Some Historical Background

I

did not write my book Icons of Christ with the intention of changing the minds of those opposed to women’s ordination, although from time to time I have heard from people who have told me that the book changed their minds Rather, I wrote for three different groups:

First, for those within my own tradition (Anglican/Episcopal) who were disappointed at what seemed to be an upsurge of those opposed to women’s ordination within theologically conservative Anglicanism. Women’s ordination had not been an issue of contention at the beginnings of the founding of the Anglican Church of North America in distinction from the Episcopal Church in the mid 2000s. Those of us who had been members of TEC before the split did not leave TEC over either WO or the 1979 BCP. Many of us were members of dioceses and congregations that supported WO before the split. I myself was confirmed as an Episcopalian on May 15, 1982 by Bishop William Frey of the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado. Bishop Frey supported women’s ordination as well as the 1979 BCP, and afterwards moved from Colorado to Ambridge, Pennsylvania, where he became the Dean President (1990-1996) of what was then Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, where I have taught Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics since fall 2007.

Trinity School for Ministry/now Trinity Anglican Seminary has had a policy since its founding that there could be disagreement on the issue of women’s ordination. While there have always been members of the faculty who opposed WO (including my dear friend the late Rev. Dr. Rod Whitacre), since its beginnings the majority of the faculty have favored WO, and there have always been women serving on the faculty, including my dear friend the late Rev. Dr. Martha Giltinan. And, yes, despite their disagreements about women’s ordination, Rod and Martha were good friends, and Rod entirely supported Martha as a member of the faculty, although he did not receive communion if she presided at the Eucharist. Rod taught women who were seeking ordination, and he treated them no differently than he did his male students. Bob Duncan, the first archbishop of the ACNA, was the bishop of Pittsburgh, a diocese that supports the ordination of women. I myself have served on the Commission On Ministry in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and we approved both men and women for ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood.

(more…)

In a recent post, I looked back on the reception of my book Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination three years after its publication. In that essay, I focused on why I had given the book its title:

The single argument that appears repeatedly in these several chapters is that Christians resemble (are “Icons” of) Jesus Christ not through physical likeness or through exercising hierarchical authority over one another, but in the same way that Paul makes clear in both Phillippians 2 and 2 Corinthians 2-4, first, by pointing away from ourselves and our own authority and accomplishments to the saving work of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ, and, second, by imitating Jesus Christ’s own kenotic cruciformity in service to one another.

However, I also noted:

My book received quite a few positive reviews, and the positive reviews consistently have recognized this key argument about what it means for Christians to resemble Christ. My book has received a fair amount of criticism as well, but almost none of this has acknowledged or addressed the central argument. Rather, the negative reviews have focused on defending the traditional arguments against women’s ordination – whether complementarian Protestant or Catholic sacramentalist.”

A recent reviewer claims to have read this essay: “Witt declares what he believes is the most important part of his book.” In that light I had thought that the author would address what I have claimed is the key issue of the book – how it is that all Christians (not just men) resemble Christ — through cruciform discipleship. He did not do that, however, but instead followed the predictable pattern – not at all addressing the key point of the book but rather (once again) offering a defense of the hierarchical complementarian position – beginning with an interpretation of the account of the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2.

(more…)

I 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…)

Since 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…)