Women in Sacerdotal Ministry: Was Jesus a Hermaphrodite?

In the previous post concerning priestesses in the Church, I discussed the biblical idea of headship. Now I am sure that many people reading that post find it difficult to talk about ideas like “headship.”  After all in modern debate headship has connotations of sexism and male domination.  Yet as I argued in my previous post headship is terribly important to the Biblical-narrative of salvation history. For if we reject the idea of headship it is hard to imagine how women and even creation itself can be saved. This is the irony of the current debate, once you do away with headship for fear of ostracizing, belittling, and marginalizing women; you have all but made it impossible for women to be saved.

Now there are a few options out there if one were to reject the idea of headship. First, one would have to say that Jesus was not necessarily a man, but rather he was accidentally a man.  And if one rejects that man can represent women as headship implies, then one must conclude that since Jesus was a man that God the Father only wanted to save men. Many Gnostic groups in the early church believed and taught such a doctrine, but my guess is that many who advocate for women priests would strongly disagree. There is a way around that problem, at least from the perspective of the author who wrote the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, which the Gospel of Thomas actually says the God will turn all women into men in the end so that they might be saved. However, I think that this too would be problematic for those seeking egalitarianism in the episcopacy. Though it is curious that those who want female priests do in fact refer to them in the masculine “priest” versus the feminine “priestess.” It is as if those who argue most vehemently for the inclusion of women to the priesthood (including women who argue this position) do in fact want to maintain the masculinity of the priesthood.

One is left with the question if one were to reject headship: how could Jesus save women? Can they be saved? It almost seems hopeless, but there is one way for one to reject headship and still believe that women themselves are not only saved but also welcomed into the priesthood. In modern feminist and liberal theologies one can find the early Gnostic doctrine that Adam prior to the creation of Eve was in fact a hermaphrodite. Thus, when God created the “Man” Adam, he in fact contained both sexes. All one has to do following that line of thought is remind people that Jesus is the second Adam and speculate that He was a hermaphrodite and therefore restored males and females to their rightful place. The problem, besides the lack of Biblical or Traditional support, is once again very few people advocating female priests would want to presuppose such a thing.

In the end, the acceptance of female priests comes only at the denial of the historic, theological, sacramental, and biblical view of headship. And this headship is not just about the role of men in our society, as advocates for women priests argue, but also about the headship of Jesus in relation to the Church and to the World. To deny one is to deny the other. In some way I hope that I have given, albeit briefly, the theological implications of female clergy and why Catholics must stand against such innovations. For such innovations not only affect the future but also the past.

Women in Sacerdotal Ministry: Could Jesus have been Female?

Since the middle of the 20^th century women have been working to place themselves within what some see as power structures within various churches. For many protestant traditions this simply means women can now preach, teach, or serve in some leadership capacity. And since the Anglican Church has tried for the past three centuries to work within the via media between Protestantism and Catholicism, it too has ordained women to be leaders in the Church. However, a minority within the Church have said that women can be for the first time in history “priests” in the Church. This is something different than just mere leadership, for it carries with it the belief that females can represent Jesus the Man at the Eucharist. It has introduced what some have called the Lesbian Eucharist to the Church, which is a female standing in for the Groom Jesus at the feast that anticipates the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Many have no problem with this for the primary reason that the Anglican Church has failed miserably (out of fear of chauvinism) in teaching and passing down the apostolic teachings of the Church to this generation.

For those within the Anglican Communion who still believe in the sacerdotal ministry of the Priesthood, the maleness of the priest is tied necessarily to the maleness of Jesus. The priest behind the Table is “in persona Christi”:  in the Person of Christ. They do not stand in for Christ, but in the sacramental moment they make present the High Priest Christ. They do not represent themselves but the Other: the Man Christ. Now those who argue that women can be priests in the Church have to say that this is entirely wrong. That in fact, human sexuality does not matter. Men and women can stand behind the Table and be “in persona Christi.” However, if sexuality does not matter behind the Table today, then sexuality did not matter behind the Table two thousand years ago. Which then begs the question: could Jesus have been a female? Could God have been incarnate as a female and saved the world from its sins? Is the maleness of Christ accidental? Or is the maleness of Christ necessary. This is the question that those who have introduced the novelty of female priests have to answer, and for 1940 years the Church has said unanimously it was necessary.

Up until 60 years ago not only was the maleness of Christ understood as necessary, the maleness of Christ was also understood to be essential. The reason it was essential had to do with the idea of headship. Now headship is a word that most people shun in the West today. Yet this is something that is terribly important to the over arching narrative of creation as it pertains to salvation history. It is true that God created “male and female,” but it is also true that He created Adam first and was given dominion over creation. Whether this is literal or simply figurative is not an issue. The issue is that with this story, Scripture affirms that men possess the headship over creation and that includes women. Consequently, that is why it was necessary for Jesus the Man to die and rise again to redeem and renew all of Creation. He did not do this to save sexless souls; but to be the perfect Man, the one true head of all creation, the faithful Adam.  Jesus of Nazareth precisely because he was a man stood in for all men, women, and everything else within creation.

While many people might find this a hard teaching, very few would outright deny it. But for those that argue for female priest in the fullness of the sacramental tradition that is what they do in practice. To be “in persona Christi” is not to be a sexless or a bare human but to be  the Man Christ. And only those that are men can bring to the Table that which is essential to Christ: maleness. This in no way denies women roles within the life of the Church. Actually, the churches that affirm the all male priesthood are the ones who afford Mary the Mother of Jesus the highest honor among all of Christendom. This of course does not address the issue of all male leadership within other denominations outside the sacramental tradition, nor does it deal with those who deny the sacerdotal ministry of the priesthood yet still hold firm to all male priests. They will have to address why they deny women leadership roles. Those of us within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic tradition honor and received women within leadership roles as God calls them; but men are only called to headship, the Priesthood, the Bishopric. Let us hope so, for if headship does not exist can creation or women themselves be renewed, restored, and brought to salvation? That will be the topic of the next blog.

To Him who was in the Beginning and will preside at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb: All honor and Glory be His Now and forever. Amen.

Women in Sacerdotal Ministry: an Introduction to the Problem

There are a lot of implications to the ordination of women to the priesthood. And with the influx of a lot of people from non-liturgical backgrounds into the ACNA it seems that it is good to take a look at some of the issues surrounding it. I know that many people simply have the view that prohibiting females to the priesthood (and consequently the bishopric) is a matter of chauvinism. There is also a tendency to reduce the function of priests to simply “pastors” or “preachers,” as people in most protestant churches think of their leaders. This in turn leads to presuming that those who oppose women priests do so on the basis that women should not speak in Church. I can assure you that those issues are not of my concern. I affirm that women can and ought to be in leadership positions within churches where they qualify. I also believe that the ancient and venerable office of deaconess needs to return to the Church. However, I do not believe that the office of deaconess is a sacerdotal office and should always be a permanent vocation.

The crux of the matter then is not whether women should be in ministry or even be brought into leadership positions within churches. The question is whether they can be called and received into “sacerdotal” ministry. Can a woman represent the groom Jesus Christ at the Eucharistic table to the Bride of Christ his Church? Until one is willing to wrestle with the implications of this, I don’t think we ought to be challenging what 1.1 billion Roman Catholic, 700 million Orthodox, 50 million Anglicans, millions of other Sacramental Protestants and Independent catholic groups consider to be settled theology. Likewise, we should not be willing to casually set aside 1950 years of Christian Tradition, nor what 4000 years of Jewish history has taught us: that only men have been and can be priests.