Author: Lee M.

I’ve never really taken much interest in debates about women’s ordination – it’s always seemed to me to be a bit of a non-issue. I realize there are ecumenical matters at stake, but in sheer theological terms it’s not something I’ve ever particularly wrestled with. I’ve been a member of churches with women pastors and it never once occurred to me that the sacraments were “invalid” when dispensed from their hands.

However, critics of women’s ordination sometimes argue that it is a “foreign” importation from feminism or liberal rights theory and not properly grounded in theology. Now, leaving aside whether it might sometimes be proper for secular knowledge to impact theology, I think there are specifically theological reasons that can also be adduced.

From a specifically Protestant (and Lutheran) point of view, I think one argument might proceed like this: the Gospel (which includes Word and Sacrament) is God’s unconditional gift and depends for its efficacy entirely upon God’s grace and promise. To say that God’s gifts can be “held hostage” to human conditions, such as the “matter” of the priest, would be to infringe upon God’s gracious sovereignty. But the Gospel can only depend on God’s promise and thus its proclamation can’t be limited to a particular class of people.

I think this goes to the heart of the Reformation protest against medieval Catholicism. The problem, which was vividly illustrated by the indulgences controversy, was that God’s grace was seen to be beholden to a set of conditions that must be met before it could be “dispensed.” Reform thus can be seen as the process of making sure that the church doesn’t act to obstruct the proclamation of God’s free grace in Word and Sacrament.

I’m not sure if the argument for women’s ordination has been set out in just these terms, but it strikes me as consonant with the key Reformation insights. Of course, our Catholic friends will take issue with some of the premises, but I don’t think it depends on any illegitimate “secular” imports.