Précis and Scholarly Review: The Ordination of Women

In “Changing Hands: The Practice of Ordaining Baptist Women,” (2016)  Eileen R. Campbell-Reed, Associate Professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, examines the challenges and evolutions that have occurred in conferring ministerial roles to women in the Southern Baptist tradition.   In the five decades since the ordination of Addie Davis in 1964 at the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Campbell-Reed along with colleague Pamela Durso launched the Baptist Women in Ministry Registry with the sole purpose of collecting the names and stories of women affiliated with and actively participating in ministry in the SBC.  This work of documenting their ordination statuses (ordained/not (yet) ordained) comes as an expansion of the work began by sociologist Sarah Frances Anders in 1964 following the first woman’s ordination by the SBC in 1964.

Additionally, the BWIM Registry tracks the reason for those not (yet) ordained statuses, with the majority to date noting that their ministry does not require ordination, and some noting internal controversy arising in response to their expressed interest. After presenting a historical overview of ordination within the Baptist tradition Campbell-Reed presents four general processes or phases through which the question of women’s ordination has been considered within Baptist circles.

Ordination as Novelty. The “novelty” of being the “first woman” in various contexts was both alluring to some and divisive to others “contributing to the denominational split and birth of new Baptist groups” following the first ordination of a Baptist woman in 1964.  

Ordination as Controversy. While the SBC released various official statements pertinent to women’s ordination between 1984 and 2000 local practices remained divergent, leading to additional controversies between associations and organizations. Many women practiced as ministers even though they did not go through ordination as a rite—claiming that ordination is not a requirement for ministry. 

Ordination as Shifting Process. Differences between male and female ordination have been evident through shifting processes including “(1) the length of time from call to ordination (2) simultaneous ordination with spouses (3) (non)involvement of associations and (4) the level and type of discernment by churches.”  

Ordination as Contested Symbol. Different views on women’s ordination have turned the issue into “a clash of cultural symbols, signifying conflict and contention.”

Through this collection of quantitative as well as qualitative data collection, Campbell-Reed’s analysis draws her to the following assertions: that firstly, the locus of ordination is shifting away from large association bodies to churches with ad hoc committees comprised of local ministers, deacons and seminary professors, thus exposing these communities to fraud and doctrinal inconsistencies.  Further, women’s ordination has become novelty – a contested symbolic act and thus becoming a means of distinguishing individual churches’ proxy and adherence to the SBC. In short, the issue of women’s ordination has evolved into something more than the issue itself. It has become a sort of sign-post or litmus test for SBC orthodoxy. While the point is not made, one might just as easily contend that those who reject women’s ordination have also been subject to a litmus test of sorts suggesting that they fall prey to denying the inclusiveness of the Gospel and fail to uphold the fundamental equality between the sexes as both male and female are bearers of the image of God.  

In “Mark 14:3-9 and the Ordination of Women,” (1995) Phyllis Anderson, Director for Theological Education for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), uses a feminist reading of a familiar passion New Testament text to exhort the plight of the modern-day ordained woman. 

Turning to the text of Mark 14:3-9, Anderson exemplifies the bold, yet deliberate actions of a woman who was not welcome in the presence of men but women would be vindicated by Jesus Christ for her overwhelming gesture of service and sacrifice.  Anderson utilizes the woman at Bethany as the archetype for the modern day woman ordained to the ministry, suggesting that like the nameless woman, they prevail against the social status quo and in doing so, are justified. From this “boldness” Anderson discerns three primary lessons relevant to women who have sought ordination into the pastoral office:

She was “bold” with an extravagant gesture that was also a risk. “Every movement that opens windows in the church requires leaders who are willing to risk using their own powers to make it happen.” 

She was “bold” but not like a “bull in a china shop.” She did the “right thing.”  “Each of us, within the limits of our own personalities, our own gifts, our own station in life, our own moment in history, is asked to do what we can—not more.” 

The woman at Bethany was bold and will be remembered, “but not by name.” “…if we think getting our names in the book is what discipleship is all about—or ordination for that matter—we are sadly mistaken.”

By Anderson’s purview, every effort made by a woman to be of service via ordination to the church is a risk: perceived as ill warranted, but legitimate no less. Yet most pertinent to her reading, Anderson highlights that this woman remains nameless in a text wherein all of the other (male) actors are named. It should be noted, however, that Anderson’s article is not a pro or con article about the debate or legitimacy of women’s ordination. The unnamed woman at Bethany is not evoked to prove that women’s ordination is Biblically justified. Instead, this woman is called upon as an example of strength and character who ordained women, or those seeking ordination, might look to as a model.  In this respect, Anderson effectively accomplishes her task. That said, while the woman at Bethany exemplifies the character that Anderson believes ought to be assumed by the women she addresses, the text in no wise suggests that this is directly relevant to issues of ordination at all, male or female. 

In “Ordination of Women: Wrong or Right?” (1988), Carolyn Blevins contends that any effort to restrict any persons from ordination on the basis of sex, race or social class is in direct opposition to the spirit and ministry of Christ’s life, which demonstrated overwhelming examples of inclusion.   Blevins supports this claim by first examining New Testament texts in which women are not only called to participate in the mission of Christianity but are also presented as biblical models of ministry.  Lastly, Blevins asserts, that while ordination has become common praxis in Christian churches, there is no biblical injunction for ordination, thus any effort to restrict a woman from ordination ultimately cannot be supported by a requirement of scripture.

Blevins effectively approaches the New Testament from three different directions to arrive at the same conclusion—that women should not be excluded from ordination: God calls women.1. God’s call in the Bible is non-conventional and personal, i.e. the calls of Moses, Debora, and Paul. “God has no limits on the ways he can call a person; neither Is he restricted in the types of persons He can call.”  2. The revelation of Jesus makes his call upon us more knowable and clearly known—he countered many cultural restrictions in his day relevant to women (Luke 8:3; John 4:27-42), etc.  3. The working of the Holy Spirit is evidence of God’s call, and the Spirit’s work results in both men and women preaching (Acts 2:16-18). 

The proclaiming mission of Christianity includes women. 1. Jesus’ command to “proclaim includes women,” i.e. (Matt. 28:19-20).  2. “Every member of the church is expected to use his or her gifts.”  3. Arguments from the history of the church prove that this has been the case. 

Biblical Models . 1. Women as prophets, i.e. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna.  2. Jesus opposed restrictions on women (Luke 15; 13:18-20).  3. Women participated in the mission of the early church (Acts, Gal. 3:28).

The presentation of this article draws attention to the purpose of ordination, being to commission and make one more effectual in the work of ministry, and away from the hierarchical contentions that discussion around the ordination of women naturally yields. In short, Blevis resists the tendency to view the question of women’s ordination a matter of male-female contrast and more a matter of ministry. When women are placed and compared with men in Scripture a number of social factors intrude upon the revelation and while these are not always culturally conditioned the better question when it comes to women’s ordination is whether or not the Scriptures make use of women for ministry. In this respect, the evidence conclusively suggests the affirmative. Thus, Blevins suggests a re-reading of the Bible when it comes to the question of women’s ordination by asking different questions. In this respect, her argument is persuasive.

Bibliography

Anderson, Phyllis.  “Mark 14:3-9 and the Ordination of Women,” Currents in Theology and Mission,” (1995), 451-453.

Blevins, Carolyn. “Ordination of Women: Wrong or Right?” Theological Educator (1988), 100-111

Campbell-Reed, Eileen R. “Changing Hands: The Practice of Ordaining Baptist Women,” Baptist History & Heritage (Spring, 2016), 18-26.