1. Introduction
A few days ago, I watched a film titled Created Equal, which tells the story of a young Catholic sister in New Orleans who wanted to become a priest. She was denied entry to the seminary because she did not meet the criteria: she was not a man. A high-powered lawyer took on her case and sued the Catholic Church for gender discrimination. The most interesting part of the film was the arguments made by the lawyers on both sides. The Catholic bishop argued that the reason women cannot be priests is that Jesus only chose men to be his apostles, even though he could have chosen women. Because of Jesus’s example, the Catholic Church feels obligated to follow in his footsteps. Naturally, the opposing side argued that the only reason Sister Alejandra was excluded from the seminary and could not become a priest was because of her gender. The jury found that the Catholic Church had discriminated on the basis of sex, but the judge, to avoid a direct confrontation, did not issue a special injunction because Sister Alejandra had other options, like joining a church that allowed the ordination of women. A truly fascinating film.
However, I felt some sympathy for the lawyer defending the Catholic bishop, whose only defense was that Jesus acted in this way, so we must follow his example, even though there are other practices that Christians have not followed, such as ordaining only Jews. The argument of ordaining only men carried little weight with the jurors, and, to my Orthodox mind, seemed rather weak. Surely, I thought, there must be more substantial arguments. I recognize that the Catholic argument of following Jesus’s example has merit, but… I began to wonder if there was not a more solid, more biblical, and more theological reason underlying the practice of Jesus—and that of the Orthodox, Catholic, and non-Chalcedonian Churches for the past 2,000 years. So, I reflected, and here is the result. If it is indeed a “more solid, more biblical, and more theological” reason, then good. If not, we can simply set it aside.
2. The Doctrine of Creation
I believe the most solid foundation for addressing the issue of female priests lies in Genesis, in the story of creation. From the beginning of his activity, the Lord made choices—without asking for our input—for his creatures, assigning them roles and tasks to accomplish in order to fulfill his will, purpose, and plan for the creation. Orthodox Christians call this final stage theosis or divinization, where Man, both male and female, is created in the image of God and called to be his likeness, to share in God’s life. The Lord’s first choice was to create the human species in two versions: Adam, the male, and Eve, the female.
Although they were created equal—here we hear an echo of one of the key discussion points of modern feminism—that is, they were built on the same ontological foundation, both being images of God and having the vocation of becoming like God, in his likeness. There was only one path to divine likeness for both of them. The differentiation of the sexes had no effect on their shared vocation. They were equally virtuous—and later equally sinful—in the way they were to manifest these traits in their lives. However, while they were equal in being, the Lord gave them different roles in creation, based on the inherent qualities and characteristics of their genders.
Once again, the Lord made another choice: Adam was created to take the first position, and Eve, the second one; Adam was to be the leader, the governor, the provider, the protector, the authority figure, and the priest, and Eve was to bring forth new life, be nurturing, a helper, supporter, merciful, a giver of tenderness, sharing in the gift of prophecy. We generally summarize these roles by the words father and mother. We can even say Adam and Eve were to express the same qualities or virtues, but one through the lens of masculinity and the other through the lens of femininity. Yes, mothers can and do exercise authority, and men can be and are nurturing, showing some fluidity—hear the buzz? While these descriptions of the roles assigned by the Lord to man and woman leak a bit at the edges, they hold, as evidenced by almost all cultures throughout time and geography. However, from the point of view I am discussing, that is, the biblical point of view, the Lord assigned these roles—he chose them—and instilled them into the very being of the male human and the female human. These were not roles imposed by this or that society, contemporary or historical. Naturally, societies and cultures have shaped these roles in various ways, but their basic forms hold universally. It is the old question of nature versus nurture, and we must affirm both.
Those who believe that almost everything in society and culture is nurture and not nature will probably disagree, but I do not believe that that is the biblical view—it is not what the Lord intended for human beings.
My aim here is not to argue with anyone, but rather to present, as best I can, the biblical view of human creation and how the Lord “built the hardware,” his creatures, and “downloaded the software” into them. I know mine is not the only point of view, even among Christians, let alone non-Christian philosophies. As is the case in much of the modern confrontation between the traditional Christian-biblical worldview and other worldviews, defenders of the ancient worldview need to be well grounded in the Bible, in Church history, and in sound theological doctrines. In the end, compared to modern philosophies, the confrontation may come down to “we will just have to agree to disagree,” but this still requires solid presentations of our points of view and rigorous argumentation. We may need to leave it at that. In my opinion, the Catholic argument in the film Created Equal unfortunately lacked a solid foundation.
3. Israel
Once Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, everything changed for them and the creation; everything was affected and corrupted by sin, the bug in the “computer program”; the hierarchy of Adam first and Eve second, each fulfilling the roles assigned to them, was transformed into a relationship of political power: “He shall rule over you.” However, though corrupted, the roles assigned by the Lord in the Garden remained operative in our world, and we see them at work in the history of Israel, particularly concerning the Lord’s choices—again, he did not ask for our opinion—regarding the priesthood and the ministry of the prophets. Through his “arbitrary” choice, the Lord made the tribe of Levi the priestly tribe with various requirements concerning gender, marital status, and physical integrity (Lv 21). Women were not made priests because—I would say—the Israelites were aware that the male gender was, among other things, the priestly gender, not only in the temple but also in the family. The priesthood was subject to a taxis, meaning an order, structure, or hierarchy established according to fixed rules for the proper functioning of an institution. On the other hand, there was in Israel the institution, ministry, or activity of the prophets, which was not subject to a taxis. Anyone could be a prophet, man or woman. They were inspired by the Lord for a particular mission, and when they completed their assigned task, they returned to their “normal” Israelite state. Each ministry—priest and prophet—had its place in the life of the people of Israel. However, they were not the same, but both were ordained by the Lord for the welfare of Israel.
4. The New Testament
It was during this period that the New Israel was established. Certain things from the Old Israel were retained—the Ten Commandments, the Scriptures themselves, monotheism, etc.—and others were abandoned—the laws of ritual purity, temple sacrifices, kashrut dietary laws, etc. Nevertheless, apostolic Christians were aware of being the New Israel, similar to yet different from the Old Israel. And here we have the crucial question: Was the priesthood of the Old Testament continued, restored, or transformed in the New Israel? Or was not only the priesthood of the Old Testament but also the entire notion of priesthood abolished along with other characteristics of the Old Israel that did not fit into the Gospel? It is clear that Jesus, the new High Priest, chose 12 apostles, all men, and these apostles appointed men to succeed them and to lead the Churches founded in the Greco-Roman world. Was it Jesus’s intention to give the Church a new priesthood, i.e., a group that would act like the priesthood of the Old Testament? Or did he appoint these men and others to be more like the rabbis in synagogues, who never claimed to be priests, kohanim, but were teachers, preachers, guides, prayer leaders, interpreters of the Law, but not priests who interceded “for men in things pertaining to God… offering gifts and sacrifices for sins” (He 4:15)? There is a certain parallel between the priests of the Old Testament and the apostles: there was the High Priest of the Old Testament with lower-ranking priests under him, and there is Christ, the High Priest, with men beneath him who saw themselves as executing his will. However, in the table below, can we legitimately fill the empty space 2.1 with the word priests?
| 1. The High Priest of Old Israel | 2. Christ, the High Priest of the New Israel |
| 1.1 Lower-ranking priests of Old Israel | 2.1 ??? |
| 1. The High Priest of Old Israel | 2. 2. Christ, the High Priest of the New Israel |
| 1.1 The lower-ranking priests of Old Israel | 2.1 The apostles, lower-ranking priests of the New Israel |
Such a reproduction of the Old Testament priestly taxis is not immediately evident, but the parallels seem tempting. Nevertheless, since the Temple was destroyed along with the sacrificial system, and thus the need for priests, the first impression might be that the correlation between 1 and 2 does not justify a correlation between 1.1 and 2.1. On the other hand, sacrificial language is used in the New Testament, of course, in relation to Christ but also concerning other things. St, Paul says, “Through him, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God” (He 13:15); St. Timothy says, “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings [eucharistia] be made for all people” (1 Tm 2:1). Naturally, such language must be interpreted as a “spiritual” sacrifice, meaning a bloodless sacrifice, but nevertheless a sacrifice, thus logically necessitating priests who offer unbloody sacrifices. It is interesting to note that although this language is found in the New Testament, we never hear the apostles being called hiereus, the word used to designate pagan and Jewish priests, who offered bloody sacrifices, and for Christ. Our word priest does not derive from hiereus but from presbyteros, elder. In any case, there are at least hints of the correlation between Christ, the High Priest who offers the great and final bloody sacrifice, and his ministers, who will offer the bloodless sacrifice of praise and the peace offering.
5. Going into the World
One recurring theme found in Christian writings after the New Testament is the notion of “transmission of the apostolic faith”: fidelity, continuity, and authentic transmission of apostolic preaching. In one word, tradition. It seems almost undeniable that those who followed the apostles believed that they were merely continuing what the apostles had proclaimed. Whether this is what they actually did or if they instead corrupted the apostolic tradition is another question, but they thought they remained faithful to the apostles. It is in the early centuries that we see a liturgical development where what was only hinted at in the New Testament becomes evident: the successors of the apostles used sacrificial language in reference to the Eucharist, clearly indicating a bloodless offering, and therefore an expression of Christian ministry as priesthood, modeled on the priesthood of the Old Testament, but not extending it. Thus, they conceived of those who would dedicate themselves as bishops, priests, or deacons as participating in Christ’s priesthood in a manner different from the royal priesthood of all Christians.
And what do we see in the Churches, until very recent times? We see that participation in the ordained priestly ministry—bishop, priest, deacon—was reserved for men, as the priestly gender. The only exceptions to this rule are found among dissident or heretical groups. The unanimous practice of all Churches, of any confession, until, say, 1850, affirmed the legitimacy of a male clergy. Then, beginning with marginal Protestant Churches, women became members of the clergy—priests or ministers—in all Churches with a Reformed background. The Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the non-Chalcedonian Churches refused to follow the others. On this issue, is there a clear explanation for this division between the Reformation Churches and those that are not? I say “an explanation” of the division, not to convince those who disagree on the subject, but at least to present a solid argument.
6. The Contemporary Debate
How, then, can we explain the fact that the wave—some would say a tsunami—of women’s ordinations to the priesthood/ministry has crashed against the rocks where the Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian, and Roman Catholic Churches stand? We must return to the beginning of this article. I think what underlies the division between the three aforementioned Churches and the Reformation Churches is precisely the notion of priesthood, whose roots go back to the Old Testament and even to creation itself.
For some, the Lord Himself assigned roles to men and women, one of which was that the male gender is the priestly gender, among other things, and the female gender, though not exclusively, is the prophetic gender, among other things. The roles are not interchangeable, but complementary. The priesthood in Israel and in Christianity, at least until modern times, has been seen as a special order, a ministry ordained by the Lord to intercede before the face of God on behalf of the people and to offer the bloodless sacrifice of praise, the peace offering: the Eucharist. Perhaps these Churches never reflected on and expressed the theological foundations of their universal practice, but now, being forced to do so in the face of Protestant and secular questions, they are obliged to dive into their treasure chests and bring out something new, at least a new explanation for not jumping on the bandwagon of women’s ordination. The following characteristics of Reformation Churches need to be taken into account.
- On the other hand, we see that the Reformation Churches, from the beginning, rejected the notion of tradition and priesthood. Of course, they only had before them the example of medieval Latin Catholicism, which, in some respects, may have justified their reactions. Even if we can legitimately criticize the notions of tradition, priesthood, and Eucharistic sacrifice in medieval Latin Christianity, the “traditional” Churches could not and cannot accept the solutions presented by the Reformers: the rejection of the idea of a Holy Tradition protected by God, and the adoption of a “spiritual” ecclesiology in which the true Church is invisible.
- The rejection of the idea of a historical and substantial continuity, in time and space, of a Tradition protected by God, in continuity with the preaching of the apostles.
- The rejection of the notion of a ministerial priesthood within Holy Tradition.
- The rejection of any notion of sacrifice, and thus of priesthood, associated with the Eucharist.
Having rejected the medieval Latin version of priesthood, sacrifice, Tradition, etc., Reformed Christians went further and rejected the very notion of priesthood, etc. In its place, they established “ministries” that resemble more the prophetic office of the Old Testament and New Testament; there were prophets in the New Testament: Eph 4:11; Agabus, Ac 11:27-28 and 21:10-11; Silas, Ac15:22-32. The idea that the Lord can call anyone at any time to bear witness to him has permeated the notion of ministry in Reformed Churches, perhaps less so in the past than today. They have embraced much of modern secular philosophy on men and women, their roles, and their places in society, and have abandoned the notion of priesthood as held in the three “traditional” Churches. This leaves them defenseless against the anti-Christian assault of our contemporary culture. Without a centuries-old Tradition, based on Old Testament patterns and rooted in creation itself, it is no wonder that, not only on the question of women’s ordination but on so many other issues, we see these Churches dissolving before our eyes.
Even the Roman Catholic Church, as shown in the film Created Equal, is not immune to the siren call of female priests. The film showed, or at least it portrayed it that way, that the argument against women’s ordination is based simply on following the example of Jesus and because the Pope said so. Perhaps I am not being fair to Catholic arguments, based only on the film. If that is the case, I would like to hear more, but so far, even beyond the film, the theological substance is rather thin.
7. A Problem Associated with My Explanation
To use my explanation, assuming it is considered solid, we must have courage. It is not easy, nor sometimes safe, to stand up and say aloud that men and women are equal but not identical, that they each have roles given by God and that these roles are not interchangeable. No, men cannot play the role of women, and women cannot play the role of men as these roles have been defined and assigned to the sexes. In the biblical perspective, at least as traditionally interpreted, true happiness and life in God involve the humble acceptance by men and women of their roles. Naturally, if we interpret these roles according to the world in which we live, a world corrupted by sin and death, they will be seen through the lens of power struggles where, if men hold all the power, wealth, and prestige, it is not surprising that many women would want to reject these roles and substitute others. In a world where women want to be like men and reach the same levels of power, money, and prestige as men, we have indeed arrived at a period where men and women are equal: they are chasing after the same diabolical goals.
But those of us who live in and through the Holy Tradition that I mentioned earlier, we walk according to a different interpretation, a different light, by which we can agree with those who are disgusted by the practice of men’s and women’s roles in our world. We too are disgusted by what we see. However, in the light of the risen Christ, we see that the roles and relationships of men and women do not have to be as we see them today; we can see them as the Lord intended—as Adam and Eve lived together in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. These roles, particularly visible in Orthodox Christian marriage, can be sanctified and deified in such a way that, if people want it, the Lord will receive their martyr’s crowns in his heavenly kingdom.
Men are ordained to the priestly ministry because they are, by the Lord’s decision, the priestly gender; women, on the other hand, play the prophetic role.
priesthood of the Old Testament, but not extending it. Thus, they conceived of those who would dedicate themselves as bishops, priests, or deacons as participating in Christ’s priesthood in a manner different from the royal priesthood of all Christians. And what do we see in the Churches, until very recent times? We see that participation in the ordained priestly ministry—bishop, priest, deacon—was reserved for men, as the priestly gender. The only exceptions to this rule are found among dissident or heretical groups. The unanimous practice of all Churches, of any confession, until, say, 1850, affirmed the legitimacy of a male clergy. Then, beginning with marginal Protestant Churches, women became members of the clergy—priests or ministers—in all Churches with a Reformed background. The Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the non-Chalcedonian Churches refused to follow the others. On this issue, is there a clear explanation for this division between the Reformation Churches and those that are not? I say “an explanation” of the division, not to convince those who disagree on the subject, but at least to present a solid argument. 6. The Contemporary Debate How, then, can we explain the fact that the wave—some would say a tsunami—of women’s ordinations to the priesthood/ministry has crashed against the rocks where the Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian, and Roman Catholic Churches stand? We must return to the beginning of this article. I think what underlies the division between the three aforementioned Churches and the Reformation Churches is precisely the notion of priesthood, whose roots go back to the Old Testament and even to creation itself. For some, the Lord Himself assigned roles to men and women, one of which was that the male gender is the priestly gender, among other things, and the female gender, though not exclusively, is the prophetic gender, among other things. The roles are not interchangeable, but complementary. The priesthood in Israel and in Christianity, at least until modern times, has been seen as a special order, a ministry ordained by the Lord to intercede before the face of God on behalf of the people and to offer the bloodless sacrifice of praise, the peace offering: the Eucharist. Perhaps these Churches never reflected on and expressed the theological foundations of their universal practice, but now, being forced to do so in the face of Protestant and secular questions, they are obliged to dive into their treasure chests and bring out something new, at least a new explanation for not jumping on the bandwagon of women’s ordination. The following characteristics of Reformation Churches need to be taken into account. 1. On the other hand, we see that the Reformation Churches, from the beginning, rejected the notion of tradition and priesthood. Of course, they only had before them the example of medieval Latin Catholicism, which, in some respects, may have justified their reactions. Even if we can legitimately criticize the notions of tradition, priesthood, and Eucharistic sacrifice in medieval Latin Christianity, the “traditional” Churches could not and cannot accept the solutions presented by the
Reformers: the rejection of the idea of a Holy Tradition protected by God, and the adoption of a “spiritual” ecclesiology in which the true Church is invisible. 2. The rejection of the idea of a historical and substantial continuity, in time and space, of a Tradition protected by God, in continuity with the preaching of the apostles. 3. The rejection of the notion of a ministerial priesthood within Holy Tradition. 4. The rejection of any notion of sacrifice, and thus of priesthood, associated with the Eucharist. Having rejected the medieval Latin version of priesthood, sacrifice, Tradition, etc., Reformed Christians went further and rejected the very notion of priesthood, etc. In its place, they established “ministries” that resemble more the prophetic office of the Old Testament and New Testament; there were prophets in the New Testament: Eph 4:11; Agabus, Ac 11:27-28 and 21:10-11; Silas, Ac15:22-32. The idea that the Lord can call anyone at any time to bear witness to him has permeated the notion of ministry in Reformed Churches, perhaps less so in the past than today. They have embraced much of modern secular philosophy on men and women, their roles, and their places in society, and have abandoned the notion of priesthood as held in the three “traditional” Churches. This leaves them defenseless against the anti-Christian assault of our contemporary culture. Without a centuries-old Tradition, based on Old Testament patterns and rooted in creation itself, it is no wonder that, not only on the question of women’s ordination but on so many other issues, we see these Churches dissolving before our eyes. Even the Roman Catholic Church, as shown in the film Created Equal, is not immune to the siren call of female priests. The film showed, or at least it portrayed it that way, that the argument against women’s ordination is based simply on following the example of Jesus and because the Pope said so. Perhaps I am not being fair to Catholic arguments, based only on the film. If that is the case, I would like to hear more, but so far, even beyond the film, the theological substance is rather thin. 7. A Problem Associated with My Explanation To use my explanation, assuming it is considered solid, we must have courage. It is not easy, nor sometimes safe, to stand up and say aloud that men and women are equal but not identical, that they each have roles given by God and that these roles are not interchangeable. No, men cannot play the role of women, and women cannot play the role of men as these roles have been defined and assigned to the sexes. In the biblical perspective, at least as traditionally interpreted, true happiness and life in God involve the humble acceptance by men and women of their roles. Naturally, if we interpret these roles according to the world in which we live, a world corrupted by sin and death, they will be seen through the lens of power struggles where, if men hold all the power, wealth, and prestige, it is not surprising that many women would want to reject these roles and substitute others. In a world where women want to be like men and reach the same levels
of power, money, and prestige as men, we have indeed arrived at a period where men and women are equal: they are chasing after the same diabolical goals. But those of us who live in and through the Holy Tradition that I mentioned earlier, we walk according to a different interpretation, a different light, by which we can agree with those who are disgusted by the practice of men’s and women’s roles in our world. We too are disgusted by what we see. However, in the light of the risen Christ, we see that the roles and relationships of men and women do not have to be as we see them today; we can see them as the Lord intended—as Adam and Eve lived together in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. These roles, particularly visible in Orthodox Christian marriage, can be sanctified and deified in such a way that, if people want it, the Lord will receive their martyr’s crowns in his heavenly kingdom. Men are ordained to the priestly ministry because they are, by the Lord’s decision, the priestly gender; women, on the other hand, play the prophetic role.