It makes no sense that God would care one whit about the gonads of His ministers. But logic is never invoked as a basis to deny ordination to women. Rather, the arguments against women serving as clergy are always premised on Scripture and Tradition. The appeal to Scripture is primarily centered on Paul’s letters, especially 1 Cor. 14:34-35:
“the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
For several reasons, I’m not buying it. I think it far more logical to conclude that this comment is a culturally sensitive anachronism and not a timeless directive.
First, note that Paul is not purporting to speak from divine revelation on this point―and this is a guy who isn’t shy about declaring that his teachings come from the word of the Lord when that is so (as in 1 Cor. 7:10 and 1 Thess. 4:15). Rather, he cites “the Law” as his authority. (Yup, the same “Law” that he elsewhere says we are not under, see Rom. 6:14, Gal. 5:18.) What Old Testament directive supports him? I can find none aside from Gen. 3:16: “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” But there is nothing here about women keeping silent. Indeed, rather than a general statement about the relative position between men and women, this verse is about the special relation between husband and wife. If this is the “Law” that Paul meant to invoke, his words would only apply to married women. A female minister whose husband was not in the congregation can’t possibly run afoul of this “Law.”
Second is his use of “shameful” (αἰσχρὸνto) to describe the practice of women speaking in church. Shame is a human reaction to violating the mores of the times. 1 Cor. 11:16 uses the same word αἰσχρὸνto to describe a woman praying with her head uncovered.
Then there is 1 Tim. 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Since he doesn’t purport to transmit a teaching received from divine revelation here either, why should we care about what one Paul of Tarsus does or doesn’t permit? Paul is fallible, as any man is fallible. (Acts 10:34 relates Peter’s “Aha” moment of realizing that God shows no partiality. If Peter’s views could be in error, why not Paul’s? What makes him immune from error?)
Lastly, it is worth noting that Paul hasn’t been entirely consistent; he dispatched Phoebe, a deaconess from Cenchreae just a few miles from Corinth, to preach in Rome. (Rom. 16:1 uses the word διάκονον to describe her position.)
Turning now from Scripture to Tradition, the appeal to nearly 2,000 years of having exclusively male ministers ignores that that tradition is coextensive with 2,000 of cultural subordination of women. Is this “co-incidence” accidental, or is it causal? If the latter, then every Christian thinker from Paul forward has extrapolated culture into his theology. (It grieves me to have to use the pronoun “his” here―but culturally, women weren’t allowed to be scholars until recently.)
Those who say “it’s accidental” need to rethink their stance. Our traditions on this are not from God, but from man. (There’s that gendered word again! Ever wonder why “mankind” is shorthand for all of humanity while “womankind” is shorthand for only half of humanity?) The disparity in gender roles is so ingrained in our culture that we take it for granted in everything we do and think. It cannot help but color our views on everything, religion included, if we don’t pay attention.
Male and female role playing is largely a byproduct of child-bearing and physical strength, and male-dominated societies arose initially through division of labor translating into division of power. And the party in power tends to stay in power. Men have made women submissive since they lived in caves. Well, isn’t it time to come out into the light?
