A Woman as Bishop
by Vance Trefethen
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 1, March 31, 1990
The recent elevation of Barbara Harris to the position of bishop in the Episcopal church stirred up a great deal of controversy within that denominational body and called the attention of the world at large to the role of women in the church. The move probably should not have caused as much uproar within the Episcopal church as it did. After all, if you can scripturally and morally have a woman "priest" (her position before being promoted), how could there possibly be any problem with a female bishop? (Understanding that the priesthood of the Episcopal Church is based on the Levitical priesthood and not that of Christians, all of whom are priests.
One of the most important lessons to be learned by the people of God from these denominational follies is seen in the arguments of conservatives in the Episcopal church who opposed Ms. Harris’ appointment as bishop. None of them argued that a divorced woman could not possibly meet the qualifications of Titus 1:6-9 ("husband of one wife," etc.) to qualify as a bishop. Perhaps they were constrained by the fact that that passage would also disqualify many male Episcopal bishops.
Instead, their reasoning went like this:
- Jesus only appointed men as apostles. That’s true enough.
- Bishops are the successors to the "office" held by the apostles. I don’t know where in the Bible one would find that teaching, but it plays a big role in Roman Catholic and Anglican theology.
- Therefore, bishops should be men. Right, but for the wrong reasons.
- And besides, that’s the way we’ve always done it. This is the major reason there has never been a female Anglican bishop in all these years.
There are two major lessons that I believe are readily apparent. First, once you disregard the authority of the Scriptures, there is no place you can stop and say, "No, the church shouldn’t be doing that. That isn’t right." How could anyone in the Episcopal church appeal to the Scriptures to object to what they conscientiously believe to be wrong when that body practices so many other unscriptural things (apostolic succession, latter-day "priests," etc.)? Where is the stopping point once you have decided to disregard the scriptures regarding any doctrine or practice? If you can have one unscriptural practice, why not two? Or three?
The second lesson is that "the way we’ve always done it" is a poor substitute for the Scriptures. Conservative Episcopalians found that argument insufficient to stop Ms. Harris from being "ordained" to her position. The reason is mainly that the argument has no moral force. "That’s how we’ve always done it" doesn’t make anything right or wrong. An innovator has simply to ask, "So what if that’s the way we’ve always done it?" and he has adequately answered the conservative’s argument. The inspired writers and prophets of the Bible never resorted to that argument to persuade man to walk in God’s commandments. Instead, you find Paul telling the Corinthians to "let the women keep silence in the churches" and then telling them to "take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:34,37). Paul tells the Corinthians that all the other churches are practicing this same teaching (I Corinthians 14:33), but that is not why Corinth is to do so. They had to practice this because it was a commandment of the Lord.
The Glen Burnie, Maryland, church sponsors a weekly live radio program in Baltimore on which we take telephone calls and discuss religious issues over the air. A topic that frequently comes up is the question of "women pastors." Many of the protestant denominations in Baltimore have had female religious leaders for years (unlike the Episcopal church). The preacher for the Glen Burnie church and I were on the program, and we had just finished answering questions along those lines (using I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2:12) and reading exactly what the Bible says about the issue.
The discussion went something like this:
VT: Hello, you're on the air.
Caller: Hello. I just wanted to say that I don’t see anything wrong with having a woman preacher in the church.
VT: Well, were you listening just a minute ago when we read the two passages that say it’s wrong?
Caller: Oh, yes, but I just don’t see anything wrong with it. I mean, if a woman can do a good job, why shouldn’t she be allowed to preach?
Preacher: Do you think I would be wrong to steal, lie, or use foul language? Aren’t those things wrong because the Bible says I’m not supposed to do them? Women preachers are wrong because the Bible says they’re wrong.
Caller: Oh, I know, but I just don’t see anything wrong with it..."
People with an attitude like that are not simply the figments of some conservative preacher’s imagination. The Bible warns against those who "love not the truth." That kind of person won’t be persuaded by "that’s the way we’ve always done it." We shouldn’t expect them to be. As the next generation grows up, they need to learn why the church does and does not practice certain things, and I define "why" as book chapter and verse. A church that practices the right things for the wrong reasons (or an reason) will last at most one generation. It will soon be disturbed by innovators who will challenge "the way we’ve always done it." Will our children be ready to give them an answer?
