household of "the apostles and elders" which met in Jerusalem. Some would reject the parallel out of hand and say that this is precisely the point -- for our Church to go on its own, without waiting for the Roman Church and the Orthodox to act with us, is to violate the pattern of the Jerusalem Council.
We wonder whether the parallel can be that easily dismissed. All across the land, indeed across the world, the accepted patterns of sexual behavior and of the respective roles of men and women in society are explosively changing. As in the case of racism, the confrontation with the women's liberation movement has helped to open many eyes to the damage men and women do to each other, often without recognizing it, and our need to cleanse our hearts and our ways of the "sexist" stereotypes which hurt so many and make it so appallingly difficult for men and women to be with each other the partners in life and work which Genesis 1 portrays. This is to say that there can be a prophetic character about confrontation, in that it often opens our eyes to saving judgment. In the fifties and sixties, Christians were confronted by the civil rights movement and then the harsher movement toward ethnic self-determination, and the eyes of many were open to judgment for the sins of the often-unintended and un-examined racism implicit in attitudes and institutions pervading our national life and indeed the Church's life. Something like that is happening now, in the movement for women's liberation, again testing the Church's capacity to see itself and hear itself and open itself again to the cleansing judgment of God. And this open-ness is part of the secret of the Jerusalem Council.
In that instance, the judgment was perceived in terms of the missionary imperative. In the present instance, the judgment may be perceived broadly in terms of the promise of fuller life and more mature relationships, under God, between men and women -- in terms of a liberation not to be measured only in equal pay or equal opportunity in employment or equal obedience to moral and ethical standards but as a genuine freeing of men and women to be in each other's eyes more nearly what the Biblical revelation says we are made to be.
Whatever one thinks about the ordination issue, there are few who doubt that the Church and all its institutions and ways is being tested, weighed, by our society in respect of this issue as we are in respect of race. To the outsider certainly, indeed to many who are inside the Church, our theological statements often seem to serve the interests of those who oppose change in the stereotypes men and women have about each other, who oppose the new freedom which is promised. Bishops may know that the imagery of Fatherhood and Sonship are analogical and not substantive, but the untutored do not know that. To them we are heard to say that God is male, and therefore the authority-figures of the Church are male, and therefore the woman in the Church is automatically a second-class citizen. It is no wonder that many men and women now reject an institution which seems to go on saying that, and thereby deny themselves access to the liberating gospel of God in Christ.
This Committee is not prepared to say that with one mind we agree that the Church should open all its orders of ministry to women. What we are saying is that the issue of liberation must be seen and taken in utter seriousness and in very great depth, even as the men in Jerusalem took the issue of the Gentiles. The cause of the liberation of men and women in the sense in which we see it and describe it is not going to be served by token readjustment of quotas and the like. Nor will the Church and we who rejoice in the Church be cleansed by the confrontation if we do not deeply share its pain and its hope, and open every possible door to the full partnership of men and women in the Church's life. If the Church has, as the Committee unitedly believes, a peculiar mission to men and women caught in the perplexities of our society and struggling to learn how to become what they really are, the Church must seize every way it finds to re-establish lost credibility and to take the initiative and regain its capacity to serve its mission to contemporary humanity.
Once again we say that this demand on us does not solve the problem of the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate. If there is diriment impediment to that in anyone's mind, then of course he or she must vote against the proposal. But the debate must be open and clear; the issue must not be evaded by maneuver; and it must be plain for the world to see that we are in deadly earnest about the mission to which we are called. It is the mission that matters.
With respect to"development", most of the Committee -- perhaps all -- would probably agree that only that can be developed which is implicit in the original revelation. From the first draft in Part II it is clear that at least one of us does no believe that the opening of these orders to women would be faithful to this doctrine of implication, and from the second draft it is clear that not all accept this judgment. It is difficult for them to accept a judgment that inclusion within the Royal Priesthood, which plainly is open to men and women on identical terms, does not carry with it an equal right to share in the ordained priesthood which is its minister. It is difficult for them to see what St. Paul meant when he said that humanity was all one in Christ Jesus, neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, if he was not saying that baptism into Christ has created a new life in which old limitations and distinctions may no longer rule. To those of us who share those views, the development of what is implicit in the two passages in question, among others, could certainly extend to the opening of every order of ministry to women as well as men. But we record this remembering those who in all honesty cannot accept such ordination as implicit in the New Testament deposit and who do feel that it is explicitly ruled out by the fact that women were not chosen by Christ or the apostolic Church for certain ministries.
IV: Penumbra of Practicalities
What we identify in this part is a variety of problems, novelties, unknowns which must be kept in mind in considering the main question. We group them under four heads. The first category are the more-or-less obvious questions of selection, training, deployment and continuing education. What changes would be required in the selection and screening process, for example ? Many dioceses have already gone into this, in connection with women preparing for the diaconate, and no doubt the practical steps needed to adopt to the inclusion of women are not all that complicated. Experience also suggests that the inclusion of women in seminary education is not nearly as complicated as it was once thought to be. But there will undoubtedly be curricular changes and enlargements as experience teaches us. The problems of employment are more complicated. No matter how effective our deployment system becomes, the introduction of women priests into it will bring new pressures into play. Some congregations will not accept them; some of the clergy will find it impossible to work with women; some women will be so emotionally involved that systematic placement will be extraordinarily difficult. Should the Church choose to admit women to priesthood and episcopacy, there is bound to be a fairly-extended period of time while we come to terms with a highly charged situation and find out how to deal with it effectively. This process would undoubtedly be at its most severe in the case of episcopate where the image of the Father in God has for so long characterized the chief pastor and minister of the Church. That comment would be notably true in the context of the following paragraph.
The second category is related to the last-mentioned -- it is the group of problems the Church will face in establishing the place of women in the clergy generally. We imagine that these will be less vexing in a large, experienced congregation where a sizeable staff might allow the addition of a woman, particularly in some specialised area of ministry, with a minimum of tension. By contrast, the problem of establishing a satisfactory and accepted place for a few women in the ranks of the clergy of a diocese could be painful indeed. Clearly the burden of this would fall on the ordained women, but we think of it not as a problem for the women to solve but for the Church to solve, and it will not be easy. As so often with non-parochial and non- stipendiary men, the inherited sense that the full-time parish ministry of men is the norm and standard will continue to get in the way of any rational, theologically-informed understanding of the collegiality of the Church's ministry.
Third, we have discussed the strains the ordination of women can lay on their families, if they are married, and on themselves because of the unavoidable fact of novelty, of sexual rivalry, of the animosity which often would greet them, of the sense of crusade which would be bound to surround them, whether or not they shared it. There are probably relatively few -- certainly of the male clergy over thirty -- who would be free enough to be able to accept and work maturely and positively with women colleagues. This might be equally true of the freedom of some of the women. We say this not to blame the persons concerned, men or women, but rather to remind ourselves of the long inheritance both men and women have -- particularly in the Church -- of defensiveness and advantage. To learn new ways would be hard, and the process would be costly and abrasive, in many cases. This is not to argue one way or the other on the substantive issue, of course; it is only a cautionary reflection on the new care which must be provided to minister to those caught in such a situation.
Fourth, the ecumenical issues implicit in the main question are of significance. Doubtless in some instances the argument that to ordain women would "imperil" our relationship with this or that community of Christians is self-serving and masks the real feeling behind it. Equally so is sometimes the argument that the ordination of women is inevitable and therefore right. It seems to us misleading to approach the question in a spirit of coming to terms with the women's liberation movement or the Zeitgeist or the counter-culture or whatever. Whatever of greatness there has been in the history of the Church was given it by its willingness to follow a different drum than the world, at any given time. The "inevitability" of the ordination of women, in our liberated society, is a vain and idle argument. The question is whether God is now calling women to priesthood and episcopate. If He is, then the Church must respond in obedient faith. If He is not, then no popularity contest can ever make it right for the Church to ordain them.
We have already commented on the increasing number of churches in which all ministerial orders are open to women. Yet those churches together do not number nearly as many Christians as those in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches; and it would be reckless to imagine any swift change in Roman Catholic discipline, and probably even more so with respect to Orthodoxy. The recent statement of the Pope on the subject of woman's place in the formal ministries of the Church is a chilling warning, at best, in this regard. Yet it remains true that there is an increasing restlessness on the subject in most responsible circles and it is not likely that a papal regulation motu proprio will put an end to it. The Roman Church, in these times, is very far from providing the monolithic, certain guidance one once could take for granted.
We agree that it would be idle to say that a decision to ordain women as priests or bishops would make no difference in our ecumenical engagements. No doubt such a decision would, for good and ill. Very much would depend on the basis for our decision and on the clarity of our reasoning and the soundness of the theology which informs our reasoning. But the question cannot be, What is best for our ecumenical relationships? It must be, Is God now calling women to ordination as priests and bishops ?
Recommendation
1. We believe the resolution which has been referred to us should be debated by this House, at this meeting, looking forward to further debate and canonical action at Louisville.
2. We make no recommendation as a Committee, favorable or unfavorable.
3. We believe the debate should cover at least the issues identified in this report.
4. We believe the issue should be met head-on, not as something to be resolved by tinkering with the meaning of words, not as something to be resolved by unilateral action by individual bishops or groups of bishops.
5. We believe that justice must be seen to have been done by the manner and content of our debate.
6. We most deeply plead for a steady understanding of the gravity of the issue as it is perceived on both sides. This means to us that the members of this House must be the first to reach out with compassion and supportive love to those on both sides -- those hurt by what seems to them a Church bent on keeping them as second-class members and those hurt by what seems to them a Church throwing away its credentials of catholicity for the sake of momentary popularity. It means to us that the members of this House must find every way to minister to those souls caught on both sides -- priests and lay people whose life-long faith in their Church seems to be attacked; priests and lay people whose eager hope for a more just society seems to be denied. It means to us that, as in every great decision we ever face, we the members of this House are called to stand together on common ground, and know that we do so, and act accordingly in the patience and open-ness we show in our debate and in what issues from it.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley H. Atkins
Stephen F. Bayne, Chairman
Robert F. Gibson, Jr.
John M. Krumm
Paul Moore, Jr.
C. Kilmer Myers
Samuel J. Wylie