For purposes of completeness, I need to wrap up my responses to criticisms of the exegetical and historical arguments in my book Icons of Christ (and in the essay I wrote with Grant LeMarquand “On Women and Holy Orders”) by addressing criticisms of my claim in the final two chapters (15 and 16) before the Conclusion that there is good evidence that women held office in the New Testament period. Is there evidence that women held office in the New Testament period?
Preliminary Observations
Before addressing the criticisms, it is necessary to lay out some preliminary observations.
First, it does not actually matter. In Icons of Christ, I followed Anglican Divine Richard Hooker in making a fundamental distinction between a regulative hermeneutic and a permissive (or “normative”) hermeneutic. Hooker’s Puritan opponents endorsed what has been called the “regulative principle”: the contemporary church is allowed to do nothing in its worship that is not explicitly commanded in Scripture. To the contrary, Richard Hooker embraced a permissive or “normative” hermeneutic: whatever Scripture does not explicitly forbid is allowed. So, unlike Puritans, Anglicans sing hymns, worship with a Prayer Book containing written prayers, and have preserved the historic threefold office of bishops, priests, and deacons even if Scripture does not explicitly command any of these practices.
In addition, Hooker made another important distinction, that between what Scripture commands and merely historic matters that Scripture mentions. Historical incidents mentioned in Scripture should not be treated as explicit legal requirements for the church to practice today. As Hooker wrote: “When that which the word of God doth but deliver historically, we counter without any warrant as if it were legally meant, and so urge it further than we can prove it was intended, do we not add to the laws of God, and make them in number seem more than they are?”1
In both Icons of Christ and my blog posts, I have pointed out that the most prominent complementarian opponents of women’s ordination belong to denominations that historically adopt some version of the regulative principle, e.g., Baptists. The claim that women cannot be ordained today because there are no examples of ordained women in the NT at least implicitly follows the logic of the regulative principle. Moreover, the claim that restrictions placed on women’s speaking or teaching in 1 Corinthians 14:34 or 1 Timothy 2:12 (however we interpret them) must be permanently binding echoes the conflation Hooker noted between law and merely historical matters.
For churches that practice the normative hermeneutic, whether women held church office during the NT period provides an important precedent, but is not decisive for whether women can hold church office today. In contemporary churches where women do not wear head coverings, where the congregation sings hymns that are not paraphrases of the Psalms, where infants are baptized, and in liturgical churches that use written prayers or have bishops, the departure from the regulative principle is already in effect. On Hooker’s hermeneutical principles, whether women can be ordained is a matter for the church to decide, not a matter of asking “Were there any women presbyters or bishops during the historical period of the New Testament?” (more…)




