Can a man represent Christ better?

One of the influences working against the acceptance of the ordination of women is the belief that a woman cannot represent Christ because she is not a man. People often express surprise and some even express disbelief when confronted with this idea. I believe we should be aware of the argument or it will take us by surprise. In his article "Did Christ rule out women priests?" The catholic priest and theologian, Father John Wijngaards, delivers the argument. In the end he refutes the argument.

It is true there is no explicit teaching in Scripture that restricts the priesthood only to men. How then, you may ask, can we deduce that women are excluded from the ministry? Such a conclusion can be arrived at, with practical certainty, from the combination of the following facts:
1. Jesus Christ chose only men to be his apostles. He obviously did this on purpose and so fixed a norm.
2. The Church always followed this example of Christ. Both in apostolic times and in later centuries only men have been ordained priests.
3. A priest is the sacramental sign of Christ's presence at the eucharist. A man can represent Christ better because Christ too was a man.-FATHER JOHN WIJNGAARDS

However, after a very lengthy article Father Wijngaards concludes his commentary this way:

The question: Did Christ rule out women priests? I have answered in the negative. The fact that Christ chose only men to function on his apostolic team was not determined by his own specific preference, but by the social pressure of his time. In the circumstances Christ could not have appointed women to a priestly task. But in no way did he at any time rule out the possibility of women being ordained priests. On the contrary, the priesthood he instituted is of such a nature that it breaks with all previously established human limits. -FATHER JOHN WIJNGAARDS

Was woman created in God's image? Can women represent God? These are questions we need to be prepared to answer. Perhaps I will write more about them...

Are we embarrassed?

As Methodism became established, following Wesley's death, there was clear embarrassment about the existence of women preachers (cf., Brown, women, p. 175) which led to the denial of ordination for women in the main Methodist church until the mid-twentieth century. While the early holiness "sects" were progressives, with as many as 25% of their clergy being female, this number dropped steadily as they became "churches." It is now closer to 5% (cf. Hardesty, et al., "Women in the Holiness Movement," pp. 244-46; and Dayton, Evangelical Heritage, pp. 97-8).-Randy Maddox's footnotes to his article WESLEYAN THEOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN FEMINIST CRITIQUE

The number has dropped in the Wesleyan Church. Is there reason to think it is because we are "embarrassed?"

89 year old female pastor

I just had lunch with a 89 year old female pastor who is currently the solo pastor of her church. She was ordained in 1947 and has pastored in one area for nearly 50 years. She has always been a solo pastor. She still has a strong sense of her calling. Although, she states that she has not experienced some of the obstacles some have, she acknowledges that she was a rarity even in her beginning days.

I left wondering what I could learn from her. I think the most significant thing to me is that she is still sure of her call. She does not look back, and certainly does not wonder (and likely has never wondered) if it is okay for her to preach the gospel.

While we were eating, she counted (on her fingers) how many female ministers in various denominations there are currently in her little town. Guess what? There are 7.

After almost 50 years of Rev. Betty Miller ministering in this small town, I don't think that is just coincidental!

How would his Disciples have ever known?

This excerpt might be helpful for those who think that the move to ordain women began in the 1960's as a result of the Feminist Movement. Margaret Fell Fox, wife of George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends/Quakers writes this article in 1666. After reading the excerpt click on the link below to read more of what she has to say about what the Scriptures say with regard to allowing, justifying and proving that women may 'speak'.

Women's Speaking Justified, Proved, and Allowed of by the Scriptures

"Notice this, you who despise and oppose the message of the Lord God that he sends by women. What would have become of the redemption of the whole body of mankind if they had no reason to believe the message that the Lord Jesus sent by these women about his resurrection? These women had received mercy, and grace, and forgiveness of sins, and virtue, and healing from him, the same that many men had also received. If the hearts of these women had not been so united and knit to him in love that they could not depart like the men did, but they sat watching, and waiting, and weeping about the tomb until the time of his resurrection and so were ready out of their tenderness and love to carry his message as it was revealed to them, how would his Disciples, who were not there, have ever known?"

Women's Right to Preach!

In 1859, Catherine Mumford Booth wrote an article in defense of women preachers. The title of her article was "Female Ministry; or, Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel."
The title makes me wonder...is it appropriate to speak of it as a right? I find that using the word 'right' in relationship to a woman's position in the church is not considered the Christian way to speak of it. To speak of 'rights' smacks of liberal civil rights 'speak.' To speak of 'rights' sounds like an entitlement. To speak of 'rights' seems selfish and self-serving. To speak of 'rights' is perceived as a demand and seems to set up a sense of competition. How does speaking of "Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel" fit with the idea that we, as Christians, should not demand our rights?
Funny, we don't have a problem speaking of our 'right' to vote. Or our 'right' to 'privacy.' Or our 'right' to the freedom of worship. Or our 'right' to assembly. Or our 'right' of freedom of speech. Most of us do not consider these 'rights' as selfish, self-serving or un-Christian.
Is it really because a Christian should not demand their 'rights' or is it really that a woman should not?
I wonder...

There is neither male or female...

Why the Best Man for the Job is a Woman: The Unique Female Qualities of Leadership hails the lady CEO as a sign of a revolution taking place in a corporate culture traditionally dominated by men. The world of business is changing...and it is women who are best suited to meet the challenges of the modern marketplace. Book [the author] contends that women such as Meg Whitman of eBay and Marcy Carsey of Carsey-Werner succeed because they embody seven uniquely female abilities: they can sell their visions; they are not afraid to reinvent the rules; they are closely focused on achievement; they show courage under fire; they turn challenges into opportunities; they are aware of customer preferences; and they maximize what Book calls "high touch" in an era of high tech.

Within the church, I think we need to be really careful to avoid the temptation to make the argument that women have uniquely female qualities that not only qualifies them to be pastors, but makes them better suited for the task. First, persons are called into ministry. Each person, male or female, is uniquely gifted for the ministry to which the Holy Spirit calls him or her. Secondly, to say women are better qualified based on their abilites (as the book review indicates) is to diminish men and their gifts and what they have historically contributed to the ministry. Thirdly, there should be no competition nor contrast and comparison. Fourthly, to speak of women as though they are totally different in their ministry giftings from men, is to minimize and isolate womens' gifts and still maintain the male model of pastoral leadership as the norm. The Holy Spirit is the gift giver and the One who does the calling. To make this argument does a disservice to those called into ministry and also to the Third Person of the Trinity. Women do not have to be better (or the same) as the opposite sex. They, like men, just have to be called!

"Separate But Equal"

Separate but equal was a policy instituted in southern states which practiced segregation. Under the policy, African Americans and people of European descent were provided separate public facilities and services, such as schools, water fountains, and bathrooms.

In many churches, the "separate but equal" rule is alive and well. Those who apply this 'rule' attempt to convince women that when they are told they are equal before God-but have a different 'role'-that it does not mean they are lesser than men. They are just different! That has never made sense to me any more than it did to the African Americans that were told to use a different rest room or water fountain. When African Americans protested this practice they were judged as 'uppity,' as 'stepping out of their place,' as 'rebellious,' as not understanding their 'God-ordained' position in the world. Sound familiar?