March 8, 2024

Concerning Women’s Ordination: What About 1 Timothy 2:12?

Filed under: Women's Ordination — William Witt @ 2:38 am

AngelusI have addressed and responded to several criticisms of and challenges to my book Icons of Christ and its arguments in favor or women’s ordination and women’s equality through several essays on my blog. However, there is one crucial passage that I have not yet addressed at length – Paul’s assertion in 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (ESV). I have made occasional references to this passage, particularly in addressing hermeneutical issues, but I have not discussed it in detail. So with apologies for a lengthy delay, I now turn to this passage.

Preliminary Reflections

Before examining the passage, some initial issues need to be addressed.

First, the disagreements about this passage are not primarily about exegesis, but about hermeneutics. I had addressed this in previous essays. For example, in a previous essay, I made a crucial distinction between “master passages” or “master stories” and “paradigms.” A “master passage” is a passage of Scripture that is crucial for one’s own understanding of an issue, and a “paradigm” is the interpretive key to the interpretation of the “master passage.” My previous essay to this makes clear the master passages that are central to my understanding of what Scripture teaches about what it means for not only men but also women to resemble Jesus Christ, and the corresponding “paradigm” is one of cruciformity, mutual service, and mutual submission.

(more…)

Icons of Christ: Reflections Three Years Later

Filed under: Women's Ordination — William Witt @ 12:58 am

Holy GrailSince publishing two books recently, I have learned that the only thing that I can be certain of as an author is that the things that I spend the most time worrying about when writing the book will largely be ignored, and the things that I think relatively unimportant, and on which I spend less time, are the things that others will think are the most important, and will devote all of their time to when reviewing the book.

In the book I recently published (with my colleague Joel Scandrett) on the doctrine of the Atonement, the chapter on Anselm’s doctrine of satisfaction was, for me, one of the least interesting chapters. I wrote that there are currently two very different (and conflicting) interpretations of Anselm, but concluded that Anselm’s real significance was as a transitional figure. Anselm was more important for what later writers did with his views, and I ended up focusing more on successors like Thomas Aquinas, Karl Barth, and Thomas Torrance on the one hand, and John Calvin and Charles Hodge on the other. I was surprised when an otherwise generally positive reviewer complained that our book had not paid sufficient attention to Anselm’s doctrine of satisfaction, and that the reviewer really did not seem all that interested in those later writers to whom we had devoted much more attention. Of course, the reviewer’s own understanding of the atonement largely coincided with Anselm’s satisfaction theory.

Similarly, when I wrote my book Icons of Christ on women’s ordination,1 I included as an illustration in what I regarded as the least significant chapter in the entire book, an informal logical syllogism which I knew at the time was not a formal syllogism, but whose point I assumed was self-evident, and which, regardless, was nothing more than an illustration along the way to making a point that was not directly related to the formal validity of the syllogism (15-16). To my surprise (and frustration), a reviewer focused on that syllogism almost as if it were the most important point in the book, with the consequence that a social media flurry broke out, the point of which seemed to be that my book could be disregarded because I had based my entire argument on an invalid syllogism. To the contrary, that illustration took up a paragraph, could have been entirely removed from the book, and nothing in my argument would have been affected.

If one were to ask me what was the point of giving the title Icons of Christ to a book arguing in favor of ordaining women to church office, what were the key biblical passages that supported my argument, and what were the most important chapters in the book, I would have responded that the key issue of the book has to do with how it is that not only ordained officers of the church, but all Christians, resemble Jesus Christ – thus the title Icons of Christ.

(more…)

July 12, 2023

I Get Mail: Christianity and History

Filed under: History,Theology — William Witt @ 2:07 am

MosesOccasionally, I get mail. The following are a couple of questions sent to me on behalf of someone asking about the historical reliability of Scripture. I am a systematic theologian, and not primarily a biblical scholar or a historian, and people trained in these areas could no doubt address these issues with more sophistication. At the same time, one of the things that theologians do is to try to address the questions that ordinary people ask, and this notion that the Bible is historically unreliable, closer to “fairy tales” than history, seems to be common in contemporary secular culture these days.

I am not a biblical scholar myself, but I read people who are, and, at the least, I can pull together what others who are more competent than myself have said about this topic. Perhaps ordinary lay people will find this helpful. The footnotes and bibliography will provide some guidance for further exploration.

If the Bible contains some truths and some stories, how do you determine which is which and who is the arbitrator of that “truth”? What is the evidence? I understand from a religious standpoint, this is a very dangerous and slippery slope that you may not want to explore, but I believe there are significantly more stories and embellishments in the Bible that render it essentially more philosophical or historically unreliable rather than factual.

Can Christianity exist if Judaism is proven false? In my mind, it seems I have a near-logical proof (at least to a degree of reasonableness) developing that indicates that the basis for Judaism is not valid (not dissimilar to the origin of Mormonism). If true, what are the implications?

History or “Story”?

The question needs to be more carefully put.

As stated, the question seems to equate “truth” with “factual” or “philosophical,” and “stories” with “historically unreliable.”

The real concern seems to be about the historical reliability of the Biblical narratives specifically as historical accounts. To address that question, it is necessary to provide some preliminary clarification. “Narrative” is probably a better word in this regard than “stories” because “stories” (as used here) seems to be equated with non-factual fiction. However, it is even misleading to equate “fiction” with “untrue.” Fiction can be “unhistorical,” and yet, in its own way, address issues of “truth.” For example, Aesop’s Fables are fictional accounts that communicate moral truths.

Narrative covers several possible categories.

(more…)

April 11, 2023

Mutual Submission or Ordered Hierarchy? Ephesians 5 (Part Three) Responding to Objections

Filed under: Women's Ordination — William Witt @ 2:58 am

Christ in the House of Martha and MaryIn the previous two essays, I argued that Ephesians 5:21-23 should be understood as advocating “mutual submission” rather than an “ordered hierarchy.” What follows will respond to objections to this interpretation.

Objection 1

The meaning of “submission” must come from verse 21, not from verse 22. Since wives are told to “submit” to their husbands in verse 22, this submission of subordinates to superiors is what “submission” means.

In the previous essay, I pointed out that in his commentary on Ephesians, Peter O’Brien denies that the pronoun allēlois (“to one another”) is “reciprocal,” claiming rather that verse 21 is calling for a submission of subordinates to those in authority over them. O’Brien recognizes that there is no imperative “submit” in verse 22, and that any command to submit must be implied as carried over from the participial phrase in verse 21 – “submitting to one another.” Nonetheless, he claims that the “flow of the argument” in verse 21 is “a programmatic statement which introduces the topic of ‘submission,’ and thus is developed in the household table of 5:22-6:9.” Since there is no verb in verse 22, the idea of submission must be “unpacked”: “It is as though the apostle is saying: ‘Submit to one another, and what I mean is wives submit to your husbands, children to your parents, and slaves to your master.’” Any other reading would be [t]o interpret v. 21 by abstracting it from the context . . .”1

In its “Response” to the essay “Women n Holy Orders,” written by myself and TSM NT Professor and ACNA Bishop Grant LeMarquand, the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word takes a similar approach. At first, the writers of the “Response” seem to disagree with O’Brien (as well as a review of my book Icons of Christ by Matthew Colvin) in acknowledging that the “submission” in verse 21 is indeed mutual: “It is true that the word’ translated ‘submit’ in Ephesians 5:22 is borrowed from the previous verse. . .” They also acknowledge that the word translated “submit” in verse 21 “should be carried over to 5:22. If Paul intended otherwise he would have need to supply a verb for 5:22.” They continue to write: “It is also true that Ephesians 5:21 establishes a general principle: that all Christians must humble themselves, submit to, and serve one another” (Response, 55). So far, I would be in complete agreement.

They continue, however: “How does this principle play itself out in various contexts: husbands and wives, children and parents, slaves and masters? Paul does not answer that question by suggesting there are no more hierarchies. . . . Paul does not do away with the role distinctions or hierarchy in marriages, in family, in labor. Rather, the gospel transforms these hierarchies so that they are no longer exploitative. The leaders and those led are also brothers and sisters, equals before Christ. The one who takes the leadership role, therefore, must seek to give himself over for the good of those he leads, just as Christ came to serve rather than be served. And those who are in subordinates roles serve as if they are serving Christ himself” (“Response,” 55).

It is clear then that the “Response” understands the leader of the household to be playing the role of Christ as one who who rules over subordinates. This becomes even more clear on the next page, when the “Response” claims that the “typological witness” between marriage and Christ and the church “itself militates against Drs. LeMarquand and Witt’s egalitarin reading”: “Does Jesus submit to the Church? No. Does he serve and give himself up for her? Yes. Does the Church submit to Jesus? Yes. Is Jesus’ rule tyrannical. No. Is the Church’s submission coerced? By no means” (“Response,” 56).

Although not stated explicitly, the implications are clear: Does the husband submit to the wife? No. Does the wife submit to the husband? Yes. Is the husband’s rule tyrannical? No. Is the wife’s submission coerced? By no means. In a previous essay, I addressed the error of importing into the comparison between the metaphor of Christ as “head” and the male or husband as “head” aspects of Jesus Christ’s identity that are not actually mentioned in the context. Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior of the church. However, the husband does not occupy that place in marriage. Rather, the example that Jesus provides for all the members of the household in Ephesians 5 and 6 is found in Ephesians 5:2: “Walk in love as Christ loved us, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling offering.” Despite their earlier apparent acknowledgment that “all Christians submit to one another,” the “Response” makes clear that while husbands seek the good of their wives, they do not submit to them, and thus the submission is not actually mutual. Thus the model that Christ provides for husbands is not the model of self-sacrifice that Paul actually mentions in Ephesians 5, but the role of “authority over” that he does not. While the rule of the husband over the wife is not “tyrannical,” the husband does indeed rule the wife as Christ rules the church, and the wife submits to the husband. Never the reverse.

To the contrary, there are three reasons why interpreting the meaning of verse 21 through verse 22 rather than the reverse is mistaken. (more…)

Mutual Submission or Ordered Hierarchy? Ephesians 5 (Part Two)

Filed under: Women's Ordination — William Witt @ 2:53 am

AngelusIn the previous essay, I laid down the preliminary background for addressing the question of whether in Paul’s discussion of relations between husbands and wives in Ephesians 5 he was advocating “mutual submission” or rather an “ordered hierarchy.” In this essay, I move from preliminaries to address the specific claim that Paul is not advocating “mutual submission” between husbands and wives, but rather an “ordered hierarchy” in which husbands exercise a hierarchical authority over wives – wives submit to husbands in marriage, but never the reverse.

Is “Submitting to One Another” in the Middle Voice?

In “Chapter 7: Mutual Submission” of Icons of Christ (Baylor University Press, 2020), I make the argument in pages 99-112 that Paul is advocating “mutual submission” in Ephesians 5:21-32. Toward the end of that discussion, I have a two-paragraph summary of Paul’s use of the two words ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις (hypotassomenoi allēlois, “submitting yourselves to one another”), which I identify as the “two key words” in verse 21. The next two sentences read: “The root word υποτάσσομαι (hypotassomai) is in the middle voice. It literally means ‘to place oneself under.’” At the end of the paragraph, I write “Hypotassomai does not mean ‘obey; and it is neither in the active voice (a command given) nor in the passive (a command received). Paul is not urging Christians to exercise power over other Christians or asking Christians to submit to those in power. Rather, he is calling for them to voluntarily subject themselves to one another, to ‘opt out of the power struggle’”(Icons, 110).

Earlier, I had written: “The Greek words translated ‘submit’ or ‘submission’ in the New Testament are usually ὑποταγη (hypotagē) or ὑποτάσσω (hypotassō). Generally, the words simply mean the ordering of one thing under another. Sometimes the words mean what ‘submission’ normally means in English, the involuntary obedience to an external authority. . . . However, when used with the middle voice (which has to do with actions that one does to oneself), the term can take on the sense of a voluntary submission to another person out of love, humility, or compassion” (Icons, 92).

This is the full extent of my discussion of the “middle voice” in Icons of Christ. Note that only two sentences actually use the words “middle voice,” while a third states that hypotassomai is neither in the active voice nor the passive voice– a total of three sentences out of a book of 439 pages. My comments about “middle voice” have some relevance to the discussion, but they serve to provide support for my main argument. Those sentences could be entirely omitted from the book, and nothing would be lost.

One of my favorite internet memes shows a person with a smug look on his face accompanied by the following tagline: “That moment when someone hits you with the impeccable argument but you realize they misspelled one word at the beginning.” In my initial response to Matthew Colvin’s review of my book, I noted that “Colvin regularly cites isolated passages from my book, writes as if this single statement were my entire position, and then quibbles about some detail in the isolated passage.” I would add that Colvin substitutes pedantry for argument several times in his review.1

Colvin’s discussion of my chapter on “Mutual Submission” is just such an example of focusing on isolated sentences, while ignoring the surrounding context and argument. Colvin states that “philology, while opaque to a reader with no Greek, is very near the fulcrum of theology: the determination of what the words of Scripture actually mean is prior to the task of building theology on those words. Small changes close to the philological fulcrum can then turn into huge changes when they are traced out on the theological perimeter.” Colvin then turns to my three sentences on “middle voice”: “Following Alan Padgett, Witt claims that the verb υποτάσσομαι in Eph. 5:21-22 . . . has a distinct voluntary meaning in the middle (92, 110). But in the first place, the middle voice in Greek cannot be equated with a reflexive self-determined action. Second, contrary to Witt’s assertion that ‘Hypotassomai does not mean’ obey’ and it is neither in the active voice (a command given) nor in the passive (a command received), we must note that the participle in Eph. 5:21 could very well be morphologically passive, and that the passive of this verb does in fact mean ‘obey.’”

Colvin engages in a bit of misdirection for the uninformed reader here. If by his statement “the middle voice in Greek cannot be equated with a reflexive self-determined action,” Colvin means that this is not always the case, he is correct. However, if he means that the middle voice is never reflexive, this is not correct. My old Greek grammar lists four uses of the middle voice. The first “refers to the results of the action directly to the agent, with a reflexive force.” The third use “represent[s] the agent as voluntarily yielding himself to the results of the action, or seeking to secure the results of the action in his own interest.”2 Both of these are reflexive. They are actions done by the agent either to the self or on behalf of the self.

Likewise, as I point out on page 92, hypotassō literally means the “ordering of one thing under another,” and that sometimes it can mean the “involuntary obedience to an external authority.” I don’t state that the “verb has a distinct voluntary meaning in the middle,” but that when used in the middle, the “term can take on the sense of a voluntary submission” (emphasis added) That does not mean that the term has a “distinct voluntary meaning in the middle” (emphasis added), but that context would indicate whether the submission is voluntary.

Again, Colvin is correct when he states that “the passive and middle voices are not morphologically distinguished in the present tense of Greek verbs.” However, again, as my old Greek grammar states: “Since the middle and passive have in several tenses forms alike, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between them. The matter must be determined by the context and the meaning of the verbal idea.”3 A glance back to page 110 where I had used the expression “middle voice” shows that I followed this with: “Context determines meaning. The verb can mean involuntary submission to an authority . . . . However, the context of Ephesians is quite different from the military or political context associated with [involuntary submission]. The entire context of the passage understands submission as the voluntatry taking on the role of a servant . . . .” (emphasis added).

Given that only context can determine whether hypotassomenoi allēlois is middle voice or passive, does Colvin actually claim that it is passive, and on what grounds? Alternatively, what do NT scholars themselves say? Colvin does not actually make an argument for the passive, nor does he indicate how he would translate the verse except to say that if it is passive, it would mean “obey.” However, since passive voice would demand a subject performing the action which is passively received, the only subject supplied by the text would have to be allēlois – “one another.” But this just gets us back to where we started from. If everyone is obeying “one another,” then the submission would be both mutual and voluntary. (more…)

Mutual Submission or Ordered Hierarchy? Ephesians 5 (Part One): Preliminaries

Filed under: Women's Ordination — William Witt @ 2:46 am

Van Eyck Wedding

Ephesians 5 has been crucial to the debate on women’s ordination because of the English translations of Ephesians 5:22-24, translated as does the ESV: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

At first read, the passage seems to teach that women should submit to their husbands, and that this submission is unqualified and universal: “submit in everything to their husbands.” The submission also seems to be absolute. As Christ is “head” of the church and has absolute authority over the church, so the husband is the “head” of his wife. As Christ’s authority over the church is absolute, so, it might seem, is the husband’s authority over his wife.

In the essay “Women in Holy Orders,” written by myself and NT Professor and ACNA Bishop Grant LeMarquand at the request of the ACNA College of Bishops, we devoted only three pages to this passage (because of requested page-length limitation), and only an additional paragraph to the controverted interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-15, the other NT passage where Paul uses the metaphor of “head” to describe relationships between men and women. However, in my book Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination (Baylor University Press, 2020), I devoted two full chapters (Chapters 7 and 8, pages 99-144) to discussing these two passages.

“Complementarian” Protestant evangelical opponents of women’s ordination have made this passage a centerpiece of their argument, as may be seen in the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word’s Response to our original essay. In addition, Matthew Colvin echoes complementarian arguments in his negative review of my book.

In each case, the “Response” (and Colvin) repeat standard complementarian talking points.

First, following Complementarian author Wayne Grudem, the Response insists that kephalē (the Greek word translated “head”) when used by Paul as a metaphor in Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 must mean “authority over” (“Response,” 59-67). The “Response” devotes more space to this claim than to almost any other topic in their essay. Similarly, Colvin dismisses the discussion of kephalē in my book as “commit[ing] errors of lexicographical method.” Colvin defends Grudem: “If Grudem has Philo and the LXX from before the NT on his side, then he has the main texts of Judaic Greek on his side.” Because of its centrality to the discussion, I have already devoted three essays to the question of whether Paul’s use of the metaphor kephalē means “authority over.” Contrary to Colvin, Grudem does not have the “main texts of Judaic Greek on his side.” See my essays:

“Response to the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word: Does ‘head’ mean ‘authority’ in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11? Part One”

“Response to the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word: Does ‘head’ mean ‘authority’ in Ephesians 5? Part Two”

“Response to the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word: Does “head” mean authority over in 1 Corinthians 11? Part Three”

Second, the “Response” claims that Paul’s use of the word that the ESV translates as the imperative “submit” indicates a hierarchy of authority: “Obey your parents, [Paul] tells the children. Obey your masters, he tells the slaves. Paul does not do away with role distinctions or hierarchy in marriage, in families, or in labor. Rather, the Gospel transforms these hierarchies so that they are no longer exploitative” (“Response,” 55). Similarly, Colvin insists that Ephesians 6 “gives the lie to the reciprocal and mutual submission that Padgett and Witt claim: slaves are commanded to obey masters, and children obey parents, but no reciprocal obedience or submission is enjoined upon masters and parents.”

Third, the “Response” draws on the parallel that Paul makes between Christ as the “head” of the church and the husband as the “head” of the wife to claim that as Christ exercises authority over the church, so the husband necessarily has authority over his wife: “For Paul, marriage is a living typological witness to the Gospel. It ‘refers’ to Christ and his Church. . . . . This typology itself militates against Drs. LeMarquand and Witt’s egalitarian reading. Does Jesus submit to his Church? No. Does he serve her and give himself up for her? Yes. Does the Church submit to Jesus? Yes. Is Jesus’ rule tyrannical? No. Is the Church’s submission coerced? By no means” (“Response,” 56).

I had already addressed this conflation of Christ’s authority with the husband’s authority here: “Throughout the Response, the authors regularly conflate the issue of Christ’s authority as God incarnate and Redeemer of sinful humanity with the authority husbands exercise over wives without regard to the actual language Paul uses or the context in which he uses it.”

Given that I have already addressed the issue of Paul’s use of the kephalē metaphor at length and conflation of the husband’s authority with Christ’s authority, the following three essays will focus rather on the question of hierarchy and authority in marriage. Specifically, in Ephesians 5, does Paul understand the relationship in marriage between husbands and wives as one of reciprocity and “mutual submission,” or does Paul rather advocate what P. T. O’Brien, in a commentary cited by Colvin in his criticism of my book, calls an “ordered hierarchy” of top-down ruling over and being ruled?1

(more…)

November 27, 2022

Women’s Ordination and Sacramental Representation? How do Christians Represent Christ?

Filed under: Sacraments,Theology,Women's Ordination — William Witt @ 3:14 am

Holy GrailOne of the key disagreements in the discussion of women’s ordination concerns the question of how Christians represent or resemble Jesus Christ. This was a key concern in Icons of Christ, my book in favor of women’s ordination.

Protestant complementarians divide representation of Christ by sex. Males (not only clergy, but males in general) represent Christ by being “in charge,” exercising authority and specifically by exercising authority over women. Ironically, women also represent Christ, but in the opposite way, by submission. Complementarians claim that just as Jesus always obeys and is subordinate to God his Father, so there is a parallel within the ontological Trinity in which the eternal Son is always subordinate to and in submission to the eternal Father. In the same way, women are always subordinate to and in submission to male authority. Because clergy have positions of authority, no woman can be ordained because this would mean that women clergy would exercise authority over male parishioners. So Protestant complementarians divide Christological representation by dividing Christ. Males represent Christ by exercising authority, specifically over women. Women represent Christ by submitting to authority, specifically male authority over women.

The new Catholic argument against women’s ordination hinges not on issues of authority and obedience, but on sacramental representation. A male presbyter/priest represents a male Christ when presiding at the Eucharist. Because Jesus is male, only a male priest can represent a male Christ.

This is the third and last of my responses to Mark Perkins’ review of my book Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology of Women’s Ordination.1 In the previous two essays, I focused first on Perkins’ rhetoric and, second, on his discussion of history and tradition. In this essay, we finally get to Perkins’ positive argument. What does it mean for clergy to represent Jesus Christ, and why may only male clergy do so?

(more…)

November 12, 2022

Scripture, History, Tradition and Women’s Ordination: Another Review of a Book That I Did Not Write (Part 2)

Filed under: Women's Ordination — William Witt @ 10:35 pm

christ_in_the_house_of_martha_and_maryAlternative Histories?

One of the key differences between the Protestant complementarian argument against women’s ordination and the Catholic argument concerns the significance of history. Specifically because the Catholic understanding of ordination presumes that clergy are “priests” and not merely “ministers of the gospel,” the Catholic argument assumes a continuity from the priesthood of the Old Testament to Jesus’ twelve apostles, from Jesus’ twelve apostles to the threefold office of bishop, presbyter (understood as “priest”) and deacon, and, through apostolic succession, a continuity from church office in the New Testament to contemporary clergy.

In addition, the new Catholic position in opposition to the ordination of women centers on a symbolic understanding of priesthood. Specifically, while speaking the Words of Institution (“This is my body,” “This is my blood”) in presiding at the Eucharist, the priest acts in persona Christi, not merely as a representative, but in some sense a representation, of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ is male, it is claimed, the priest must be male. Moreover, this representational function also explains why not only Old Testament priests, but also Jesus’ twelve apostles, all NT office holders, and all clergy in the subsequent history of the church, must necessarily be male.

The connection between this history and the symbolic function of masculinity means that “tradition” is central to the Catholic argument in a way that it is not for the Protestant one. At the same time, the Catholic argument is encumbered with a problem that complementarian Protestants do not have. The Protestant argument is not based on male symbolism, but on male authority. Indeed, Protestants reject the Catholic in persona Christi position as “sacerdotal.”1 Nonetheless, Protestant complementarians can appeal to passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament and in church history in which they claim that male leadership is connected to male authority. To the contrary, the Catholic position is not able to point either to Scripture or to history for the symbolic argument for the simple reason that it is a modern argument lacking in significant historical warrant.

In terms of history, there is no real evidence for such a theological understanding of ordination based on symbolic male sexuality before the mid-twentieth century. The OT nowhere suggests that Levitical priests represent a male YHWH and this is why they must be male. Jesus himself nowhere makes a connection between his own masculinity and the masculinity of the Twelve, or suggests that the Twelve are male because they play a symbolic role of representing a male Jesus. The New Testament discussions of the offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon in the pastoral epistles and elsewhere nowhere suggest that bishops or presbyters must be male because they are successors of the twelve male apostles, or that presbyters or bishops represent a male Jesus in presiding at the Eucharist. Indeed, the NT writers make no references whatsoever to who presides at the Eucharist. There is also no discussion in the history of the church of clergy acting in persona Christi before the medieval period. Even then, the notion that the priest acting in persona Christi means that the priest represents Christ as male is not a medieval, but a modern notion.

Apart from the exception of a single passage in Bonaventure which seems immediately to have been forgotten,2 there do not seem to be any historic arguments against women’s ordination based on a male priest’s resemblance to a male Christ. Thomas Aquinas is the historic originator of the in persona Christi theory of eucharistiic celebration, but Aquinas makes no connection between the priest acting in persona Christi and the male sexuality of the priest. Aquinas’s own objections to the ordination of women is based on the traditional ontological inferiority I mention in chapter 3 “The Argument from Tradition is Not the Traditional Argument” of my book, Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology of Women’s Ordination (Baylor University Press, 2020): Women are less intelligent than men.

This second part of my response to Mark Perkins’ review of my book, Icons of Christ, looks specifically at Perkins’ critique of sections in my book that address this issue of historical continuity: (1) my discussion of the significance of a move from an agricultural to a post-industrial culture for the role of women in ancient and modern society; (2) my discussion of priesthood in the Old Testament, and specifically my suggestions as to why there were no women priests in Israel; (3) my discussion of the masculinity of Jesus; (4) my discussion of the reasons for the masculinity of Jesus’ twelve apostles; (5) my discussion of the history of opposition to women’s ordination in the church.

(more…)

October 10, 2022

Mapping Atonement: My New Book with Joel Scandrett

Filed under: Atonement,Theology — William Witt @ 10:26 pm
 align=

My second book, written with my colleague Joel Scandrett, is now available at the usual outlets: Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Christian Book Distributors.

This has been a lengthy project. I am grateful to my fellow author, Joel Scandrett, not only for his own contribution, but also for editing my lengthy prose to a reasonable length, and to Bob Hosack of Baker, who was patient with a project that took several years to write.

From the Publisher

What do we mean when we say that “Jesus saves”? Unlike the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology, there is no ecumenical consensus regarding the Christian doctrine of the atonement. Instead, there are a number of divergent atonement theologies found in various streams of the Christian theological tradition.

This introduction maps the biblical, historical, and theological terrain of the doctrine of the atonement. Beginning with the early Christian era, the book traces the origins, development, and divergent streams of atonement theology throughout the Christian tradition and proposes key criteria by which we can assess their value. The authors introduce essential biblical terms, texts, and concepts of atonement; identify significant historical figures, texts, and topics; and show how various atonement paradigms are expressed in their respective church traditions. The book also surveys current “hot topics” in evangelical atonement theology and evaluates strengths and weaknesses of competing understandings of atonement.

Contents
Introduction: What Is Atonement?
1. Atonement as Incarnation: Irenaeus and Athanasius
2. Atonement as Christus Victor: Church Fathers and Gustaf Aulén
3. Atonement as Satisfaction: Anselm of Canterbury
4. Atonement as Divine Love: Peter Abelard and the Wesleys
5. Atonement as Fittingness: Thomas Aquinas
6. Atonement as Penal Substitution: John Calvin and Charles Hodge
7. Atonement as Moral Example: Hastings Rashdall
8. Atonement as Reconciliation: Karl Barth
9. Atonement Today
Index

Endorsements

“Christians are united in proclaiming that ‘Jesus saves,’ but the Christian tradition and Scripture offer different narratives, symbols, and metaphors to understand what that means. Witt and Scandrett are wise, charitable, brilliant, and passionate guides to the scriptural, theological, and historical questions that compose atonement theology. This approachable introduction will help everyone who wants a deeper understanding of what we mean when we confess that Christ lived, died, rose again, and ascended into heaven ‘for us and for our salvation.'”

Tish Harrison Warren, Anglican priest and author of Liturgy of the Ordinary and Prayer in the Night

“Thoughtful Christians looking for guidance on the doctrine of the atonement are flooded with almost too much information. Witt and Scandrett’s Mapping Atonement brings wonderful clarity to the field. Their choice of figures for discussion is excellent, and their constructive approach to the topic is theologically balanced and insightful. I look forward to using this book in my own teaching.”

Joseph Mangina, professor of theology, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto

“Mapping Atonement is a major theological accomplishment. It offers a remarkably comprehensive overview of the history of atonement theology. With attention to detail and generosity of interpretation, Witt and Scandrett faithfully map the doctrine of atonement. Rightly arguing that Christ’s mission doesn’t just illustrate but in fact constitutes atonement, Witt and Scandrett carefully chart their own theological path. This is the textbook on Christ’s salvific work that many have been waiting for.”

Hans Boersma, Saint Benedict Servants of Christ Chair in Ascetical Theology, Nashotah House Theological Seminary

“Mapping Atonement serves admirably both as a contribution to theology and as an introduction for students. It expands the vista offered to earlier generations by Aulén, even as it offers a grammar, rooted in Scripture and composed of history and ontology, to evaluate all proposals. Throughout, and especially in the conclusion (culminating in an ‘critical realist’ account of T. F. Torrance), Witt and Scandrett understand the urgency of atonement’s retrieval in our confused time. I highly recommend it to a wide audience.”

The Right Rev. George Sumner, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas

“With the lucidity and penetration characteristic of their teaching and writing, Witt and Scandrett have provided us a superb survey of atonement theology. Written from a classical perspective that is respectful of the variety of views on the topic, yet responsibly critical in the application of scriptural and metaphysical demands on the material, the book covers a broad range of reflection on the atonement from the early church to the present, culminating in a careful commendation of T. F. Torrance’s work. The volume wears its scholarship lightly but is informed by a mastery of the tradition. This will prove an essential introduction to the topic.”

Ephraim Radner, professor of historical theology, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto

October 2, 2022

Another Review of a Book that I Did Not Write

Filed under: Theology,Women's Ordination — William Witt @ 12:53 am

This is the first in several essays responding to a review of my book Icons of Christ by the Rev. Mark Perkins.

 

The Problem of Rhetoric

I have noticed in past reviews of my book Icons of Christ a tendency to substitute rhetoric for careful reading and reasoned response. The result is a failure to actually read and fairly represent my argument. Even when one disagrees with a position, one has a responsibility to present the argument in such a way that the opponent would recognize this as his or her position. I have always tried to follow this approach in my writing. My dissertation was on the theology of Jacobus Arminius, and I spent the first several chapters in trying to honestly and fairly summarize the positions of late medieval scholastics, Luther, Calvin, and the Reformed Scholastics with whom Arminius was in disagreement. I have just published a book on the doctrine of the Atonement, in which I summarize the atonement theologies of theologians from Irenaeus and Athanasius to the modern period. In each case, I try to make every effort to accurately represent the positions of even those theologians with whom I am not sympathetic.

In writing my book on women’s ordination, I took the same approach. My book is unique in addressing both Protestant and Catholic objections to women’s ordination, and I intentionally avoided sarcasm or snarkiness or misrepresentation in summarizing positions with which I disagreed. I have not yet come across any criticisms of my book that suggested that I had incorrectly or inaccurately summarized the views of either Protestant complementarians or Catholic sacramentalists. Unfortunately, those who have reviewed the book negatively have not returned the favor.

Mark Perkins’ review of Icons of Christ initially claims to be an exception. Perkins purports at the beginning to “thoughtfully engage” with what I’d written. He speaks of having taking a course under me at Trinity School for Ministry where he appreciated my “deft hand in navigating contentious waters with a theologically diverse set of students,” and he compliments me by saying that he initially believed that Icons of Christ “would offer the best possible argument for women’s ordination.”

Despite the initial compliments, however, Perkins’ review follows the usual pattern. More specifically, when Perkins finds himself in general agreement with something I write, he can summarize my views somewhat fairly. For example, as an Anglo-Catholic, Perkins is not generally in agreement with Wayne Grudem’s Protestant Complementarian approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Accordingly, Perkins summarizes my views in a sympathetic and more or less accurate manner in those cases where he thinks I am correct and Grudem mistaken.

To the contrary, Perkins’s own case against WO is Anglo-Catholic, and in discussing those parts of my book that address Catholic objections to the ordination of women, Perkins regularly presents my arguments in a condensed fashion, reduces this summary to a caricature of my actual position, and then dismisses the caricature. In these parts of his review, Perkins regularly engages in the only-too-frequent pattern I have noticed among complementarian opponents of WO, of substituting snark and sarcasm for actual argument.

(more…)

Older Posts »

Non Sermoni Res — William G. Witt is proudly powered by WordPress