Women as Icons of Christ - Part 2

In chapter two of Icons of Christ, Witt tackles non-theological arguments against the ordination of women.

(1) The ordination of women is connected to a liberal and secular agenda that erodes orthodoxy. This is the left-wing conspiracy argument. But this objection commits the genetic fallacy, i.e., confusing the origins of a view with its truthfulness. Yes, many liberals championed women’s ordination. Just as many advocates of racial equality were also connected to the liberal left, but it does not mean that we should see racial equality as a power grab by liberals and secularists. Besides that, the first major advocates for women’s ordination in the eighteenth century were decidedly orthodox and theologically conservative.

(2) The ordination of women will result in the consequent collapse of orthodox theology. It is true that many of the early advocates for women’s ordination in the 1960s and 70s were liberal feminists who brought with them their own liberal agendas and aims. Witt responds that, “The problem here, however, is not the sex of the people holding the theology, but the theology itself.” Liberal theology can be problematic irrespective of the issue of women’s ordination. Witt adds, “Equating such women [seeking ordination] with liberal Protestants is as unfair as equating a biblical scholar like N.T. Wright with Bishop John Spong.”

(3) The ordination of women is rooted in a fallacy about rights. Nobody has the right to be ordained. Some men can be ordained, but not all men let alone all women. The problem is that this assumes maleness rather than humanity is the condition for ordination. Witt says, “If an argument is to be made against the ordination of women, it needs to be an actual argument that makes the case that only male human beings can be ordained by virtue of something specifically significant to their being male, and that excludes women from being ordained by virtue of something specifically significant to their being female.”

(4) The church has the right to discriminate who it ordains. This is true insofar that there are types of people who cannot be ordained: the clinically insane, the abusive, the immoral, children, and - some would add - women. But what Witt points out is that the discrimination is based on a defect in character or ability, not based on belonging to a class of people like women.

Witt ends by saying that women’s ordination is not pursued as a quest for human autonomy and freedom, but is rooted in a sense of Christian vocation and I would argue spiritual giftedness.