Jesus Ordained Women And We Should Too

laying on of hands2

Since I’m always welcoming new people to the blog I sometimes like to revisit an old post or two that sparked a good conversation, but may have been missed by those who weren’t around when it was originally posted. In light of the controversy over Kate Kelly’s excommunication from the Mormon Church and the ensuing conversation about the ordination of women, I thought it would be a good time to share this (slightly edited) post from 2012.

How well do you remember the Easter story?

Or perhaps I should say, Easter stories, because if you look carefully there are differences in each gospel writer’s account, specifically in the number of people that came to check on the tomb that morning. But there is one fact that all the gospel writers agree on.

Women were there first while the men cowered in fear behind locked doors.

There’s also another fact the gospel writers all agree on – when the women at the tomb realized Jesus had risen from the dead, he gave them clear instructions to “go and tell.”

If you ask me, that sounds a whole lot like Jesus’ other famous Great Commission. Except, Jesus couldn’t tell the other disciples to go into all the world until they had the full gospel to preach. Which is why it’s not until after the resurrection that Great Commission is given the “good news” is ready to be proclaimed to the world.

And if we pay careful attention, we notice that the first people commissioned by Jesus himself to go and preach this greatest of news were not the men standing on the hillside with Jesus in Matthew 28.

They were the women at the empty tomb.

If that’s not a ordination service happening that first Easter morning, then I don’t know what it is.

Now, I’m sure there are many of you who may be wanting to cry foul because this bestowal of authority doesn’t look exactly like the ordination service you’ve seen or, like me, the services you’ve been a part of.

Let me assure you that that’s ok because those services don’t look exactly like what Jesus did either. But that too is ok, because the fundamental issue at hand is still the same. Both for Jesus’ commissioning of his disciples and our ordination services today, ordination is fundamentally about the bestowal of authority to proclaim the good news.

This sort of bestowal is exactly what we witness at the empty tomb. If the resurrected Jesus thought only men should have this authority, then he just as easily could bypassed the women altogether, appeared first at the home where the disciples were hiding, then waited for the women to arrive panic stricken from finding an empty tomb, and then commissioned the men to explain what happened.

But Jesus intentionally met the women at the tomb and intentionally bestowed authority upon them to preach the gospel.

The importance of that decision by Jesus can’t be overstated.

But let me pause to address two flaws that some may see in my argument.

The first is in regards to the administration of the sacraments, namely baptism and the eucharist. This administrative authority is part and parcel to any modern ordination service, the idea being that we are echoing Jesus’ command, or bestowal of authority, to his disciples to perform these rituals. However, the formality we attend to such bestowal of authority is not found in the gospels. Jesus simply tells his followers to go and do likewise, much the same as he told the women at the tomb to go and tell.

More importantly, the sacraments are not an end in themselves. They are a core component of the proclamation of the good news that God is at work in and through us transforming the world and reconciling creation back to its Creator. In other words, the sacraments, as we see Jesus declare in Matthew 28:19, are an extension of the more fundamental call to go and preach the good news.

So, if we are going to connect the administration of the sacraments to the authority to preach based on Jesus’ command to “go” and do (as we do in our ordination services), then there is nothing precluding us from extending that same connection to women whom he also explicitly called to “go” and do.

But weren’t all 12 of Jesus’ disciples men?

It’s true. The Twelve were all men. But as others elsewhere have astutely pointed out, Jesus also only chose Jewish men from the Middle East, likely with dark hair, and almost certainly under 30. And yet, neither ethnicity, nationality, hair color, nor age are used as requirements for ordination.

We must also keep in mind that the gospels 1) record Jesus sending out 70 apostles whose gender isn’t mentioned at all, 2) they make it clear that Jesus also had female disciples, i.e. Mary and Martha, and 3) they were written and edited by men with a profoundly patriarchal view of the world.

So, why the focus on gender in the church?

It’s almost like we’re going out of our way to continue the tradition of the Pharisees by finding ways to exclude and marginalize people some of the very people Jesus went out of his way to include.

Which is why as Christians we can’t forget the most important issue at hand – after the resurrection everything changed because the world was being made new.

We live in a post-resurrection and therefore must take into account what Jesus said and did after he walked out of the tomb. In that post-resurrection world we see a Jesus who boldly ordains women to preach the good news to the very men we hold up as the templates of ecclesial authority, but who were hiding in fear on Easter Sunday because they didn’t really understand what that good news was all about.

In other words, men dropped the ball, so Jesus handed it off to women.

The key point here is that merely relying on the pre-resurrection, male oriented world as a justification for not ordaining women is to render both the event itself as well as the transforming power of the resurrection totally and completely irrelevant. For, if a new world isn’t being made through through the resurrection, then what was the point?

But there’s more.

Both Peter and Paul, yes even Paul, clearly supported this post-resurrection way of looking at the world.

Peter, for instance, had his famous vision in Acts wherein a sheet descended from heaven full of unclean food he was told to eat. When he refused, God reminded him that a new day had dawned and new rules were being put into place. It took some time, but Peter finally saw the light.

Later on, in his first epistle, after the ramifications of this new day had finally dawned on him, Peter reminded the church that through Jesus we are all members of a new, royal priesthood. Did you catch that? He said all. No gender usage there. He could have said all men, but he didn’t. That should tell us something.

Even Paul, the apparent champion of “complimentarianism,” actually had pretty radical views about post-resurrection identity and equality in the church. As he put it so beautifully in his epistle to the church in Galatia,

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Not exactly the words of a man convinced women had less standing in the church than men.

Now, yes, there are passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy wherein Paul talks about women not speaking or teaching in the church, but I have serious doubts about the all encompassing nature of these apparent commands to the church.

First, they appear to be very situationally specific, particularly in the case of the church in Corinth where female prophets were supposedly known to disrupt what were at that point in the church’s history essentially just small group gatherings in people’s homes and thus easily prone to disruption. Secondly, while the case could be made from the Timothy passage that the command is more broad based, it simply doesn’t jive with everything else Paul has to say about women in the church.

Paul is clear from both the Galatians passages as well as numerous other passages, that coming to Christ results in a fundamentally new identity which transcends all previous identity markers. Likewise, in several of his letters Paul is careful to thank specific women for their leadership in their local church. If Paul truly had no place for women in church leadership, then it would make no sense for him to go out of his way to thank them for taking on that very role of church leadership he supposedly prohibited. Which makes me come to the conclusion that either a) his words were intended for a specific situation or b) his words were not his own, but commands added later by followers uncomfortable with the thought of being led by a woman, or as Jesus would might say, they were uncomfortable with the last being first and the first being last.

Ultimately, though, there is a choice to be made between a literalist interpreation that seeks to limit the meaning of scripture to the letters on the page and a spiritual reading that the church has preferred for 2,000 which frees the Spirit to grant the people of God access into the deeper mysteries of God’s truth.

This doesn’t mean we wholesale abandon everything in the Bible in favor of the red letters of Jesus or a personal interoperation that gives us nothing but warm fuzzy feelings.

Far from it.

What it means is that we follow the ancient tradition of the church, admit that there are difficult and sometimes seemingly contradictory passages in scripture, learning along the way to recognize that, in the words of the great church father Origen, the difficulties that arise in the literal sense of the text have been placed there by the Holy Spirit to challenge us to dig deeper into the Spirit of the word, so that we can grow in Wisdom and become the people God created us to be.

Now, I know that there are many who will not agree with what my reading of scripture, but if the great reformers of the church were right – that there are moments in the life of the church when we much pause and ask ourselves whether or not what we are doing truly lines up with the teachings of Jesus or is simply our own cultural tradition – if that reflective and reforming work should be the ongoing responsibility of the church, then I believe the time has come for some serious and honest reflection about how the Body of Christ views and treats half of her members.

In other words, I am acutely aware that some of what I am saying flies in the face of what is for many nearly 2,000 years of church tradition.

But, I’m ok with that.

Because if ordaining women to preach the gospel is wrong, then Jesus himself stands condemned.

  • Pingback: Jesus ordained women and we should too…()

  • Duane

    Very well said and completely lined up with Scripture. I’ve made this same presentation myself many times when teaching. Its a tough pill to swallow for a lot of men. But most of these men also struggle with understanding a man and woman’s role in a marriage as well. I think you presented this as well as any other I’ve seen. Very well done.

  • daryl carpenter

    Of course in Mark, the earliest gospel, and the likely basis for the other gospel versions of the resurrection, the women were equally as useless as the men, and ran off afraid and didn’t tell anybody about the great event (the oldest copies of the gospel end at 16:8). But such textual and historical considerations probably aren’t the main concern here. Of course women should be able to be ordained. What century is it again?

    • Stacey (the kids’ Aunt Tasty)

      This made me smile. :-)

  • Tim

    Don’t forget that Peter’s first sermon included affirming that young women – young women! – would prophesy. He didn’t say only to other women, just that young women would be prophets. The whole of Scripture shows women repeatedly being put in leadership and preaching roles. A couple of passages that are used by heirarchists to say that such roles are prohibited clearly don’t really say that when seen in context.

  • Sophia Reed

    Yes God can use anyone to spread his word. At the day of Penacost women were there and the Holy Spirit was poured out on them all the same. God loves to use the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. Meaning He can use anyone no matter how they are perceived by the world just to get His point across, and that is everyone is equal in God’s eyes.

  • Lisa Katona-Startzel

    Hey Zack! Just had to tell you, I “tripped” onto this site while searching for an image. What a pleasant surprise. Your assessment was very refreshing and completely in line with scripture. My heart aches watching all of the “Walking Dead” in the world. I’m very thankful when I see Christians like you sharing the true heart of our amazing Savior! Thank you! :)

  • Ken

    Zack, I enjoyed this post as I am currently battling what many Christians (including myself) grew up with hearing “traditional biblical values” preached and pushed behind pulpits.

    I hope for clarity on a thought I have here from you and/or others. Because you question why there aren’t specifics in many areas in scripture in regards to gender roles post resurrection what about the specifics when Paul writes that overseers are to be the husband of one wife and later in Titus, Paul uses “he” in regards to overseers?

    I’ve read this a few times and I like your points. But what I see is partial to the point you’re trying to make. I want to really question my long held beliefs of a typical conservative background. I’m open to learn if I am wrong!

    I want to learn truth. I hope for some insight! Grace & peace.

  • Karen

    As an Eastern Orthodox woman, I will just make the observation that it is impossible for those who do not have an Orthodox understanding of the “mysteriological” nature of the Divine Liturgy (the name given to the eucharistic service in the EO Church)-and this includes some Orthodox Christians, apparently, since a small minority of them today are also trying to argue for the ordination of women, too-to understand why women have neither in the OT or NT, nor historically for 2,000 years in the EO Church (nor elsewhere in Christendom for most of that time as well), been ordained to the sacramental and liturgical “office” of priest/bishop/presbyter. From this perspective, it makes no more sense to ask why a woman cannot be a Christian priest, than to ask why a man cannot give birth to and nurse a baby (apart from artificial intervention, anyway-incredibly, I believe this has been tried!). (As an aside, I did not realize when I was Protestant that the Greek term “presbyteros” from which we derive our English term “elder” also means “priest”, with all that this implies biblically).

    Suffice it to say, that for a traditional Orthodox Christian (and for many other Christians from the most ancient Christian Churches) the reasons for this are not political or cultural, but rather have to do with the concrete embodied facts that are the historical basis of the Christian faith and of the Christian Church-especially the fact of God’s Incarnation as a male human, the man Jesus Christ, and His ordination of men as Apostles (even though He also had women disciples and honored women as equal in dignity to men), which they obviously understood they were to continue in like manner since they ordained men, who ordained men, who ordained men, and so on down to the present day (in the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic Churches).

    Belying the belief that this has anything to do with an inherent inferiority or moral or spiritual weakness in women or intent to subordinate them, and as Zack alludes to, there were and are in the Bible (and in the Orthodox Church) clearly women missionaries (even in the EO tradition ones with the title “Equal to the Apostles”), prophetesses (a role now filled by “Eldresses” in the Orthodox tradition), women teachers and pillars in the local congregation, women disciples of Christ, and many, many honored women Saints, Confessors, and Martyrs. St. Paul named women among his “coworkers.” Orthodox women today may serve alongside their brothers as full members on parish and diocesan councils (administrative bodies in local churches). Add to this that the most highly honored Saint (by a huge margin) in the Eastern Orthodox Church (and also in the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches)-its most exemplary and leading member-is (gasp) a woman! Of course, I am speaking of the Holy Virgin, Mary, who appears at the right hand of her Son center-front framing the “Royal Doors” of the “Iconostasis” (Icon Screen) in every Orthodox temple. The message for those who care to hear is very clear: there is no member of Christ’s Body worthy of greater honor than Mary, and we need no longer ask (like the disciples) who gets to be Christ’s “right hand man” when He comes into His Kingdom. She has already been chosen! To rightly worship the One, is to rightly honor the other.

    For this reason, my experience really resonates with the woman who wrote this piece:

  • Egalitarian Champion

    Came across your site yesterday and love this article as well as the one you wrote in March about segregation and complementarism. I think the best way the enemy (Satan) has to keep people from learning about Jesus is to exclude 51% of the population from preaching the word of God. Unfortunately I am new to the egalitarian/complementarian issue as I thought the “modern” and supposedly “relevant” church I attended for years shared my views on equality. Finally after seeing the church only raise up males to pastor positions and when they only had males plant new churches a light bulb went off and I asked the question. Immediately I resigned my small group and decided to run (not walk) to another church. I refuse to give tithes and offerings to churches that support complementarian views. I guarantee that many women who attend these types of churches have no idea that they are being marginalized by the leaders of their church. I pray for wisdom and transparency.