 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Mary Ann Getty
from Women Priests, Arlene Swidler & Leonard
Swidler (eds.), Paulist Press 1977, pp. 176-182.
Republished on our website
with the necessary permissions
Mary Ann Getty, RSM, taught at Carlow College, Pittsburgh, Pa., where she
was at the time the chairperson of the Theology Department. She received her
S.T.L. and S.T.D., with a specialization in New Testament, from the University
of Louvain, has taught in women’s studies programs and lectured throughout
the U.S. on the ordination of women and women in ministry.
Both
the Vatican Declaration and the official Commentary on the Declaration refer to
the fact that Paul includes women when he refers to the ministers of the
gospel.(1) The Declaration concedes that Paul mentions the work of many women
for whom he is particularly grateful; it further concurs that certain women
“worked with the Apostle” and had “important influence on
conversions.”(2) Scholars have studied the implications of Paul’s
reference to women as disciples, deacons, prophets and even apostles.(3)
Therefore it comes as a surprise that the Declaration and Commentary would
single out the unusual phrases “God’s fellow worker” (synergos
Theou) and “my fellow worker” (synergos moi), and postulate a highly
significant but obscure and questionable distinction between these as providing
the basis for “official” apostolic ministry;(4) it is a further
widening of a credibility gap that this distinction would be given gospel
value. The expression “God’s fellow worker” appears for certain
only once, twice at the most.(5) Emphasizing Paul’s restriction of this
phrase to men runs the risk of leading the reader to believe that a deliberate
attempt is being made to exclude women from accepting their apostolic
responsibility.
A
variety of terms are used in the New Testament to describe the ministers of the
gospel. The Declaration contends that Paul did not portray women as fulfilling
a properly apostolic role, since he distinguishes between
“God’s” and “my” fellow workers and in so doing
refrains from extending women’s role to “the official and public
proclamation of the [Resurrection] message, since this proclamation belongs
exclusively to the apostolic mission.” Study of the term “fellow
worker” modified by “God’s” or “my” does not
support such a contention; certainly it does not seem to be Paul’s intent
to make such a rigid distinction. Further, it is not at all clear how such a
firm distinction can be made between “official and public
proclamation” and the service of the gospel rendered by women such as Paul
does explicitly describe.(6) This is particularly true in the early Church when
there were no clear and distinct offices or ministries and where the concept of
roles and functions was very fluid. Further, when Paul speaks of the
Resurrection appearances in 1Cor 15:5-10, it is not certain that he excludes
women; it is therefore questionable that women did not and cannot
“officially” proclaim the Resurrection. We must therefore study the
term “fellow worker” in order to ascertain what possible bearing this
term could have on defining the apostolic mission, or what relationship this
term has with the proclamation of the Resurrection. Further we will offer some
reflections on Paul’s description of the much more important role of the
apostle.
It is
important to realize that our present form of priestly ministry seeks to find
its origins in the Scriptures, especially the New Testament. One problem in
doing this is that no one office or title in the New Testament subsumes all the
forms we have traditionally connected with the, priesthood.(7) Only later did
the Church try to collect all the functions described in the various New
Testament terms under the general heading “Priest” (hierus). The term
“priest” (hierus) is not used in the New Testament of any individual
Christian, although it is used to describe the priesthood of all believers and
the priesthood of Christ which replaces all human priesthoods.(8) This is not
to say that the notion, practice and sacrament of priestly ministry are not
present in the New Testament. It should, however, be emphasized that the notion
of ministry and priesthood was expressed in a variety of terms, among which
“God’s fellow worker” is hardly the most significant.
The
term “fellow worker” (synergos) is unusual in both the Septuagint
Greek translation of the Old Testament and the New Testament. It appears in the
Septuagint only in 2 Macc. 8:7 and 14:5, meaning “favorable
opportunities.” In the New Testament, outside of Paul, the term occurs
only in 3 Jn 8. In Paul it occurs ten times: with “God’s” (1Cor
3:9, but compare 1Thess 3:2), with “my” (Rom 16:3, 21; Philem 24;
Phil 4:3) or “our” (Rom 16:9; Philem l; cf. 2 Cor 8:23) and with a
thing (2 Cor 1:24; Col 4:11). The position adopted by the Declaration implies
that Paul intended a substantial difference of function, office and authority
by these different modifiers. It would not be possible to substantiate these
differences, especially since the term itself is so rare.
The
only certain instance of the use of “God’s fellow worker” is in
1Cor 3:9. The meaning of this phrase is best explained by its context. Paul is
attacking the factions and party strife in Corinth. The community was being
fragmented because some Christians were saying, “I belong to Paul,”
while others retorted, “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to
Cephas” or “I belong to Christ” (1:12). Jealousy and competition
threatened to divide and destroy the community. In 3:1-15, Paul emphasizes the
unity of purpose of his own and Apollos’ work. Paul makes a friendly
gesture toward Apollos since it appears that rivalry among their respective
followers has put the work and the fruits of the work of them both in a
doubtful light. In effect, Paul wants to stress it is God who calls all
Christian ministers and all are doing God’s, not human, works. The gospel
is the power of God (1:8), and those entrusted to preach it are not to be
thought of as competitors and rivals, but as bearers of a divine message
charged with divine power. Paul uses the phrase “God’s fellow
worker” in order to give more authority to the common ministry shared by
Apollos and himself, since this commonality is the aspect of the ministry that
is under attack. Paul is obviously not trying to specify a title applicable
only to Apollos and himself as men.
The
nearest parallel to this expression in 1Cor. 3:9 is found in 2 Cor. 6:1 where
Paul refers to the whole Corinthian community who are “working together
with God.”(9) It is clear from this passage that in so referring to the
Christians at Corinth, Paul is not trying to exclude the women. The authors of
the Declaration seem to be aware of the questionable reading of 1 Thess 3:2,
since they do not refer to it as a strict parallel to 1 Cor 3:9 but as a verse
to be compared.(10) There Timothy is called Paul’s brother and God’s
“servant” or “fellow worker,” in a passage implying that,
as Paul’s messenger to the community, Timothy had the same authority as
Paul claimed for himself. The context explains the expression; especially in
the light of the questionable reading of this verse, it is hard to demonstrate
that Paul uses any more of a technical, exclusive phrase than he does in 2 Cor
6:1.
The
Declaration’s distinction between “God’s fellow workers”
and “my fellow workers” cannot be substantiated. It can be noted that
the phrase “my fellow workers” appears most frequently in the context
of the general community, which undoubtedly was made up of men and women; it
sometimes refers only to men and sometimes includes women who are named. There
is no legitimate conclusion that can be drawn along sexual lines as to the
meaning of the phrase. The expression represents Paul’s more usual
designation of his own and the community’s respective roles in the
ministry; “my fellow worker(s)” appears wherever there is not a more
fundamental problem of jealousy or competition such as we see in first
Corinthians.
Further, it is difficult to accept a firm and distinct connection between the
phrase “God’s fellow worker” and the “official and public
proclamation” of the Resurrection, a connection suggested by the
juxtaposition of sentences about these in the Declaration. Although Paul calls
Apollos (1 Cor 3:9) and possibly Timothy (1 Thess 3:2) “God’s fellow
workers,” he does not mention a Resurrection appearance to either of these
men. In fact, if we are to assume that only those Paul designates as
synergos theou bear the authority of the apostolic mission, then the
ministers of the gospel are quite limited in numbers indeed.
It is
true that Paul does not explicitly mention the Resurrection appearances to the
women nor the important role the women played in announcing the Resurrection to
the male disciples as all four gospels report. But we cannot conclude from this
that Paul meant to exclude women’s testimony from the “official and
public proclamation” and consider it non-official and private. Paul’s
intention in 1 Cor 15:5-10 is not to give a narrative account nor an exhaustive
listing of the Resurrection appearances. If it were, what could we say about
John’s reliability in the account of Thomas’ absence (Jn 20:24) and
Jesus’ return for his sake, for example? Paul’s concern in the very
important chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 explains why he is selective in his
references to the Lord’s appearances; Paul is defending his own authority.
It is the fact that he has seen the Lord himself that grounds his mission to
preach, however officially and publicly. Since he does not dispute the
gospels’ testimony about the appearances to the women, but merely tries to
justify his own right to proclaim the Resurrection, we have no basis for
thinking that Paul meant to exclude the women’s testimony as less than
official. When Paul says that the Lord appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve,
then to more than five hundred, to James, to all the apostles and finally to
Paul himself, he is not excluding anyone but identifying the source of his own
authority. Since even before the other apostles, Paul considers himself an
apostle, it is not likely that he would put himself in a separate category in
15:8 if his own authority were not the matter in question. Perhaps the
appearances to the women were taken for granted and therefore it was not
necessary to mention them! In any case, why exclude them from the categories of
the “more than five hundred” and “all the apostles,” since
women count and one, at least, is called an apostle explicitly by Paul in Rom.
16:7?"
The
term “apostle” is rightly considered one of the most significant New
Testament terms that provides a basis and model for the Church’s concept
of priestly ministry. (It is certainly far more important than “God’s
fellow worker,” for instance.) While the Gospels often use the term
“disciple” to describe the role of Christ’s followers, the
epistles’ frequent use of “apostle” provides us with one of the
earliest and broadest understandings of the Christian ministers of the Gospel.
We must therefore examine briefly this term “apostle” in Paul, who
originally used it and most aptly described it in reference to his own work in
proclaiming the gospel, in order to ascertain if women were excluded from this
office by its nature or whether women could have been or actually were included
in the apostolic ministry. This will enable us to determine whether there is
anything in the attitude or practice of Paul which would be normative for
either excluding or including women in the apostolic ministry or in the
vocation we know today as the priesthood.
According to Paul, who was, of course, the first to use the term
“apostle” and to vehemently defend his own right to be called an
apostle, the missionary connotation is key to its understanding. After the
model of Christ, the apostle leads a life of service for others. Although the
Gospels hint that the disciples were sent forth during Jesus’ earthly
ministry (Mk 6:7ff.; Mt 10:17-18; Lk 9-10), the definitive “sending
forth” that constituted apostleship came after the Resurrection.(12) The
apostolic command is given after the Resurrection in the Gospels (Mt 28:19; Lk
24:47-48; Jn 20:21; Markan Appendix, 16:15). However, the New Testament is
generally silent about the apostolate of the Twelve, and consequently the
paradigm for the apostle is Paul, who was not one of the Twelve nor even a
disciple of Jesus during his ministry. This distinction helps to show that the
disciple, the Twelve and the apostle had separate roles in the early
Church’s understanding.
The
Pauline definition of apostle does not indicate that women were not given the
apostolic charge. Three main ideas surface in studying Paul’s presentation
of the role of the apostle: the apostle is called to preach, the apostle
founds, forms and cares for the community, and the apostle is responsible for
the church at large.(13)
The
first characteristic of the apostle is service to Jesus Christ who sets the
apostle apart to preach the gospel, especially the Resurrection. We have
already tried to show that this function does not exclude women.
Secondly, the apostle is sent not to baptize but to establish, form and care
for the local communities. In nurturing the communities and while describing
himself as a “nurse” or a mother “feeding her young children
milk” (1 Cor 3:lff.) and experiencing labor pains until “Christ is
formed in you” (Gal 4:19), Paul points out some of the less obvious but
perhaps more provocative aspects of his apostolic ministry. These include the
service of ordinary work, the service of prayer and the service of suffering
(14) none of these ministries is outside of women’s actual experience.
Thirdly, the apostle is responsible for the pastoral care and nurturing not
only of the local community but also of the Church at large. Paul’s zeal
for the conversion of the Gentiles did not put him out of touch with the Jewish
Christian Church in Jerusalem. This is one of the more pertinent dimensions of
the apostleship that can enlighten our own dilemma today, one which the
official Commentary on the Declaration itself admits. We are involved in a
controversy over a question analogous to the one that existed in the Pauline
churches. The Jewish Christian leaders at Jerusalem wondered how and with what
qualifications the Gentiles could receive Baptism. The Roman-Christian leaders
at the Vatican now wonder how and with what qualifications women can receive
Orders. The Gentiles’ entrance into the Church perhaps presented an even
more serious dilemma and conflict in the early Church than the problem of the
ordination of women does today. It threatened the very existence and life of
the Church and of every single Christian. It went way beyond a discussion
between Peter and Paul. Further, Peter’s followers could have claimed to
have a “natural resemblance” to Jesus who was circumcized; the
Gentiles were not. In fact, some of the major New Testament writings,
especially Galatians and Romans, address this very question. Jesus had not,
after all, given clear directions for the admission of the Gentiles; where did
the Church receive its authority to interpret Jesus’ mind on this subject
and admit Gentiles with a minimum of requirements (Acts 15:1-29)?
Both
the Declaration and its Commentary testify to the timeliness of addressing this
question of the ordination of women which has become “pressing” only
in our day. These documents admit that until now the Vatican has not been
forced to address this matter. The fact that the Vatican now feels required to
face the question demonstrates that, in fact, women are exercising
responsibility to and for the Church at large by bringing the question before
the authorities, a responsibility that properly belongs to the apostolic
charge.
Conclusion
Our
conclusion may be simply summarized. No clear or significant distinction can be
made between “God’s fellow workers” and “my fellow
workers.” In fact, it might seem to many that the more significant term
for the apostolate of the Church is the term “my” (or
“our”) fellow workers, since this refers to the ministry of all the
members rather than of a few individuals (three, to be exact).(15) In any case,
the term had no longevity; it is not a significant one to represent ministry,
and there is nothing to support the argument that only those who are designated
“God’s fellow workers” have the authority to officially and
publicly proclaim the gospel. Further, this term has little bearing on the
properly apostolic ministry which women indeed seem to have performed in the
early Church and which they continue to perform today as they contribute to and
enrich our understanding of the far more important notion of apostleship as a
model for priestly ministry.
Notes
1.
Declaration, par. 16; Commentary, par. 23.
2.
Declaration, par. 16; Commentary, par. 23.
3.
For example, see E. Fiorenza, “Women Apostles: The Testament of
Scripture,” in Women and Catholic Priesthood: An Expanded Vision.
Proceedings of the Detroit Ordination Conference, ed. by A.M. Gardiner (New
York: Paulist Press 1976), p. 96; A. Lemaire, “The Ministries in the New
Testament, Recent Research,” Theological Bulletin. Vol. 3 (1973),
pp. 133-166; D. Senior, Jesus, A Gospel Portrait (Dayton: Pflaum
Publishing, 1975), pp. 51-82; R. Brown, “Roles of Women in the Fourth
Gospel,” Theological Studies, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp.
688-699; E. Carroll, “Women and Ministry,” Theological Studies
Vol. 36, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 660-688.
4.
This distinction of dubious significance and even validity, is made by I. De la
Potterie, Titres missionaires du chretien dans le Nouveau Testament
(Rapports de la XXXIeme semaine de Missiologie, Louvain, 1966), Paris: Desclee
de Brouwer, 1966), pp. 44-45.
5. 1
Cor 3:9; cf. 1 Thess 3:2.
6.
The Declaration mentions the ministries of Priscilla, Lydia and Phoebe, noting
that these show “. . . a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of
Judaism. Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring ordination
on these women” (par. 16). It would be hard to determine for certain that,
in fact, no ordination was conferred, and even more difficult to ascertain that
the question was never even raised. The Statement of the Biblical Commission
that “some women collaborated in the properly apostolic work” seems
to be more honest and to the point. The Commission further says that in
speaking about women, Paul “insists on specifying that they have tired
themselves for the community, using a Greek verb (kopian) most often used for
the work of evangelization properly so called” (Part III).
7.
Cf. R. Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (New York: Paulist
Press, 1970).
8.
Ibid., p. 13.
9.
Cf. A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, International Critical Commentary
(New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1912), p. 58.
10.
The reading of 1 Thess 3:2 is disputed: the main questions are whether
synergon or diakonon should be read and whether tou theou
should be dropped. Some substitute diakonon for synergon
while others have the conflated reading kai diakonon tou theou kai synergon
emon.
11.
There is no reason to substitute a masculine form for the feminine name Junia
in Rom 16:7, as E.Fiorenza points out. This is one instance where a woman is
explicitly called an apostle. Fiorenza, op. cit., p. 96; see also the
Statement of the Biblical Commission, Part 111; see also in this volume, pp.
141-144.
12.
Brown, Priest and Bishop, p. 27.
13.
Ibid., pp.26-34.
14.
Ibid., pp. 29-34.
15.
I.e., Paul, Apollos, Timothy.
Contents of “Women
Priests” book
Support our
campaign
Sitemap
Contemporary
theologians
Join Campaign
activities
Go back to home
page
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!