Thoughts on Women in Ministry

When I became a Christian, I was "saved" in an Assemblies of God church. The AG ordains women. I knew that Roman Catholicism didn't ordain women, but beyond that, I assumed most other Christian bodies did ordain women, because mine did. 

The senior pastor of my church, whom I count as my spiritual father and love immensely, would posit that the Bible proclaimed women apostles and deacons (deaconess); therefore, women clergy was presumed biblical. I never questioned this reasoning. I have since reconsidered my position.

Now, if you ask me if I believe women could be pastors, my answer is still yes. However, if you rephrased the question as to whether God assigns women to be pastors, I would say "usually not," if not "no." That's a hard pill to swallow amidst many egalitarian-minded Protestant churches. It's still tough for me to accept, though I cannot deny historical theology. One must anachronistically read women pastors into the text of Scripture and history to make it work. The risk is being labelled as sexist and patriarchal, which is on one hand not the biblical reality, while on the other is at least structurally accurate. 

To grasp my understanding, which is also that of the early Church and of modern bodies like the Eastern Orthodox, it all comes down to teleology v. ontology. For the Church, pastoral ministry (bishops and priests/pastors), men have been the archetype based on telos, which is essentially Greek for "a means to an end." Teleology refers to a purposed design or call, whereas ontos/ontology refers to something that is substantially true. As an analogy, think of a garbage man. His ontos or substance is his humanity, which he shares with the police officer, mail carrier, HVAC repair guy, accountant, and so forth. All people of all sexes share in the ontological identity of humanity -- the image of God. However, each of these professions is differentiated according to purpose. A trash collector is not a nurse or a movie director, but each is human. 

For the ancient and current Eastern Church, male and female are ontologically equal. Paul notes that in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female (Gal. 3:28)... All people share substance. But a Greek and Jew are different teleologically. The two share a common core, but express it differently. The same goes for the sexes. Each sex has a teleological end or purpose. Within the economy of the first few chapters of the Bible, Adam (male) was a partner with God in establishing and maintaining order within creation. He named the animals. A woman's position was to bring forth life -- to propagate the species with male and female offspring --  and to help the man in bringing order through relational means. The male role reflects the typical (of course there are outliers) nature of his prowess. Men are usually physically stronger and adapted to testosterone driven exertion. This is ideal for paternal protection and worldly representation. 

The above is scandalous to say, I know. This is so largely because modern people, including Christians, read Genesis 3:16 as God assigning social disparity to mankind because of sin -- a curse. It basically says that women will desire men and men will rule over women. Some scholars read "desire" (Heb. teshuqah) as a "longing for," but not necessarily for one's husband, but for self-applied authority in spite of a husband. In other words, this verse may be saying that women will want to usurp male or husbandly domination, while men are still in charge. 

This disparity should not be understood as prescriptive. God did not bring enmity between the sexes, but rather their sin did. Man and women both realized their vulnerability and also their capabilities according to physical and emotional dispositions. In short, the sexes went to war against one another in an unstable relationship, caught between necessity and the desire for individual empowerment and control. God is simply describing the consequences of poor human choices. He is not laying out dogma. 

It is because of this drive for control that the teleological nature of calling and capability are being challenged by those who wish to equalize the sexes. In another way, people are reading what was teleological as ontology. An astrophysicist and medical doctor are both smart people, but they ought not swap jobs just because they're both bright. In the same way, women seeking after pastoral ministry might be trying to apply ontology to a telos that is not theirs by design. Ontologically, of course women could be pastors, but teleologically, it ignores the feminine call to fill the earth, which is itself a priestly function in conjunction with male headship before Christ. And by headship I do not mean ruler, but rather figurehead or representative lead. 

Am I suggesting what many Protestants call complimentarianism? No. The Western idea of complimentarianism suggests that the sexes compliment one another, but -- perhaps inadvertently --  still place men in a ruling position. It still conflates telos to ontos. The East's view is similar to complimentarianism, but sees it only as teleological. Men and women are of equal ontology. Women in Eastern Orthodox and early Church contexts can teach, serve as deaconesses (a related, but separate clerical role from a deacon), serve on parish boards/councils, prophesy, and do pretty much everything outside of offering the Eucharist, which is the chief mode of translating order -- a male telos. Women are physically capable of acting this part, unlike men who cannot become pregnant and bring forth life in a female telos. In some cases, women may be the only priestly conduit available, but normally, the sexes fulfill unique roles in bringing about order and salvation to the world. It's no wonder that a wife married to a presbyter (elder) or pastor in the East is called a presbytera (female elder). She may not be directly a pastor, but her telos helps the pastor/priest to accomplish the role of eldership. 

In the end, priesthood or pastoral ministry is NOT an office to be held. It is an ordered calling belonging to one half the species, while the other is ordained to her own telos. Yet, the two share an ultimate purpose though their respective roles, to bring about salvation to the world in a united front. Since moderns confuse ontos for telos, professional ministry is seen as a vocation or position, but it is really only an expression of or continuation of fatherhood -- a male role structured on design. The first priests in the ancient world were often the elders of clans or tribe -- a paternal king or chieftain -- related to those he leads: an ultimate and actual father. Think of church as an extended family and not a socio-religious conglomeration or corporation. 

Yes, this is still a hard truth to accept in an equality-minded society. I believe wholeheartedly that it is possible to have full equality in substance and vitality, but still differ in how that substance is expressed. A man cannot give birth, but he develops distinct bonds with his children that mothers don't. Likewise, a mother is not a father, though in our culture of disunity and single-parent households, one sex may need to function in the other telos or through both. Not the ideal. Regardless, this should not be about power, domineering, or the stereotyped patriarchy. It should be about function following form. We have no problem acknowledging teleology in nature for other species, such as when a female mantis eats her mate's head or when a male penguin warms the egg of its offspring. Why should sex roles not matter in humans? Surely they do. Food for thought.