WOMEN PRIESTS

To the Editors of The Crimson:

We would like to respond to your detailed coverage of the womens' ordination controversy within the Episcopal Church ("Women Priests: Seeking a Place Within the Church," The Crimson, Dec.8). The issue is one confronting every major Christian body and its resolution will have a far-ranging effect.

Sydney Freedberg does not understand the depth of the problem in regard to those who oppose ordination of these eleven women. We can all sympathize with their frustration, but that is not the issue. Nor is the problem the irrregularity of their ordination, since the Church will probably validate their orders next year. The real issue is theological and not sexist, as they allege. The article left the impression that the problem lies in ingrained institutional prejudice when this is not the case at all. There are sizable segments within the Church who oppose the full ordination of women on Biblical and theological grounds; and regardless of the temper of the times, this cannot be compromised.

The pro-ordination advocates claim that the Church is guilty of the 'sin of sexism' and that women being barred from the priesthood is oppression. Most people would confess that all churches have grossly belittled women in the past, but the central issue remains that many also believe that it would be wrong before God to allow women to enter the priesthood. This is not based on the whims of human prejudice, but on very clear Scriptural statements. The New Testament is very clear on this. If one believes the Bible to be wholly true and authoritative, then the statements of St. Paul and others must be taken very seriously. St. Paul, while holding that "in Christ there is neither male nor female", also states that women are to be silent in the churches and are not, within that context, to exercise authority over men (I Timothy 2:11,12). He grounds this within the Old Testament and on the fall of mankind. Now as untasteful as this may be to our modern minds, if the Bible is to be taken seriously, as it is by many, then so must these statements and the position of those who oppose ordination. This is not a matter of sexism, but of theology. The Bible as clearly holds to the full dignity and humanity of women. St. Paul was himself quite revolutionary in his conception of women as full and equal human beings before God. But St. Paul cannot, as many would have us believe, be simply thrown out as addressing, and limited by, a cultural context. He sees male-female relations in society, the family, and the church in a particular God-ordained order that bestows dignity on all (I Corinthians 11:3). This is reflected in the Trinity where Christ is voluntarily subordinate to the Father and yet is co-equal and possesses full dignity.

The question is not, as William Stringfellow is quoted as saying, whether the Church can change, but rather if it will conform to secular society. The faith and practice of the Church are radically opposed to the tenor of the world. This applies to sexuality, and while the world might change, the Church must stay faithful to its heritage. The issue is not simply the ordination of women, but the compromise of the church to the world. This is seen in the willingness of these women and their allies to take the Church into the civil courts. It is very strange that the same people who would probably recoil at any mixture of Church and State in public life (Nixon's White House services?) would deem it right to settle theological questions in court, bringing back echoes of Constantine. Willie and Stringfellow's argument is untenable and dangerous to a free society. For the State to impose secular law in the religious sphere is at the root of an oppressive society in which man's spirit is made captive to the civil order. The logic of their position leads them to break down the exclusive nature of the church and its right to decide who can be a member. Possibly quotas should be applied to church membership? The church must be a responsible member of its host society, but not at the sacrifice of her integrity and deposit of truth.

The impression one gets from the whole debate is one of pride: on both sides and on the part of both men and women. What is needed is not an assertion of rights and human actions, but a humble submission to God and his word. From there the church can be reconstructed in our technological age and confront it with a powerful gospel that is radically different from the cant of our modern times. The theological issue is at the root of the whole debate. Kenneth G. Brownell '76   Douglas J. Lee '76