1. The place of women is one of subservience, sometimes argued as complementarity, but always involving a subordination of women to the authority of men.
· This is often argued from a (small) number of biblical texts, and usually inconsistently. The obvious problems with this interpretation of Scripture (e.g. the authoritative ministries of women in the New Testament church) are left unresolved.
· Ignores the obvious authority of women in the history of the church. (Think of the Queen and CofE.)
2. God is male, Jesus was a man.
· God is ‘male’ (no, God is beyond sex and gender)
· Jesus was a man (Compare with ‘became fully human’.)
· Priests are in persona Christi, and must therefore be men. (Actually, all the baptised are in persona Christi)
3. Reproductive role and the nurturing nature of women
· Even if true, not sure why this should exclude women
· Even if true, could be used to argue for the inclusion of women (a more rounded and complete priesthood) For example, the male and female teams mentioned in Romans 16:3-4, 7.
· Jesus was not the quintessential ‘alpha male’, so I’m not sure why anyone should think nurturing –whether in women or men – is a bad thing. (See also Jn 13:23-25, reclining on the breast of Jesus, conveniently missed in the English translations!)
· Scripture, and Jesus himself, did not restrict the role of women in ministry according to their theoretical reproductive capacity. E.g. Lk 11:27.
