Does female ordination go against the core values of Christianity?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not the case eo ipso, but it can cross that line if the case for female ordination grounds itself in modern ideas concerning gender and gender roles, since the unchangeability of the faith is itself a core Christian value and it follows that that faith shouldn't be subject to later developments in social philosophy.

     I am thinking in particular of a clip I saw of Bryan Wolfmueller, an LCMS pastor, who was discerning the ELCA and asked a female priest there about 1 Tim. 2:12. Her response was that that passage didn't carry doctrinal weight because it was sexist. That response confirmed for him that he could not be in the ELCA, and I would say justifiably so; such disrespect for the revealed word of God is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not the case eo ipso, but it can cross that line if the case for female ordination grounds itself in modern ideas concerning gender and gender roles, since the unchangeability of the faith is itself a core Christian value and it follows that that faith shouldn't be subject to later developments in social philosophy.

     I am thinking in particular of a clip I saw of Bryan Wolfmueller, an LCMS pastor, who was discerning the ELCA and asked a female priest there about 1 Tim. 2:12. Her response was that that passage didn't carry doctrinal weight because it was sexist. That response confirmed for him that he could not be in the ELCA, and I would say justifiably so; such disrespect for the revealed word of God is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

I agree that’s a very poor defense of it.  The Bible and basically all pre-20th century church tradition clearly comes down against men and women being identical and interchangeable.  However, it also strikes me that  many churches also drifted more patriarchal than originally intended over time (i.e. almost surely those that don’t or didn’t allow deaconesses).  It can be appropriate to point that out, too. Early Christianity was pretty clearly more in favor of gender equality than the pagan societies it was converting (indeed, the early power base was educated women), just not gender interchangeability.

     What's interesting about deaconesses is that in the Orthodox tradition they are a nonliturgical role that is dedicated to working with women, and naturally were phased out as the stigma against men working with women broke down. If it seems odd, consider that diakonos/diakonissa originally meant "servant" in Greek. Now the history is fragmented enough that I cannot per se prove to you that this is the original sense in which deaconesses were spoken of, but we would not accept the notion that we drifted patriarchal, but rather we would say that deaconesses fulfilled a specific function that ceased to be necessary. Interestingly we recently reintroduced deaconesses in Africa, because there the Orthodox do work with some heavily patriarchal societies wherein social pressures against men working with women make their service important.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

I understand and respect the argument against female ordination in denominations that aim to read Scripture as literally as possible.  I really don't understand it in denominations that are very open to non-literal readings of Scripture and/or doctrinal development on other aspects of the St. Paul gender role discourse (mandatory clerical celibacy, deaconesses, head coverings, etc.).  It's my strongest point of disagreement with the Catholic, and to a lesser degree, Orthodox churches.

     Let me pose it to you this way: why would openness to non-literal readings of Scripture require openness to female ordination? Since the Orthodox do not accept doctrinal development as a concept, this would have to be the crux of the matter here.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No. 

1. Female deacons are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and deacons are generally considered to be ordained.

2. Ordination of women as lead ministers of a congregation does rely on a non-literal/culturally specific interpretation of St. Paul, but as a generally theologically conservative Wesleyan*, I still believe that interpretation is reasonable.  The alternative, literal interpretation is also defensible, though.  However, congregations that are super literal about St. Paul's words on this subject, but don't allow #1 (and don't have head coverings for women today, or allowed men to worship in wigs in Colonial times because that was the fashion of the day, etc.) strike me as contradictory and to some degree hypocritical. 

*Endorsing ordination of women as ministers has unfortunately become associated with also endorsing extremely theologically liberal stuff like the "sparkle creed."  This doesn't have to be the case.  The conservative and moderate Methodists need to get better organized.

There is more evidence that the Early Church's deaconesses were more of a limited role compared to what the ordained permenent diaconate is and does at least in the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/why-historic-deaconesses-will-not-translate-to-modern-female-deacons/

That is a reading of the history involved, yes.

Anyway, no (literally normal; I don't even think people like PiT are voting yes). "The core values of Christianity" should refer to stuff that's in the Creeds, the Our Father, Christ's sermons and public ministry, bits of the Mass that have been in it in more or less the same form for two thousand years (i.e. the Kyrie and possibly the Sanctus). However strong you think the arguments against ordaining women are or aren't, they are manifestly not based on anything that fundamental.

I understand and respect the argument against female ordination in denominations that aim to read Scripture as literally as possible.  I really don't understand it in denominations that are very open to non-literal readings of Scripture and/or doctrinal development on other aspects of the St. Paul gender role discourse (mandatory clerical celibacy, deaconesses, head coverings, etc.).  It's my strongest point of disagreement with the Catholic, and to a lesser degree, Orthodox churches.

     Let me pose it to you this way: why would openness to non-literal readings of Scripture require openness to female ordination? Since the Orthodox do not accept doctrinal development as a concept, this would have to be the crux of the matter here.

It seems to me that in the Anglo West,

Christianity is mostly protestant so the understnading of male vs. female ordination, rests on sola scriptura, a fundamental tenet of Protestantism.

For Catholics and Orhtodox Christians however, Sola Scripture is well.... not a thing.

     Sure, and I shouldn't go around trying to start arguments. It irks me a bit that people who know very little about Orthodox belief and practice nevertheless speak quite confidently about it. Orthodox and Catholics have rather sophisticated theological justifications for not endorsing female ordination, but people don't consider that our perspectives might be rather different from a Protestant one.