The Ordination of Women-Part 4: Why I Remain Unconvinced
Some Personal Thoughts from a Hopeful Anglican
Dear Friends,
Sadly, we’ve had a death in our family and Fran and I, with our two older children, are just returning from a family gathering, funeral, and reception in New York’s Long Island. The words of the Burial Office are powerful reminders of our limited time on earth and the opportunities we have to serve God.
With that said, I think my newest book would help my own family and yours as well, “Living in the Fly Away Zone”. It is coming out on August 5th, and can be pre-ordered for Kindle here.
As readers know, I have been writing a series on Women’s Ordination. Last week, I think I was a tad misunderstood, so I am amplifying the points I tried to make. If you are interested, please read the comments from those who offered their thoughts and reactions to the last essay.
DHR+
PS: Thanks to all the new paid and free subscribers on The Anglican. If you are thinking about upgrading your membership, it’s easy. So easy. Just click here. $5/month is all it takes when you sign up for the annual plan.
⸻ ☩ ⸻
The Ordination of Women-Part IV: Why I Remain Unconvinced
I was glad to write Part Three of my thoughts about the Ordination of Women. (Here is the Introduction. Here is Part One and Part Two.)
However, as I mentioned earlier in this series, it took me a long time to sort through my own thoughts on women’s ordination. I expected far more pushback than I’ve received.
Maybe it’s still coming.
But so far the comments have been thoughtful. Even those who disagree have been gracious, and I’m grateful for that. If you haven’t read the comments, they are worth your time.
A few friends also wrote privately. One was a bishop I knew from my Episcopal years. He’s a faithful, evangelical-minded bishop whose judgment I’ve respected for a long time.
He wrote this:
“I thought today’s exposition of priesthood was not as strong as the previous two. The idea of the priest as an icon of the bridegroom breaks down once we remember that all Christians belong to the Bride. If that’s true, why can’t a woman represent Christ as well as a man? I understand that some people feel more comfortable with a male at the altar or in the pulpit, but that feels like cultural habit more than something essential to priesthood.”
I appreciated his honesty because he put his finger on what many people are thinking.
If you are not a Paid Subscriber, you will miss part of this essay. Let’s take care of that today. Get your upgrade! Thanks.
I also think he may have missed my point. Or perhaps I simply wasn’t clear. But it is an important point to make, so I’ll try again.
Before I do, let me borrow a thought from Dean Bryan Hollon , whose recent essay on Holy Orders helped clarify some of this for me. He writes:
“The priest is called from within a disharmonious and disordered world to hear and perceive and articulate that ordered reality which precedes us and which has been revealed in Jesus Christ… The voice of the priest is tuned to a music none of us composed and belongs to the deep structure of reality at all only because it is Christ’s own priesthood, lent to ordinary men who did not write the score.”
Read Dean Hollon’s Essay here:
Back to my Episcopal bishop friend…
I agree with my friend that, in Christ, there is “neither male nor female,” as Paul says in Galatians 3. Together, men and women make up the one Bride of Christ. That truth was revolutionary in the first century. It is a concept that eliminates (in theory) all prejudice, male dominated heirarchy, and racism, when it is followed and applied. His teaching would have challenged the tried and tired assumptions of the ancient world about ethnicity, status, and the place of women.
Here is St. Paul:
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:27-29)
But that’s not the question I’m asking.
