The Argument from Vocation

by Deaconess Hilary

from Women Priests? Yes - Now! pp.65-74, ed. by Canon Harold Wilson, Denham House Press, 1975.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.

Deaconess Hilary, Member of the Deaconess Community of Saint Andrew

Vocation is the work, the activity of the Holy Spirit, it is a calling and enabling of response. The call may express itself through one's natural inclinations and use of gifts and abilities, but more often it is experienced as an insistence on that which one would not naturally choose and sometimes that for which one does not seem naturally endowed. It is not so much “a choosing” as response to an imperative call. Some may feel an attraction to the Religious Life, to be a deaconess or a priest, but such an attraction does not of necessity indicate a vocation. Vocation needs always to be ratified by some external authority although the authority may lie in the evidence of the work performed. Nor is vocation in any way concerned with the status or the emancipation of women— it can never be a platform for Womens' Lib! It is always response, conscious or unconscious, to the initiative of the Spirit and this movement of the Spirit is the equalizing factor in all vocation, for there may be variety and distinction but no inferiority or superiority of calling. Functions may vary but the activity is always that of the Spirit and the response is always, “be it unto me according to thy word”.

It is not therefore relevant to suggest to a woman with the vocation to be a priest that she become a religious instead. Such suggestions have been made but surely indicate an inadequate view of vocation. There can be no mere substitution although it may well be that a woman through no fault of her own, realizes the impossibility of fulfilling her vocation and deliberately seeks to serve in the fullest alternative way possible. Yet this is not fulfilment of vocation—and I stress vocation and not personality, for she may indeed find her own fulfilment through self-giving in the substitute. It is the Church which is diminished in so far that the work of the Holy Spirit has not been fully expressed through her.

The call to a specific vocation does not exclude a secondary call within that vocation. This is true of the Religious Life. The Religious Life is a call in its own right but it is frequently the overall call for specific vocations within it. The religious has a “peculiar” life style but is not essentially different from that of other Christians. This “peculiarity” expresses in an exaggerated form the life that all Christians are called to live and to which at their baptism they made consent. So to become a Religious does not negate the possibility of a call to a further vocation through which the life must be channelled and expressed. This is self-evident as we see Religious working as teachers, doctors, nurses and in the men's Orders as bishops and priests.

The Community to which I belong is an example of this dual calling. All the fully professed sisters have experienced the call to the Religious Life and in addition have known themselves called to express that life in some authorized and recognized status within the Church, i.e. as deaconesses. Perhaps some of us have regretted that the “recognized status” given by the Church has tended to be more of a permissive rather than a representative character, too dependent on the goodwill of the clergy (and there has been much goodwill and understanding), rather than on the delegated authority given by the Church in the laying-on-of-hands! This does not, however, negate the reality of the vocation even though the whole question of the Diaconate is at the moment in question!

Among the members of the Community there are some who, like other women in the Church, feel a further call to exercise priestly functions as the natural outcome of their present pastoral ministry.

During the last decade much greater opportunity has been given to women for the ministry of the word and for this one is indeed thankful. Yet this is still largely dependent on “personality”, on whether one is acceptable as a person to a particular priest, or congregation, or individual, rather than on the “given-ness” of one's vocation. If the clergy or the laity were subjected to such a test, perhaps they would see more clearly the indignity of such a position in which is tacitly ignored the bestowal of the grace given by the Holy Spirit and ratified by the Church.

The increased opportunities of teaching, preaching and counselling have for many women fulfilled their vocation, yet for others these opportunities have presented fresh problems and sharpened questions which had arisen in the mind. The increase of counselling becomes the inevitable result of preaching, group discussions, retreats etc., and leads from time to time to situations where there is spiritual, psychological and emotional necessity for an authoritative declaration of absolution which the counsellor is unable to give. Similar problems arise in hospital visiting and even more frequently and urgently where the full-time Chaplain is a woman. Of course one can declare God's forgiveness; of course one can send for the priest, but the full meaning and impact of the sacramental rite is inevitably diminished. If the Holy Spirit is working through women in this way, ratifying the vocation of which she is conscious, why cannot the Church empower such women to be the channels of the healing ministry of absolution?

Or again, women working in chaplaincy situations, in hospitals, schools or colleges, experience situations where at the climax of some ministerial function they are unable to bring it to its natural conclusion. In these days of working with small groups so often the natural culminating point is the celebration of the Eucharist, and this must be foregone or someone from outside brought in which introduces at this most crucial point something of an “alien” element. A similar experience occurs in the conducting of retreats when it is not always possible to find a celebrant who is naturally in sympathy with the ethos of the group, and when this is not possible something very real is lost.

It is this experience of being brought to the climax point of priestly function which has made some of us realize or consider anew our vocation. It is the consciousness of being driven by the Spirit to the very point of sacramental representation that makes consideration of the priesthood of women vital, and it is against this background that one considers anew some of the arguments brought against it.

Is it without significance that the present upsurge of life within the Church, with its emphasis on charisma, coincides with the crisis point of decision by the Church on the role of women within its ministry. Are these both movements of the Spirit? Are we being presented once more with a “revelation point” when we are bidden to hear “what the Spirit says to the Churches ?”

The Church of the New Testament presents a picture of dynamic progressiveness, of an experience of the Holy Spirit as dynamic power, breaking down barriers and leading the Church on to a vision of “all truth”. The dominant note appears to be that of openness to an ongoing, living reality rather than devotion to a static revelation. It is the picture of men living in the awareness of a new creation, of the emergence of a new man in Christ, an awareness which compelled St. Paul to go far beyond his rational understanding when he declared that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female”. He saw all things moving to an omega point in Christ in whom all in all is fulfilled.

Here is the vision and the declaration of the great liberating movement of the Spirit within the Church which should free men from every form of bondage and subservience, from the dead letter of religious observance to newness of spirit, from distinction of race and the inequality of sex, moving all men to the realization of their essential oneness in Christ.

The breaking down of the barrier between Jew and Greek came with almost dramatic suddenness in the early days of the Church. Yet the admission of the Gentiles to full membership of the Church in their own right must have been as traumatic for that early Church as the consideration of the admission of women to the historic ministry is to us today. And the decision is given with great simplicity in the historic words recorded in Acts 15-28, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”. It could well have been argued that there was no precedent for the admission of Gentiles in their own right. Jesus himself said that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and although there was the command to teach all nations, surely this implied that such Gentiles who accepted the faith must first become Jews and accept the rite of circumcision and subscribe to the observance of the Law. Indeed this was the argument presented, an argument in line with all tradition and to which certain sayings and “events” in the life of Jesus lent support. Yet by the power of the Spirit this strong position was overthrown and the Church was led from truth to truth.

Today it is still argued in some circles that Jesus chose only men to be apostles and had he wanted women he would have chosen them. This in all seriousness! It seems a naive argument from an historical point of view. If Jesus is accepted as an historical figure and truly human, man in the fullest sense of the word having time and place in history, must he not have been conditioned to a considerable extent by the circumstances of his own time and place? Would it have been humanly possible under the conditions which then existed to have chosen women as apostles even had he so desired? It may be interesting, however, to notice another small “event” which may not be without some significance. The first chosen witnesses to the Resurrection were the women including Mary Magdalene. It was they who were bidden to go and tell the disciples that Christ had risen, to act as witnesses, a role which under the Jewish Law no woman might fulfil because of her subordination!

Of course Jesus chose twelve men and this choice was a highly symbolic one. Surely here was the symbolic act of the restoration of Israel, the inauguration of the new Israel. A similar symbolism can be seen in the sending out of the seventy, an action recalling the seventy elders of Israel. It is this which would appear to be the primary significance of the calling of the twelve and how else in these circumstances could they be other than men? But to regard this as the “once for all” pattern for ministry is very open to question. The primary significance of twelve men seemed to hold for the early Church no special significance with regard to ministry, for in a comparatively short space of time the number was extended and Gentiles were incorporated into the presbyterate. Only the “maleness” of the original has been retained. Thus the argument of the calling of the twelve as the enduring and final pattern of ministry would seem to be founded on shifting sand. Indeed the whole pattern of ministry within the early Church has a fluidity which is almost disconcerting, but may it not be that rigidity is more indicative of death than life?

So within the early Church the prophetic vision of St. Paul began immediately to have actuality and the division between Jew and Gentile was broken down by the liberating activity of the Spirit. Yet Paul seems to have done little to actualize “neither male nor female”, but neither did he “slave nor free”. Indeed, although in theory the Church may have accepted St. Paul's vision, it was mainly content to let this refer only to spiritual status and accept the status quo in everyday affairs. As we know, it was not until the 19th century that slavery was abolished in the British Empire, and then some of the arguments brought against abolition by certain sections of the Church were similar in kind to those brought against admitting women to the priesthood. We can only hope that it will not take another nineteen hundred years for these to be overcome! Yet by the power of the Holy Spirit the second area of liberation has been achieved.

The third area “neither male nor female” is of the three the most fundamental, since the distinction which is to be done away rests on the Biblical view of creation, the earlier narrative in Genesis 2. Man is created in the image of God and woman is created out of man, therefore woman is subordinate to man. Linked with this is the story of the Fall where the weakness of woman is underlined in that she is deceived by the serpent. (It appears irrelevant that man being deceived by the woman manifests a similar frailty!) So woman must be subordinate to man and may not exercise authority. This St. Paul accepts, as is evident in his letters, although even there some signs of unease appear about the situation. A woman must wear a veil as a sign of her subordination, so also she may not “ask questions” in the assembly for this would be a form of “uncovering”. Yet she may prophesy! Already a certain amount of fluidity seems in process. Logically, if the Church accepts the Biblical view of the status of women, it cannot support or accept any emancipation of women at all, for to exercise any authority, secular or ecclesiastical, over man would be in contradiction to declared truth. If the doctrine is true, there can be no emancipation of women and the question of priesthood is a non-question. If it is not true, then one basic argument for the refusal to admit women to the ministry of the Church falls to the ground.

The fact remains that although St. Paul in his lifetime still spoke and acted on certain given assumptions of Judaism, yet in his vision he saw not only the Law transcended but a new creation—the Fall is remedied and a new creation in which there is no male or female, for all distinctions are done away and there is one new man in Christ. Within the redemption, within the new creation, there is no basis for the argument of subordination.

Obviously distinctions between the sexes remain, but they are distinctions which complement one another and not those which differentiate as superior or inferior. The ministry of women should surely be complementary to, and not merely identical with, that of men. It has been argued that a woman cannot be a priest as she cannot represent the fatherhood of God. Is not this making our conception of God too small? Are not the characteristics of motherhood also found in God? The prophet Isaiah attributes to God the compassion of a mother (49:15) and Jesus Himself speaks in terms of the mother figure as he weeps over Jerusalem in the words “how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings” (Matthew 23 :37). Do we differentiate too much between father and mother characteristics—would it be better to think in terms of parenthood? It is perhaps surprising that the creative, energizing power of the Holy Spirit expressed as wind or breath (ruach) takes the feminine gender, as also does the dove. Wisdom we know is personified as feminine. Surely the characteristics of fatherhood and motherhood must merge if we are to get adequate representation of God within the Church. It is interesting that as far back as the 3rd century this was recognized by someone who wrote, “the deacon is the representative of Christ, the deaconess the representative of the Holy Spirit”. It would appear from what records exist that between the first and fourth centuries women were given a greater and more distinctive role within the Church than in any subsequent period until the present day.

There is great fear within the Church as to the possibility of women exercising rule, authority or discipline over men. The danger at present would seem to be slight! Even in secular society the cases are not frequent but where they do occur there does not appear to be undue catastrophe or hardship. Nor would a woman exercising authority be new in the Church. The great abbeys of Ely and Whitby and other lesser ones comprised houses of both men and women and were ruled by Abbesses. It is true that many women, possibly most, are not temperamentally suitable for a role in which they must exercise so much authority, but this is largely true of men also. And why should the Church fear this since the remedy is in its own hands? It is the Church which has the responsibility of appointing its ministers (and where power lies with the State it is surely not less responsible), and the power of the Holy Spirit is still active to lead to right appointment.

One must have great sympathy with those who say that they see no theological objection to the ordination of women but think the time is not yet, this being based on ecumenical considerations, grounded in the fear that any unilateral action of this kind would lead to a further breach of unity. This seems reasonable and reasonable it may be, but so often the Holy Spirit is not reasonable. If it be true that He is giving vocations to women; if it be true that He has led the Church to see that there are no theological objections, then is it a failure in faith and obedience to delay response to his leading? Rationally it appears as though to implement the ordination of women might be a further stumbling-block in the cause of unity, but if this is founded on truth, truth into which we have been led by the Holy Spirit, can this be really so? Must not the truth be declared, for only in fulness of truth can there be fulless of unity. To see the truth and to remain silent in the cause of ecumenism is to attempt to build unity on a lie.

Surely our prayer must be that St. Paul's great vision “neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female” may come to fruition in our time, so that the “new creation” may move onwards towards the full realization of the new man in Christ.

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