The (so-called) "Traditional" Argument Against Pastoral Women is not Traditional

[Gregorikos]

***BEFORE POSTING TO THIS THREAD, PLEASE NOTE*** You are in the EGALITARIAN Christians forum.

Complementarians and other gender hierarchalists who would restrict women from ministry often cite 2000 years of church tradition to support their cause.

However, in a new book, William Witt shows that, while most of the church has opposed women's ordination for the past 2000 years, their reason for doing so was entirely different than the reasons used today. In other words, the argument is no longer the traditional argument.

Scot McKnight discusses Witt's book in The (so-called) "Traditional" Argument is not Traditional

"Problem is? The new foundation will not support the role differentiation. You can’t get from intellectual incapacity and inequality to intellectual capacity and equality without changing the argument entirely. The same conclusion built on a completely different foundation is little more than gender prejudice. The Protestant complentarian view, like the RCC view, is about 45 years old. No older." - Scot McKnight

Good points to remember!

 

[Aussie Pete]

***BEFORE POSTING TO THIS THREAD, PLEASE NOTE*** You are in the EGALITARIAN Christians forum.

Complementarians and other gender hierarchalists who would restrict women from ministry often cite 2000 years of church tradition to support their cause.

However, in a new book, William Witt shows that, while most of the church has opposed women's ordination for the past 2000 years, their reason for doing so was entirely different than the reasons used today. In other words, the argument is no longer the traditional argument.

Scot McKnight discusses Witt's book in The (so-called) "Traditional" Argument is not Traditional

"Problem is? The new foundation will not support the role differentiation. You can’t get from intellectual incapacity and inequality to intellectual capacity and equality without changing the argument entirely. The same conclusion built on a completely different foundation is little more than gender prejudice. The Protestant complentarian view, like the RCC view, is about 45 years old. No older." - Scot McKnight

Good points to remember!

Doctrines of demons and traditions of men are both to be rejected. It's nearly as bad as denying God's word, which is also increasingly the case today.

 

[Paidiske]

Doctrines of demons and traditions of men are both to be rejected. It's nearly as bad as denying God's word, which is also increasingly the case today.

Given the forum you're posting in, are we to take it that you are suggesting that refusing to ordain women is a "doctrine of demons" or "traditions of men"?

If that's not the meaning of your post, I suspect this is out of keeping with the Statement of Purpose for this forum.

 

[Gregorikos]

Doctrines of demons and traditions of men are both to be rejected. It's nearly as bad as denying God's word, which is also increasingly the case today.

I agree. But what has this to do with the OP?

 

[sparow]

Given the forum you're posting in, are we to take it that you are suggesting that refusing to ordain women is a "doctrine of demons" or "traditions of men"?

If that's not the meaning of your post, I suspect this is out of keeping with the Statement of Purpose for this forum.

Not having read the book, I am not sure what is being discussed; is it the validity of EGALITARIANism or the difficulty if it being recognized?

 

[Gregorikos]

Not having read the book, I am not sure what is being discussed; is it the validity of EGALITARIANism or the difficulty if it being recognized?

You don't have to read the book. There's an article about it in the OP.

For your convenience, here's the link: The (so-called) "Traditional" Argument is not Traditional

 

[Aussie Pete]

Given the forum you're posting in, are we to take it that you are suggesting that refusing to ordain women is a "doctrine of demons" or "traditions of men"?

If that's not the meaning of your post, I suspect this is out of keeping with the Statement of Purpose for this forum.

The OP referred to traditions. I am saying that traditions are not necessarily scripture. I have no comment to make about ordination of women as I'm against ordination full stop.

 

[WolfGate]

Certainly the "traditional" arguments he cites are not only silly, but also not supported either scientifically or in scripture. Women are not "less intelligent, more sinful, more susceptible to temptation, emotionally unstable, incapable of exercising leadership". I have heard those arguments on only a few occasions, and as the author points out there are probably more who hold them but rarely say so aloud unless clearly in like minded company. You will also not find direct support for any of those positions in scripture - it requires taking verses and creating a context around them to claim that support. So people who use those reasons have a flawed argument and it's pretty easy to debunk. Still, there are churches out there who believe those "traditional" argument cited are false yet still understand scripture to say women are not allowed to be pastors.

 

[PloverWing]

I have encountered the "inherent ontological defect" idea before, though (not having studied the topic as thoroughly as Witt) I didn't realize it was how widespread an idea it was in early Christian tradition. I should probably read Witt's book, to get the whole picture, with all the theologians' quotes.

Witt's assessment of the Christian theological tradition is depressing, really. It goes beyond the question of ordination, touching all of us who are women, even if we're lay people, and even if we're single. Evidently, there's a misogyny that was widely agreed upon by theologians (not just one or two), across many times and places.

Assuming Witt is right in his assessment, here's a question for those of us who value Christian tradition: What do we do when an idea that is both false and harmful takes root in the Christian theological tradition in this way? Reform the tradition, I guess, adding our own voices, because tradition is dynamic and ongoing, not static. But as an Episcopalian, I can't just take the easy way out and say "I don't care, it's traditions of men!", because I care about tradition.

How do you deal with the difficult business of separating out what is good (the canon, the Trinity and other important doctrines) from what is false (a misogynistic view of women) amongst those things that have been believed by the majority of Christians through the centuries?

 

[Paidiske]

Women are not "less intelligent, more sinful, more susceptible to temptation, emotionally unstable, incapable of exercising leadership". I have heard those arguments on only a few occasions, and as the author points out there are probably more who hold them but rarely say so aloud unless clearly in like minded company.

For what it's worth, I come across those arguments all. the. time. Not least on CF, where people seem to feel that it's perfectly acceptable to say particularly the last three, as if that weren't either flaming women as a group, or blatant misogyny.

PloverWing, that last is a great question, and I'm not sure I have great answers. But I think part of an answer might be that we do it together; that reforming the tradition isn't something we do as individuals but that the community has to work on it (and through it) together.

 

[WolfGate]

For what it's worth, I come across those arguments all. the. time. Not least on CF, where people seem to feel that it's perfectly acceptable to say particularly the last three, as if that weren't either flaming women as a group, or blatant misogyny.

Point taken. I tend to not view what I see on here as representative of the distribution of thought throughout Christianity as a whole. This place attracts more than its share of fringe views, IMHO, partly because it's easier for them to find a community in a worldwide forum setting.

I will, however, say I am surprised and disappointed you come across it all the time. My background has included quite a bit of the US evangelical and non-denominational world. Other than fundamentalist and some orthodox congregations, I would have thought my background would have a higher percentage than others. I'm sorry you have to be faced with that.

 

[bekkilyn]

The "news" of this article is not news to me. Traditional theology is saturated with misogyny, and largely due to the heavy influence of pagan Greco-Roman philosophy. All of that women less than human stuff comes directly from philosophers such as Aristotle. Many theologians of early church history were attempting to "prove" that the unseen god often written about in paganism was the same God of the Christians, the Logos, who Christians recognize as Christ but was "Reason" in pagan terms.

That's the lens that traditional Christianity has used concerning women for centuries, and is a lens that Paul actually *refuted* but traditionalists often distort his arguments for their own misogynistic purposes, just like they do here on CF in all of those awful "women _____" threads that constantly crop up. They're terrible and demeaning and anything but Christlike.

Instead of being at the forefront of justice, Christianity has been dead last. If it wasn't for God and the fact that there are less regressive denominations nowadays, I would have washed my hands of this religion long ago because "the church" has distorted the faith and the Kingdom beyond anything that Paul would have recognized, and it seems to be getting worse, not better. And the group of "spiritual but not religious" continues to grow and who can blame them?

I'm not even sure what point I'm making here, but I'm just kind of feeling disgusted by the whole thing. If I ever feel ashamed by being a part of Christianity, it is by no means because of Christ, but because of the systemic bigotry saturating so much of the religion, and then using God and a shallow 'understanding' of scripture in order to justify the harm it does and has done.

 

[bekkilyn]

I have encountered the "inherent ontological defect" idea before, though (not having studied the topic as thoroughly as Witt) I didn't realize it was how widespread an idea it was in early Christian tradition. I should probably read Witt's book, to get the whole picture, with all the theologians' quotes.

Witt's assessment of the Christian theological tradition is depressing, really. It goes beyond the question of ordination, touching all of us who are women, even if we're lay people, and even if we're single. Evidently, there's a misogyny that was widely agreed upon by theologians (not just one or two), across many times and places.

Assuming Witt is right in his assessment, here's a question for those of us who value Christian tradition: What do we do when an idea that is both false and harmful takes root in the Christian theological tradition in this way? Reform the tradition, I guess, adding our own voices, because tradition is dynamic and ongoing, not static. But as an Episcopalian, I can't just take the easy way out and say "I don't care, it's traditions of men!", because I care about tradition.

How do you deal with the difficult business of separating out what is good (the canon, the Trinity and other important doctrines) from what is false (a misogynistic view of women) amongst those things that have been believed by the majority of Christians through the centuries?

It seems that what was traditionally done was to start yet another denomination. It seems that's what largely ends up happening whenever someone or some group tries to reform from within.

 

[WolfGate]

bekkilyn - remind me, are you clergy also? I have a vague recollection you might be, perhaps even in my home state of NC. If so, I'm also sorry you see this viewpoint from the article as part of your ministry reality.

 

[Gregorikos]

Certainly the "traditional" arguments he cites are not only silly, but also not supported either scientifically or in scripture. Women are not "less intelligent, more sinful, more susceptible to temptation, emotionally unstable, incapable of exercising leadership". I have heard those arguments on only a few occasions, and as the author points out there are probably more who hold them but rarely say so aloud unless clearly in like minded company. You will also not find direct support for any of those positions in scripture - it requires taking verses and creating a context around them to claim that support. So people who use those reasons have a flawed argument and it's pretty easy to debunk. Still, there are churches out there who believe those "traditional" argument cited are false yet still understand scripture to say women are not allowed to be pastors.

But of course. Most logical, rational people agree that the "traditional" arguments are silly, and not supported either scientifically or in Scripture. That's why "Complementarian" Evangelical and RCC teachers moved on to new arguments to meet the same end. But you see, that's the news. What this author is saying is that as things currently stand, the Egalitarian Biblical position is actually older and more historic than the "Complementarian" one.

I think that's a delightful bit of news.

 

[Gregorikos]

Assuming Witt is right in his assessment, here's a question for those of us who value Christian tradition: What do we do when an idea that is both false and harmful takes root in the Christian theological tradition in this way? Reform the tradition, I guess, adding our own voices, because tradition is dynamic and ongoing, not static. But as an Episcopalian, I can't just take the easy way out and say "I don't care, it's traditions of men!", because I care about tradition.

How do you deal with the difficult business of separating out what is good (the canon, the Trinity and other important doctrines) from what is false (a misogynistic view of women) amongst those things that have been believed by the majority of Christians through the centuries?

Coming from a less traditionalist viewpoint, I'm not bothered by tradition's error here. Remember we had a tradition of selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sin, and all sorts of ungodly nonsense that was turned around during the reformation. We had a tradition of owning slaves and even some popes a clergy owned them. Thank God he is working to sanctify and correct his church!

And I think the point of Witt's assessment is that the tradition has already been reformed, at least in the mainstream. Yes.... they arrived at the same conclusion, but that only shows the absurdity of that conclusion. It is more strong evidence that we are winning this battle!

 

[hedrick]

Coming from a less tradtionalist viewpoint, I'm not bothered by tradition's error here. Remember we had a tradition of selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sin, and all sorts of ungodly nonsense that was turned around during the reformation. We had a tradition of owning slaves and even some popes a clergy owned them. Thank God he is working to sanctify and correct his church!

And I think the point of Witt's assessment is that the tradition has already been reformed, at least in the mainstream. Yes.... they arrived at the same conclusion, but that only shows the absurdity of that conclusion. It is more strong evidence that we are winning this battle!

Sure. But if the church is typically behind everyone else on basic issues of human welfare, eventually it becomes hard to convince people that we’re under the guidance of a force for good.

 

[Gregorikos]

Sure. But if the church is typically behind everyone else on basic issues of human welfare, eventually it becomes hard to convince people that we’re under the guidance of a force for good.

Your objection is duly noted and I am open for suggestions on what to do about that.

 

[bekkilyn]

bekkilyn - remind me, are you clergy also? I have a vague recollection you might be, perhaps even in my home state of NC. If so, I'm also sorry you see this viewpoint from the article as part of your ministry reality.

Well fortunately, in my local churches within my own denomination, I don't typically come across this viewpoint, so it really doesn't affect my day-to-day except when I venture out to visit other churches, but when I look at "Christianity" as a religion in general and what different denominations and organizations are saying and doing concerning various topics such as women in ministry, I do come across a good bit of misogyny and other problematic issues that I find very frustrating. Even within my own denomination, women have had issues.

The following video has been posted before I think, but perhaps it's worth posting again because it brings to mind issues that women have had even in denominations that currently welcome female clergy.