In Christian art, including Michelangelo and Hollywood biblical films, the maleness of God has long been highlighted. Seldom has there been a depiction of deity or spiritual strength that remotely suggested a woman like Eleanor Roosevelt or Marian Anderson, Helen Keller or Barbara Jordan.
However, extraordinary change was in the air in July 1974 when 11 women shattered tradition by being ordained Episcopal priests. Ironically, I became involved when invited -- as a male -- to write a cover story about it for groundbreaking Ms. Magazine. From my perspective, by following the anthropomorphism that depicted God as male, the church failed in its witness to God and came close to committing institutional suicide. The idea of receiving the Host from the hand of a woman apparently confronts some people with grave difficulties. Could this stem from the life experience of praying "Our Father who art in heaven" while one was mentally on one's knees before a male God? Was the male priest before whom one knelt in church to receive Holy Communion a surrogate figure of a familiar bearded and patriarchal God?
Implicit in priesthood for 2,000 years has been its maleness. This is threatening because of fear: (1) acknowledging and dealing with the female side of life, (2) facing up to and revering the female aspects of God and (3) the decline of massive masculine power. Here's an example. Moving into new language and concepts, priesthood as an "area of artistry" has been suggested by James Forest of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. I find his words prophetic and think they should be emblazed on the walls of seminaries. He wrote: "It is an essential art, an ability to show the rest of us that strawberries and us and planets and spider's web and the invention of such words as love and mercy all have to do with -- what phrase to use? -- the Lord of the flowers, Yahweh, the presence we know as love, as the deep, fear-erasing appetite for justice, the capacity to forgive."
As I wrote in Ms. Magazine, when the priesthood -- long seen exclusively as an impregnable historic male preserve -- becomes fully integrated, we'll be a new people. But whenever any parish, anywhere, continues to invite young boys to serve as acolytes in its rituals, yet fails to extend a similar invitation to girls of the same age, the sin of discrimination is perpetuated again and again.
I believe that a priest must be less and less a privileged member of an elite, more and more a brother/sister in an open community. Priesthood itself cannot be a cause of separation between people, but rather unity. So priesthood needs to be continually validated in life, discovered anew in relationshiip with others. "Worker priests" in France and elsewhere have been role models for this.
Jesus said "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" Jesus wept for Lazarus, he related easily to women as women; on the cross he was neither angry nor a stoic. His male and female aspects were manifested simultaneouslly. He revealed the capacity to give and receive love.
Changing minds and hearts will take a while -- it might not happen until people experience God through a human being whose female side is dominant. But to storm the walls of the priesthood is a revolution in the relations between the sexes. For when a priest is a woman, even God is no longer a male. Then we must really see that our rigid sex roles are to be discarded, for we are persons with acceptably different parts of our natures -- and we are free even as God is free.
Christian baptism means complete, not partial, church membership. Any kind of churchly caste system is on the shakiest theological grounds. A baptized Christian -- female, male, black, white, lesbian, gay, Latino, Native American -- is equal to any other baptized Christian as a member of the Body of Christ. Period. Digression from this truth is heresy. Sometimes, when it forgets this, the institutional church can seem similar to a medieval pope who, clothed in furs and hanging with jewels, tries to make up the princely mind whether or not to turn the next dismaying corner into the preceding century.
Tony Blair: My Female Faith Hero: Catholic Sisters
So, based upon church politics fed by fear, and ignorance, and backed up by carefully selected religious text, non ordination of women became accepted as part of Church social culture.
Besides, if women are ordained, what's to stop them becoming Pope! We all know where that leads -- Pope Joan (13th Century)! Her election supposedly so terrified the men that any newly-elected Pope needs his gender verified: "testiculos habet, et bene pendente", He has balls, and they're hanging well! Legend -- or is it? Who knows what goes on behind those sealed doors!
But I digress -- evidence that women were deemed unfit for priesthood can be found in the requirement that women be veiled in church --
". . . the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. . . . The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man . . ." 1 Corinthians 11:1-17
How can women be priests if she is lowly and does not partake of the "glory" of God nor the "glory of the man . .
Catholic women are still required to cover their heads when entering church. It's not "enforced" in the US but is elsewhere. A woman of ANY faith entering any house of worship in Vatican City MUST cover her head.
"For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man." . . . "The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man." I Corinthians 11: 1-17
Paul, The Great Misogynist, goes on to explain women must veil themselves as a sign that His glory, not ours, is the focus at worship, and as a sign of our submission to authority. It's an outward sign of our recognizing headship of God, and the authority of husbands and fathers.
I'm happy you've found a spiritual home, but I remain skeptical and wary of the cross. I've found my spiritual home, but haven't forgotten my "sisters in Christ". I do not mean to offend, and I thank you for listening.
It's a good fit for me, odd that I come from a conservative Mormon splinter group (I have single-handedly been that church's "left wing" for two decades).
It is only when Christ's "homo"-ness is stressed in every way possible, including that of women on the altar who also stand in the "image of God" will salvation in all its fullness finally speak to all of God's people.
After 35 years of celebrating Eucharist at the altar as a woman Lutheran Pastor, it is clear to me that the people of God are fully able to see the good news of Jesus' command: Take and eat, take and drink, this is my body and blood, no matter who speaks those words. Why can't the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church see this?
Pr Chris
The assistant in our parish in San Jose was 8 months pregnant when the feast of the Annunciation came around. As she walks to the crossing of the parish to read the Gospel from this enormous, gold leaf Gospel book, her own diminutive size and her nearly full term pregnancy is very apparent. As she read "Be it until me according to thy will," suddenly those words became real to me. I was right there with Mary, Gabriel and all of Christendom hearing those words. And then, finishing the reading, she raised that book which was half her own size over her head and proclaimed, "The Gospel of the Lord!" And I knew two things instantly. One, that this was, indeed, very good news - good news of Mary, good news of ECUSA who had made the right choice on ordaining this woman. And, two, there was no man alive who could ever have incarnated that good news. If I had ever had ANY doubts about women priests, they were gone that day.
What about the doctrine of salvation as applied to women? Every week, the church proclaims in the Creed:: We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven...and was made man...
The problem is, English blurs the meaning of the Creed, but in Latin, in which it was spoken by the faithful for millennia, the word "man" has two possible meanings. : homo and vir. "Homo" is the Latin root for "human" and "vir" is the Latin root for "male". Is the Latin word of the Creed "homo" or "vir"? If the word is "homo" then Christ's humanity is central. If the word is "vir" then God's maleness is emphasized. Even though the Creed uses "homo", by limiting the priesthood to males, there is a tendency to see Christ's salvation as coming from his "vir"-ness and not his "homo"-ness.
If "vir"-ness is what is understood, then for the more than 50% of the human race that is "homo" but not "vir"--ie, women, what does this say about salvation? If only males can image Christ, then his maleness and not his humanity is stressed. If only males can fully image Christ, how do women share in Christ's salvation?
Pr Chris
THANK YOU Episcopal church for preserving the egalitarian meanings of Christ!
2. Jesus is eternally co-coexistent in Trinity which is God. Jesus is male.
The groundwork for male domination seems to rest there.
Fr. John W. Morris
I've only seen that in the Epistles (letters attributed to apostles) and Old Testament. Have to consider the patriarchal culture as well. God is all things, not male OR female, not black OR white, etc.
Does anyone remember Jesus' final statement on this story? When Martha complains to Jesus "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to dall the work by myself? Tell her then to help me." But, instead of telling Mary to go into the kitchen, Jesus rebukes Martha: "Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, WHICH WILL NOT BE TAKEN FROM HER."
A statement on "female roles"? a forshadowing of the issue of women priests? Food for thought, certainly
Pr Chris
The argument is that the priest must stand 'in the person of Christ' when offering up the Eucharist. And, the Church considers one's personhood to be intrinsically bound up with one's gender. So, again, if one is to stand and act 'in the person of Christ,' one must be male.
1. The Last Supper, which is the institution of the Eucharist, is assumed by the Church to be the ordination of the disciples...although other than the tasking statement: "do this in remembrance of me" is not recognizable as an ordination ceremony
2. If the Church sees itself as limited to the parameters of those Jesus chose for his disciples, then why are non-Jews ordained? Or, given that it is likely that least some of the disciples were married, why does the Church feel free to impose celibacy? A practice not mandatory before about the 11th century?
3. If only men can stand in the image of Christ, is his salvation based on his maleness, or his humanness?
Women who believe fully that they are called to follow Jesus as a priest, the current situation appears arbitrary and hurtful. Women are not demanding to be ordained...they ARE demanding that their vocation be tested as it is for men, and not arbitrarily denied on the basis of gender.
Pr Chris
It is nice your tossing the book out the window when it suits you. Now if you could just finish tossing the rest of it, we might eventually get on the same page.
The notion that women cannot be priests because Jesus didn't select any is easily dispelled. If we take Jesus' selection criteria seriously, a priest would have to be a Jewish fisherman or a tax collector. I doubt many meet that criteria.
If only we could find the correct circular argument....?
I'm sorry to inform you, that scripture absolutely was used to suppress women for dozens of centuries. I'm not sure what blinder-induced history you are focusing on to pretend the scripture in question was magically ignored.....I'm not sure how that makes the scripture irrelevant...?
I have to say, I'm always amazed at the contortions people will put themselves through to avoid admitting the most obvious historical facts, if it happens to not support their moral position and history. I hope you aren't shocked to discover that the history of christianity hasn't been the friendliest to the female half the species....
1 Timothy 2:12 says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
Yes, that is really the ONLY mentioning of women in regards to not teaching in the church, but if the Bible is the inerrant word of God, once should be enough. Not allowing women to be pastors or priests isn't sexist, it's biblical. God created men and women with specific purposes.
Ephesians 5:22-25 says, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"
As women we're called to embraced the femininity that God creates us with, and to fulfill the roles that He entrusts to us. And ministry leadership just isn't one of those roles.
I also find it strange that you attempt to draw a parallel between the ability to be in ministry and baptism. Baptism is available and borderline required of all who become saved, but ministry is specifically for men. There is no parallel to draw.
And I too believe that either Galatians 3:28 is the truth, or just don't even baptize us. Either we are ALL ONE in Christ Jesus, or we are just property as livestock and household servants.