The Church
Ordination Issues
There are loads of folks who approve of the ordination of women but who oppose the ordination of homosexuals. Is this an inconsistency? In a recent post on his blog www.dougwils.com , Douglas Wilson points to this inconsistency in a discussion on the precarious position N. T. Wright is in over ordination matters:
The push for women being ordained as priests (or pastors, or bishops, whatever) is not coming from a Church crowned with glory after several centuries of faithfulness, martyrdom, and exuberant evangelism and discipleship. It is coming from a Church addled with various and rampant sexual confusions. In other words, the ordination of women and the ordination of homosexuals are not two separate issues, but rather two manifestations of one issue. What is that issue? We do not want God to define who we are. Because these are not two separate issues, an evangelical support for women's ordination is actually an ignorant support of homosexual ordination. This is true theologically, but it is also true practically. If this were not practically the case, we could just as easily be hearing calls for all practicing homosexual priests to be defrocked, and then after that, we could move on to the pressing business of ordaining women. Think that will happen soon? Don't hold your breath.
When the ordination of women was first posited, some argued this is the slippery slope to other ordination issues, such as homosexuals. That position was pooh-poohed. But, it seems to have come to fruition. So, food for thought: Can you embrace the ordination of women and oppose the ordination of homosexuals and be consistent? Or: Can you be a theological conservative holding such a position?
posted by WCK @ 10:56 AM
5 Comments:
There is an essential problem with the presupposition behind this whole discussion: Ordination is a man-made institution. There is some scripture indicating that early church leaders "laid hands" on people set aside to certain ministries. However, this may be nothing more than simply praying for an individual who is called to a ministry. There does not seem to be the clear teaching, assumed by more hierarchical denominations, that there is a status called "ordianed", achieved through a process of "ordination." It is not simply that the terms are absent in scripture. The term "Trinity" is likewise absent but the idea is there. For "odination", it seems some Christian traditions have severely strained the meaning of the texts on "laying on of hands" to defend an overly developed idea of ordination, an idea largely inherited from Rome. One sees this particularly in the idea of "once-ordained-always-ordained" present even in some evangelical denomoninations, an idea was especially developed through the Donatist schism (in the early 5th century) out of which the idea of ex opera operata issued. It is an idea, as far as I can tell, that lacks Biblical support.
The New England Puritans, for example, interpreted ordination as nothing more than the installation of a pastor at his church. If he left his church (which rarely happened in Puritan churches), he was considered to be no longer ordained.
Therefore, the whole question, "Who should be ordained?," means "Who should receive the benefits of this man-made rite?". The answer, then, is: "Since we invented it, it entirely depends on what we interpret ordination to mean." If it is simply the "laying on of hands", the praying for a person called to a particular ministry, then if we are setting aside a woman for ministry a woman could be "ordained." Those trapped in homosexual sins, on the other hand, are in immediate and urgent need of other prayers before they can set aside for a ministry! Those who think "ordination" elevates a man to a status between the rest of the church and God -- permanently -- need to reflect on the words "Semper Reformanda".
John, how does that follow? Are elders and deacons biblical? Ordination is just the name for the thing we do to distinguish who is an elder and who isn't.
Spot on Matthew...we could call it "initiation" or "knighting"... it is just recognizing the Biblical appropriateness and mandate of having church leaders using Biblical principles.
Yes, "ordination" is what we call setting aside certain people for ministry. But today there are a lot of "offices" that are neither termed as "elders" or "deacons". Associate pastors, assistant pastors, pastor of drama! Further, a good case can be made for women deacons (especially if deacons are understood Biblically as a non-executive position). So if we're asking whether women can be "ordained", then the next questions is "ordained to what"? Ordained to be an elder? No. Ordained to be a deacon. Maybe. Ordained to be "pastor of interpretative dance?! And so on. . . .
John---You are correct in the unBiblical offices in the church "created by man" to make the church more like a commercial entity. Service can and should be done without title. Responsibility to serve comes to all from their union with Christ. The need for title is the desire for personal recognition...a self-seeking.
Post a Comment
<< Home