What an excellent answer! Thank you.
I don't care about the feministic*/new-agey type of arguments, and am not trying to advance any of those. I just want to deal with what is in the Bible, and tradition, to a lesser extent.
You are right, the poor example of some is not a good reason to proscribe an entire group. Not only an entire group, but an entirely different group.
Nonetheless, he choose twelve apostles all of whom were male. I'm not sure what I think on this one. I'll get back to you.
So how can we understand this tradition? As far as I can tell, the theology of gender is poorly developed, so it's challenging to do. It's easy enough to demonstrate the arguments against an all male priesthood are flawed. It's more difficult to say with certainty why the tradition exists. I agree, there are many traditions with respect to gender, such as Islam's take on proper gender roles. Whether or not they are relevant and appropriate with regard to Jesus' teachings and God's plan, is the question.
It's often the case that Church traditions are carried out and not fully explained until they are challenged. Such seems to be the case now with the theology of gender, and the conversation has really only begun to develop in the last 30 years. Exactly. But, I want to do so in a respectful and logical way, and not as a way to advance some socio-political ideology, left or right.
Now as Christians, we do not believe that one gender is inferior to the other. This may be true in theory, but is often not true in reality.
The answer is tradition. Ah, back to that.
But he did not ordain any of them. The word used for ordained is ginomai which means "cause to be". I'm not sure that what they did bears much resemblance to what we now mean by "ordain", but I'm still reading.
*I think we should tar them with their own brush and start calling them neo-feminists (as in "neo-con", "neo-nazi" etc).
"I don't care about the feministic*/new-agey type of arguments, and am not trying to advance any of those."
I'm sympathetic to feminism if that term means the work to achieve just treatment of women, and a rejection of the idea that men's experiences are normative for the human species. I very much doubt what you have in mind with the terms you used above though.
"I just want to deal with what is in the Bible, and tradition, to a lesser extent.... I want to do so in a respectful and logical way, and not as a way to advance some socio-political ideology, left or right."
That sounds very good SuzyQue, I wish you the best in your investigation. I think you are going to find it to be a fairly one-sided discussion. Many of the people involved in the women's ordination movement are highly educated and have managed to put a lot in print. There are a number of organizations with a strong presence on the web, and their arguments are easy to access.
In terms of tradition, the word is often misunderstood. What I mean is sense of the faithful that was handed down from those who with and were formed in the faith by Christ and the Apostles.
"You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." 2 Cor: 3-4.
Nonetheless, he choose twelve apostles all of whom were male. "I'm not sure what I think on this one. I'll get back to you."
I'd be very interested in hearing what you think. IMO, a very common view in our society over the last 30 years is that gender is not fundamental to who the person is. It's something that was assigned randomly by a flip of the coin in terms of X and Y chromosome assortment, and much of the differences between men and women were asserted to be socially conditioned. Gender is, in a sense, interchangable, which means it can be surgically re-assigned, or mixed and matched in different combinations in Marriage. Couple that to that the feminist outlook that the defining force of history is men of sinister motivations collectively oppressing women to maintain power, and it makes sense that women should be ordained, simply on principles of justice.
From a certain Catholic perspective, however, gender is indeed fundamental to the person, it is not an accident, but rather was chosen by God, and the two genders necessarily represent something fundamentally important. Both genders are important, but they are also distinct, and in very real sense, are made for each other. This view has implications in the Sacramental life with relation to Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders.
From a Roman Catholic perspective, the Sacraments are the reason for the priesthood. Without them, we would have no reason for it. We already have chaplains, parish administrators, and "pastoral life directors," who effectively run many parishes. There is no gender restriction in those roles.
"The word used for ordained is ginomai which means "cause to be". I'm not sure that what they did bears much resemblance to what we now mean by "ordain", but I'm still reading."
What I had in mind is the ordination of the Apostles at the last supper.
And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;...... And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Excerpted from Luke 22: 14-20)
Christ is our high priest, and as believers we all participate in His priesthood in various roles. We also have a ministerial priesthood. The Eucharist is central to the Catholic experience of Christ, and the priesthood is required to have the Eucharist.
Christ is the source of all priesthood, and we believe that the priest acts in persona Christi--in the person of Christ, during the consecration of the Eucharist. I'm not sure about the Anglican liturgy, but in our Liturgy the priest says, "this is my body...... this is my blood...." He does not say, this is Jesus' body, this is Jesus' blood, because the priest himself is acting in the person of Christ during the Consecration.
This is our understanding of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. If one believes that gender is fundamental to who the person is, then gender was a fundamental part of who Christ was, and the gender of the priest matters. Christ is the lamb of God. His Sacrifice on the cross and the Eucharist were prefigured in the Old Testament in the paschal lamb. (Christ being the lamb of God.) You will note that Scripture here also specifies that the paschal lamb to be sacrificed must be a male without blemish.
I've been blessed to know some very holy women in my life, and one once made the remark that men have an ethic of self-sacrifice that is part of their nature--they want to sacrifice for a good cause, and many men are attracted to the idea of bravery and courage, of laying ones life down for family or country. If she's right, it has implications about how men would best relate to society. From a sacramental perspective, however, her idea of men having a sacrificial nature has a very different implication. The example of Christ was of course one of sacrificial love, and so it is entirely possible to argue, if one accepts her proposition, that the priesthood must necessarily be male because of the element of self-Sacrifice and it's implications for the Eucharist. It's an interesting theory.
By the way, the goal of the women's ordination movement in Roman Catholicism is said to have shifted from wanting to obtain the priesthood, to ultimately desiring to abolish it. The reason being that the priesthood is a ministry of subjection, it is a call to serve the most lowly. Their proposal is being framed as a priesthood of "equals."