The Argument from Authority

by R. C. Craston

from Women Priests? Yes - Now! pp.75-87, ed. by Canon Harold Wilson, Denham House Press, 1975.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.

The Reverend Canon R.C.Craston, Canon of Manchester and Vicar of St.Paul's Church, Bolton, Lancs.

The Principle of Authority

“By what authority are you doing these things?” was the question demanded of Jesus by conservative religious thinkers of his day. His new teaching with its consequent threat to the old order appeared to them dangerous and contrary to God's will. The advocates of ordination of women to the priesthood must answer the same question of authority from churchmen of conservative theology today.

The principle of authority lies at the heart of all revealed religion. For those who believe in a God who reveals himself, becomes incarnate and redeems mankind, the discovery of his will is of supreme importance. The more radical Christian expects to make that discovery as much through a study of contemporary developments as of the deposit of truth inherited from the past, The conservative Christian will look to Scripture or Tradition, or both, for the authoritative expression of God's will for all ages. It is with the latter position this chapter is mainly concerned. In particular, there will be the attempt to demonstrate that no decisive bar to the ordination of women may be found in Scripture. But first, what of Tradition?

Tradition

The Anglican Church has always recognized its responsibility in seeking to order its affairs under the giudance of the Holy Spirit to pay due regard to the ways of all earlier generations. For nearly 2,000 years the greater part of Christendom has excluded women from full orders, believing it to be the will of God. This might seem of decisive significance for time to come were it not for the fact that the Church is facing a new situation, an enlargement of opportunity for women in modern times undreamed of in earlier centuries. When the Church faces new situations, Tradition of itself may offer no adequate guidance. We need to go back beyond centuries of Tradition to re-examine first principles in Scripture. This is not to write off 2,000 years of conviction and practice as misguided. It is to recognize that the Church has entered a new era of unprecedented developments and so must take a fresh look at the foundation documents of her faith, ready to see new light for new questions.

Within the Church itself a rediscovery of the New Testament teaching on ministry is leading to a new understanding of the way the ordained ministry is meant to enable and serve the ministry of the whole people of God. The enrichment of the ministry of Word and Sacrament and pastoral oversight by full admission of women could be one development the Holy Spirit is bringing about. It would certainly be consistent with the fundamental principles of the oneness of male and female in Christ and their participation in the total mission of the Church!

Scripture—Interpretation and Application

It is one thing to acknowledge the authority of Scripture, it is another to adopt the right methodology in discovering and applying its teaching to any given situation. The bandying about of isolated texts is untrue to the purpose of Scripture and likely to lead to absurdity. By that use of Scripture hatless women in church, long-haired males, and all women licensed to parochial work or as Readers could be shown to be in a state of disobedience to God.

A balance of Scriptural teaching must be sought, one part being allowed to supplement and illuminate another. If Paul in chapter 14 of his first letter to the Corinthians appears to forbid all public utterances of women in worship, a balancing factor will be his own recognition in chapter 11 of woman's authority to pray or prophesy at meetings of the church.

Furthermore, a distinction must be made between abiding principles formulated by Jesus and his Apostles, essential to the well-being of the Church in all ages, and ad hoc rulings addressed to particular situations in the first century. Even where such rulings were relevant applications of lasting principles, their value, once the situation that called them forth has changed, is mainly as illustrations of the way principles can be applied. There are, for instance, some grounds for believing that women at Corinth and elsewhere, emancipated from a pagan culture in which they had been conditioned to regard themselves as inferior beings, were tempted to exploit their new-found status in Christ and succumb to excesses of self-expression. In such a context Paul's concern for order and seemingly behaviour could explain his strong injunctions.

Progressive Revelation

A further principle of major importance in the method of applying the authoritative teaching of Scripture is that of development in the process of revelation and of its understanding. As the writer has observed elsewhere,(1) in the Bible we see a unique educational process whereby progressive knowledge of God and his ways with and for men is imparted. But the process of education is always within the framework of human knowledge and understanding at the time. What is newly revealed bursts that framework, and when a new framework thus emerges, the relative and temporary aspects of revelation are left behind. Thus, within Scripture itself we see partial concepts of God's nature, inadequate because expressed in the anthropomorphic understanding of the times, corrected by later and fuller revelation. Commands of God, suited to contemporary needs of the Israelites in the Wilderness, are later abrogated or modified. Food laws, for example, are set aside, distinction between clean and unclean meats being removed. In relation to the latter there is specific repudiation of earlier insights and commands both in the teaching of Jesus and in the Vision to Peter in Acts 10. But other aspects of Old Testament revelation, while never specifically countermanded, are also now left behind. Obvious examples are capital punishment for adultery, many other judicial penalties, and health laws, particularly in respect of women, menstruation and child-birth. A developing understanding of God's fuller revelation led the Christian conscience to regard these matters as no longer binding. By the same process of understanding many Christians do not see capital punishment for murder as part of God's unchanging will for mankind. Indeed, unless this concept of development in the understanding of revelation is recognized, there would be no justification for setting aside capital punishment for adultery or any of the criminal laws of Leviticus.

In short, there are aspects of revelation which are of temporary significance. In the case of some, Scripture itself makes this clear. With others a developing Christian judgment leads to the same conclusion. We need to ask at this time whether certain insights on the man-woman relationship as presented in Scripture are not of lasting significance.

New Light—New Understanding

Development in revelation and understanding of it are not confined to Scripture, however. The process of understanding and applying revelation continues through the history of the Church. The Bible always has a unique and normative authority, but understanding of its teaching can never be static. As man discovers new truth, his previous understanding is modified or corrected. When fresh light breaks forth from the Scriptures it happens not only through deeper study of the biblical text, but also through application of new truth disclosed by God to man's enquiring mind. Here the indivisibility of all truth must be recognized.

All truth is God's truth. James Denney, a conservative theologian of an earlier generation, has written, “The doctrine of God, in the very nature of the case, is related to everything that enters into our knowledge; all our world depends on him; and hence it follows that a systematic presentation of the doctrine of God involves a general view of the world through God”. “All that man knows—of God and of the world—must be capable of being constructed into one coherent intellectual whole.” “The world is all of a piece; man's mind is all of a piece; and those easy and tempting solutions of our hardest problems, which either arrange the world or the activities of the mind in compartments, having no communications with each other, are simply to be rejected.”(2)

So, new knowledge will often modify previous interpretations of Scripture. A clear example of this principle, accepted by even the most conservative Biblical scholars, relates to the early chapters of Genesis. Without the assured facts of geology and astronomy no one could deduce from Scripture alone the great age of the universe, or that the sun was older than the earth and the moon or was not the centre of the universe. Modern discovery has given a truer and fuller understanding of the biblical revelation of Creation.

Modern studies in human behaviour have also had a considerable impact on Christian thinking. In the field of Ethics we now see that human moral responsibility is not as straightforward a matter as once was thought. When formerly only the prohibitions and condemnations of Scripture were thought applicable, a fuller understanding of human behaviour convinces that the compassion and care taught in Scripture are also often needed. For instance, if with Scripture we still regard homosexual acts as sinful, modern knowledge has opened our eyes to the need of compassion for those who by biochemical imbalance or environmental pressures in early life, find themselves in a homosexual condition. It may be argued that love for the sinner as well as judgment for sin are both found in Scripture. The point here is that fuller knowledge now enjoyed has enabled a better understanding and application of the biblical revelation.

Thus, as the writer has stated in “Evangelicals and the Ordination of Women”,(3) in each generation Christians reflecting on the Scriptures within the context of current knowledge may make deductions for belief, behaviour or social action not contemplated by earlier generations. The abolition of slavery in the nineteenth century is an obvious example. Although no part of Scripture directly or indirectly authorizes such a radical revolution in the social order, but rather the contrary, a developing understanding of biblical teaching about man, helped by a growing emphasis on human rights in the thought of the age, led eventually to Christian action for the abolition of slavery.

It was the conscience of a very small minority which was at first awakened, but gradually, and all too slowly, the Church as a whole saw slavery as contrary to the biblical revelation. But the development of understanding of truth is not confined to the Church. An even greater proportion of mankind, professing no Christian commitment, came to regard slavery as a social evil and an affront to human dignity. And the same applied to the other great social reforms of modern times. Indeed, persons with no professed Christian faith were, and still are, just as likely to be pioneers of reform in society as those who consciously submit to the authority of the Bible. In this we witness God's continual purpose of “common grace”, working through men who do not know him as well as those who do.

God's Spirit is for ever prompting man along the path of greater knowledge and fulfilment. As the Scriptures represent a “special revelation”, this is God's “general revelation”. The Bible itself shows us a God who is lord of all history, whose concern is for the establishment of justice among all men, for the removal of all that affronts the dignity of man made in his image, and for the fulfilling of that potential he has given to man as his viceroy on earth, his sub-creator within his creation. The capacity to know more and to make life on earth a freer, fuller existence is of God, from whom all good things come, and is stimulated and enabled by his Spirit. Undoubtedly, man remains a sinner. He can spoil and prostitute it all, and continually does. But the capacity for and drive to all that is good and beneficial in human society are divine in origin.

Ordination—Why Now?

It is in that context we should set the issue of the ordination of women. We are in fact facing it at this period of history mainly because of the enlargement of opportunity for women which has come about in our society and civilization this century. This should be seen as a development within God's purposes for mankind. Human society is richer for what women now bring to it through this enlargement of opportunity. We can give thanks for more women in politics, civic life, education, medicine, law and other professions, industry and commerce.

Ordination—Why Not?

With this fuller knowledge of God's ways in history, therefore, we face the crunch question—What hinders the acceptance of women into the full ministry of Word and Sacrament and pastoral oversight in the Church? Are we to believe that God wills full opportunity for women to become doctors, prime ministers or sovereigns yet forbids their becoming priests or bishops? According to the thesis of this chapter there would have to be very clear prohibition, expressing a principle of primary and abiding significanœ, evident in Scripture for now refusing ordination.

Mintstry Already Accepted

That women may justifiably perform all the ministry at present open to them as deaconesses, licensed workers and readers need not be argued at any length here. Suffice it to say that the alleged Pauline edicts against any public ministry by women in the congregation must be interpreted in the light of the following evidence. Women were numbered among the prophets and deacons in New Testament times. Philip's four daughters were prophets (Acts 21 :9). This ministry was seen to be in fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel (2 :28-32) concerning the pouring out of God's Spirit on men and women. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 acknowledges the right of women to pray and prophesy in the congregation. His point, somewhat difficult to grasp because of possibly different uses of the words “head” and “authority”, is explained by F. F. Bruce (4) as follows—"In the synagogue service a woman could play no significant part. In Christ she received equality of status with man: she might pray or prophesy at meetings of the church, and her veil was a sign of this new authority (cf. M. D Hooker, Authority on her head: an examination of 1 Corinthians 11:1O NTS10 1963-4 pp. 410ff). Its ordinary social significance was thus transcended. As man in public worship manifests his authority by leaving his head unveiled, so woman manifests hers by wearing a veil."

Only one word, the masculine form, is used for deacon, but Phoebe is described thus in Romans 16 :1. Women like Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia (Acts 16:15) clearly took a significant part in evangelism and teaching, and have been acknowledged as leaders of house-churches even by some opponents of women's ordination (e.g. G. G. Blum in “Why not? Priesthood and the Ministry of Women”, Marcham Manor Press).

And, finally, God has evidently bestowed gifts of teaching and leadership on many women. This bestowal is an indication that the gifts are to be used. Without the ministry of women in evangelism, teaching and pastoral care the missionary expansion of the Church in the last 150 years would have been considerably less.

And Now The Priesthood ?

There remains, however, the ordination of women to the priesthood as at present understood. The debate seems to revolve round two main issues; the concept of representation in priesthood and whether masculinity is essential to it, and the concept of authority in the man-woman relationship and whether male leadership is an essential part of the creation order. The former is discussed in another chapter. It is the latter issue which now concerns us.

Man's Authority

Does Scripture teach an invariable principle of male leadership, not only in the family but throughout society and in the Church in particular? Is there an authority vested in man to which woman must submit? Christians who believe so surely face a crisis of conscience. To be consistent they ought to work for the removal of all women from positions of leadership over mixed communities in schools, politics, civic affairs and even from the throne.

Biblical Evidence

A study of the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 alone does not necessarily lead to the idea of man's authority over woman. Indeed the emphasis in Genesis 1:27 is on complementary parity—"God created man . . . male and female." In chapter 2:18-25 companionship and partnership are the dominant notes, and specifically within the marriage bond, the creation of the one flesh (v.24). Paul's treatment of these narratives in 1 Corinthians 11:7--12 is hard to follow. In speaking of man, as opposed to woman, as made in the image of God (v.7) he seems to run contrary to Genesis 1:27 and the general tenor of Scripture. It is surely man in the generic sense, male and female, who bears the divine image. We need to remember Paul's real concern, however, which is to deal with a particular problem at Corinth; how a woman should be attired in public prayer or prophecy at a time when styles had certain moral implications. And if, as suggested earlier, there were excessive expansions of a newly discovered liberation among the women he might well be applying aspects of the Genesis 2 passage in a somewhat exaggerated way to enforce his point. He is not attempting a thorough exegesis of Genesis. Jesus certainly used hyperbole a great deal in his teaching (“cut off your right hand", “pluck out your right eye”, “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"), and we know not to take it literally. Could some of Paul's dogmatic statements on practical issues, notably in writing to Corinth where problems abounded, be understood in the same way?

Paul was clearly opposed to women adopting a domineering attitude over men. 1 Timothy 2:12, coming in a passage addressed to younger wives, warns against it (whatever the truth about authorship of the Pastoral Epistles this passage undoubtedly reflects a Pauline attitude). He was also quite sure, as was Peter (1 Peter 3:1), that the husband had a certain headship over the wife within the family. Some of the difficulties of 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 about man and woman can be resolved by substituting “husband” and “wife”, as the Greek allows.

The letters of the New Testament, then, accept an authority of the husband within the family, to which the wife is to submit (cf. Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18). Lest, however, this authority should be exaggerated or abused, the most demanding of standards is laid upon husbands—to love their wives in the way Christ loved his spouse, the Church (Ephesians 5 :25-29). And in fact all Christians have a duty to submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21).

It is not essential to the argument of this chapter to discuss the question whether the authority of the husband within marriage is an abiding and invariable principle of the creation order. As has been maintained, neither Genesis 1 or 2 seem to teach it. It is only subsequent to the story of the Fall in Genesis 3 that subjection of woman to man, specifically within the marriage bond, is mentioned, and then as a dire consequence of sin rather than as a fundamental principle of God's pattern for human life. And so it could be argued that Redemption, the establishment of the new creation in Christ, reverses the effects of the Fall in this respect as in others. And though the Church has to live partly within the conditions of the Creation and the Fall and partly within those of the new Creation—a “now but not yet” existence—her aim should be increasingly to realize that which ought to be. Thus, we might say, within the developments in modern times by which woman has the opportunity of greater fulfilment and richer contribution to the life of mankind in partnership with man, the emphasis on man's authority and woman's submission even within the family recedes.

Be that as it may, there seems to be no justification in Scripture generally for insistence on an invariable principle of male leadership throughout society. And if it cannot be applied in society at large how much less in the Church, where distinction of sex, race and culture are for the first time irrelevant (Galatians 3 :28)?

The pattern of Genesis 2, so wonderfully fulfilled in marriage, cannot be extended to cover all man-woman relationships in a highly complex society where women, married and single, work with men on equal terms in many areas of life. If a man is head of his own wife he certainly cannot be regarded at head of other women, single or wives of other men, just because he is a man.

Women as Leaders

Instances of feminine leadership within the people of God in Scripture are few. The pattern of society in Old Testament times and in the first century accounts for this. But the examples are worth study.

Deborah was raised up by God to rule over all Israel. A married woman, yet the one to whom the nation came for judgment (Judges 4 :5), she summoned Barak, gave him orders from God, the carrying out of which led to “God's victory” (4:23). Barak would not venture on his mission without the moral support of her presence (4 :8, 9). She was the saviour of the nation (5 :7), a great leader. Huldah, the prophetess (2 Kings 22:12-20), though not so conspicuous, is consulted by the king, high priest and court officials at a time of national spiritual crisis.

Instances of women in leading positions in New Testament times have already been given, notably Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia.

Where God bestows the gifts of leadership on women, he intends them to be used, and the modern history of the Church reveals many such women, not least the Reverend Jane Hwang of Hong Kong, who was already recognized as the gifted and outstanding leader of her parish for many years before a unanimous request for her ordination.

Obedience in a New Step

The intention in this chapter has been to recognize the authority of Scripture in facing the issue of the ordination of women, and, in particular, to determine whether Scripture ascribes a permanent and general authority to man, thereby excluding woman from leadership. Christians who profess to submit to the authority of Scripture, however, must be at pains to discover how its authority is exercised and how its truth fits in with all truth. It is no honour to Scripture, for instance, to use it in a wooden and literalist way, plucking texts at random.

A humble submission to Scripture implies a mind ever open to revise earlier assumptions in the light of new knowledge emerging as the text is studied along with other known truth. Thus, illuminating insights, whose significance was formerly not so fully appreciated, will emerge from Scripture to guide the Church in new situations. One such insight may be found in Galatians 3 :28 where Paul, perhaps writing better than he knew, declares that in Christ barriers of race, class and sex are now irrelevant The door is opened to new developments in the man-woman relationship. This may well be God's time for the step forward which would unite women with men in all the ministry of his Church.

Footnotes

1. “Evangelicals and the Ordination of Women”. ed. Colin Craston (Grove Booklets, 1973) pp. 29, 30.

2. “Studies in Theology”—Hodder and Stoughton 1895, pp. 1, 4.

3. Grove Booklets on Ministry and Worship No. 17 (op cit) p. 29.

4. 1 and 2 Corinthians (Oliphants 1971) p. 106.

Copyright (c) 2007: All of the texts and techniques (pedagogical and relational)
displayed in this site are copyrighted materials.