Tag Archives: women deacons

Junia: a puzzle

02 Thursday Jul 2020

Posted by in Anglicanism, Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 61 Comments

Tags

,

 

junia

My thanks to the many who replied positively to yesterday’s post, and in the spirit of that, and as an homage to Jessica, I want to begin the next eight years with a topic which risks taking us back to polemical times, but in a way which invites, I hope, a more considered response. I would add that this is not me advocating any change in my own church, whose position seems clear except to those who don’t like that position. Here goes.

Toward the end of St Paul’s letter to the Romans (and yes, I know that there are those who think it wasn’t by St Paul, but the Church, and Tradition do, and that does it for me) is this salutation:

7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

At least that’s what the Douay-Rheims translation says, as does the American Standard version and the New Life version. The assumption is that this is a male name, athough scholars have been unable to provide any other examples of the name “Junias;” there are numerous examples of the female name, “Junia.” In his homily on Romans, Ambrosiaster, who was writing in the second half of the fourth century wrote:

“Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia might have been that she should be worthy to be called an Apostle!”

Professor Moo, in his great commentary on Romans offers a typically balanced view:

“Paul’s mention of nine women in this list reminds us (if we needed the reminder) that women played an important role in the early church … Ministry in the early church was never confined to men; these greetings and other similar passages show that women engaged in ministries that were as important as those of men. We have created many problems for ourselves by confining ‘ministry’ to what certain full-time Christian workers do. But it is important that we do not overinterpret this evidence either, for nothing Paul says … conflicts with limitations on some kinds of women’s ministry with respect to men such as I think are suggested by 1 Tim. 2:8-15 and other texts.” (Douglas J Moo, New International Commentary (1996)).

The idea that the name “Junias” was to be preferred to the reading “Junia” was a twentieth century phenomenon, based on the assumption that since an “apostle” had to be male, “Junias” had to be the correct reading. The probability that the name is “Junia” and therefore a woman, has, naturally enough, led some modern scholars to argue that this supports the idea of women as priests. That may be as much a case of reading into the text what one wants to read, as the older idea that “Junia” was not a possible reading because a woman could not have been an apostle.

If we assume that “Apostle” is always a position of authoritative leadership, then the case for a female priesthood is certaily strengthened; but must it be read that way? Often Paul uses the word to denote a messenger or emissary (1 Cor. 15:5,7; 1 Cor. 9:5-6; Gal 2:9), and that may be the case here. Just because scholars in the last century went out of their way to insist the name was male because a woman could not be an “apostle’, that is no reason we should do the same the other way – understandable as that temptation might be. (Chapter 9 of Epp, Junia).

One of the problems, or so it seems to me, is that this issue gets swallowed up in an agenda-driven way. On the one hand a swift resort to a version of what Professor Moo has written, which emphasises the other possibilities, minimising the possibility of Junia being an Apostle in the strongest sense of that word. On the other, a ready resort to the claim that it can only be read in this sense seems unwise.

At this point the argument can get taken up with either explaining away or emphasising 1. Tim 2 11-15, 1 Cor 11: 2-16, 1 Cor 14:34-35, and in the literature it is easy to discern why one choice or the other is made. It is important here to emphasise that such discussions take us into the wider realm of how we read Scripture, and how tradition should weigh in the balance. What cannot be in doubt is that for much of the history of Christianity women have not had a sacramental ministry, whatever may, or may not have been the case with the “Apostle” Junia.

If Junia and other women were “Apostles” in the stronger sense of the word  then would it make a difference? Well, it would tend against the argument that Jesus chose only men, not least because we know there were many women followers and He appeared first to a woman, but I really don’t want to go down that route here, not least because the chance of it not provoking people is zero. But it is worth reflecting on the experience of the one big communion which has had women priests and bishops, the Anglicans. There, I think many who were against the idea for the usual reasons would say they have found the contribution of their new colleagues invaluable and that women have added a dimension to ministry which, perhaps, Junia would have recognised. Certainly, in my own dealings with women priests, I have been nothing but impressed by what they bring to their vocation, and without their contribution things would be poorer. At that point, I shall stop and await comment.

Back to Women Deacons?

07 Sunday Aug 2016

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Early Church, Faith, Pope

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

philip-the-deacon

The announcement that the Pope has instituted a commission of inquiry into whether the Church should have women deacons raises, again, a question we have aired here before (Jessica’s last piece garnering a record 295 comments which generated as much heat as light). That there were women in the early Church who bore the title ‘deacon’ is not contested; what is contested is the role of these women. They seem to have prepared women converts for baptism. Why was this necessary? In the early Church people were baptised by full immersion – and it was necessary that women should be taken through that process by women. But this whole business is, of course, as Tina Beattie admitted (at 39 minutes here) this morning, an opportunity to discuss (yet again) the issue of the ordaining of women as priests. That the arguments for the latter are discussed purely in terms of secular notions of equality, suggests that the theological arguments in Catholic terms do not exist. Those who listen to the ‘BBC Sunday’ programme to which I linked, will be able to savour Professor Beattie in full cultural appropriation mode telling us what it is African women want – a line of argument curiously old-fashioned now, which perhaps tells us something about where that sort of old-fashioned Catholic liberalism has become stuck. We might, perhaps, let African women speak for themselves, they do not need white people to ‘rescue’ them or to speak on their behalf. By contrast, Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith rests securely in the teaching of the Church and the faith that it is guided by God through the Holy Spirit.

The whole Ressourcement argument – that is that we go back to the early Church to see how things were done then and recover early practice – is an essentially Protestant trope. It assumes too much and forgets too much. It assumes we can know with precise accuracy the practice of the early Church, when, in practice, we can recover some things about what it did in some areas; so, yes, there were female deacons, but no, we cannot be sure what they did. What we can be sure of is that in patriarchal societies they did not do the sort of things that modern feminists would have wanted them to have done. So the best that could be hoped for here would be to construct your own Catholic history, in which you say there were women deacons but they should not do what they did back then because we are now post-patriarchal. That is simply to to admit that you knew what conclusion you wanted before you began; it would be refreshingly honest were this simply to be admitted. What does it forget? It forgets that the Church is an organic body which grows. The oak was once an acorn, but it cannot become an acorn again, it had grown beyond that stage.

Now, that last argument need, of course, not work in favour of the traditional position which the Church has taken, although there is strong evidence that St John Paul II was speaking authoritatively when he ruled out women’s ordination. It might well be that the Church is developing to a stage where its age-old teaching on women’s ordination is falling away, but if this is so at the moment, it requires us to believe that the Spirit is speaking in the language of modern secular feminism rather than in the terms He has usually employed. Pope Francis is certainly not of the opinion that the Spirit is speaking in favour of female ordination, having said that ‘”The church has spoken and says no … That door is closed” – to the evident disappointment of the more liberal elements in the media. The Church does not, he holds, as all his predecessors have held, possess the authority to ordain women. The Canon Law Society of America has issued a report showing that the diaconate is a clerical office:

Distinct from lay people in the church by divine institution are the sacred ministers, whom canon law calls clerics (c. 207). One becomes a cleric when one is ordained deacon (c. 266). Only clerics can obtain offices the exercise of which requires the power of orders or the power of ecclesiastical governance (c. 274). Deacons thus are clerics by virtue of their ordination and this makes them capable of exercising sacred office and sacred power. All clerics must be incardinated in a diocese or personal prelature or in some religious institute (c. 266). By ordination to the diaconate one becomes incardinated in the entity for which one is ordained (c. 266), and a cleric becomes entitled to suitable remuneration (c. 281). 

In 2002, the International Theological Commission concluded a five-year study of the question of women deacons, initiated at the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and after more than 40,000 words, concluded that: 1) deaconesses in the early Church were not participating in some form of holy orders, 2) nor were they even equivalent to deacons. But, of course, many of those pushing for deaconesses today are doing so for the sole purpose of having leverage for the ordination of women to the priesthood.”

It may be that Pope Francis’ Commission will find some hitherto unknown ‘third way’, but it won’t find it in the sources, or in the tradition of the Church. In the meantime, the best advice is that offered by Fr Lucie Smith – trust in the Holy Spirit who guides God’s Church. If it really is the wish of God that His Church has women deacons and women priests, it will happen regardless of the fears of any of us, and if it not, it won’t, regardless of the hopes of any of us.