Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations
Chaves, Mark. 1997. Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rating:
10
Summary:
The main question Chaves is attempting to answer is why some denominations have ordained women and why others have not. But before presenting Chaves’ answer, it is important to describe how Chaves sets up the research topic. First, Chaves explains how he defines gender equality, “For our purposes, I will say that a denomination ordains women or institutionalizes gender equality only when there is no official position that women are formally barred from occupying” (pp. 2-3). As Chaves points out, this usage may not be preferred by everyone interested in the issue of female ordination. Some may want a broader definition that includes ecclesiastical positions for women but not full gender equality. Additionally, many denominations today claim they are fully supportive of gender equality when, in fact, they do not allow women to hold positions in their respective clergy. Chaves describes this as gender ‘complementarity’ rather than gender equality (it’s kind of a ‘separate but equal’ argument). Chaves is clear about this point from the beginning and, unlike many authors, actually sticks to his definition throughout the book.
Chaves uses a combination of historical analysis and comparative quantitative analysis to explore the topic. Specifically, the book focuses on the 100 largest denominations in the U.S. that had “clergy, some degree of national-level organization, and over three hundred congregations in 1992” (p. 8); this was actually just less than 50% of the denominations in the U.S. in 1992.
What, then, does Chaves find when it comes to why some denominations ordain women and others don’t? The answer is a bit complicated and involves multiple levels of understanding, but once the information is presented, the answer is compelling.
Chaves argues that, while it is difficult to draw clear lines between internal and external influences on women’s ordination, actual changes to formal rules on women’s ordination are often the result of external influences (p. 5). Thus, Chaves finds that during waves of the women’s movement there were more denominations that changed their stance on women’s ordination than when the women’s movement was not a significant social force. However, Chaves tempers this argument by pointing out that much of the influence of external movements is actually felt through the activism of men and women inside the denomination – actual members who form organizations inside the denomination and actively work for change (p. 39). The interplay between external forces and internal forces working toward change in light of the changing social milieu is a large component in the explanation of why some denominations do ordain women.
But there is also a structural factor that plays a part in the ordination of women (p. 28); ‘structural’ here referring to the organization and hierarchical make-up of the denomination. Chaves points out that clergy shortages and member preferences toward female ordination do not tend to make much of a difference in adopting formal ordination policies, but the loose central organization of a denomination does. A denomination with a loose central authority allows for individual churches or geographic regions of the denomination to make changes (like ordaining women); changes which can eventually disseminate throughout the entire denomination (see pp. 139-140).
So, denominations move toward ordaining women through external influences (like women’s movements and general social change), a component that often works through internal influences. These impulses can be facilitated through loose central authority. But this summary of how denominations arrive at ordaining women leaves the other side of the question unanswered: Why don’t some religions grant formal ordination rights to women? Of course, one answer to this question is to look at the denominations that don’t meet the above criteria – they have not succumbed to external pressure or have a strong, hierarchical central authority.
In addition to lacking those characteristics, Chaves points out that there are two groups of denominations in particular that are resistant to women’s ordination, “denominations practicing sacramental ritual and denominations endorsing biblical inerrancy” (p. 84). These denominations use these two components of their theologies and traditions to justify not ordaining women. The sacramental ritual component is characteristic of the Catholic Church (and other strongly liturgical religions). These religions have developed traditions that include male priests functioning symbolically as Jesus in performing the sacraments. Because Jesus was male, these religions continue to insist that his proxies in these sacraments – priests – must continue to be males. In the case of the biblical literalists, the justification is complicated, but basically is the result of having tied their biblical innerantist positions to their fight against liberal Christianity and modernity (see p. 101). That fight includes not ordaining women. In fact, some religions that had approved the ordination of women early in their history have stopped that practice as a result of the women’s movement/feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s (p. 50).
An additional point Chaves makes is that formal rules and informal practices don’t always go hand-in-hand. For instance, there were close to 300 priest-less Catholic churches in the U.S. in 1992 that were administrated by women; this in spite of the fact that women in the Catholic Church are not allowed to hold the priesthood (p. 24). Thus, while denominations may say one thing about ordaining women, it is actually common for them to do another thing in practice (p. 5).
So, where do denominations in the U.S. stand on ordaining women (using Chaves’ definition of full gender equality)? “In 1890 about 7 percent of U.S. denominations gave full clergy rights to women; today [1997] approximately half of U.S. denominations do so” (p. 18).
Review:
Kind of the final word on this subject – if you want to know why some do ordain and some don’t, this is the book to read
At the beginning of the book Chaves explains why he became interested in this topic. According to Chaves, he read some statistics and commentary about female ordinations in the 1980s and was surprised. Apparently what Chaves means by ‘becoming interested in a topic’ is really more along the lines of “I’m going to write ‘The Book’ on women’s ordination in the U.S..” This book is a clear and compelling analysis of the often times contentious issue of women’s ordination.
In fact, this book is so well-written and makes so many good points about women’s ordination in U.S. denominations, that Chaves actually makes a number of good points that are either not directly related to his primary question or are derivatives of some of the other points he makes. For instance, Chaves points out that the framing of gender equality has changed over time. Early advocates of gender equality (19th century) tended to base their arguments in the ability of talented women to ‘help the cause’. As these women’s contributions could be substantial, some argued for their ordination. This frame changed over time to reflect the broader social push for gender equality: men and women should simply be equal, regardless of whether they can ‘help the cause’ or not (p. 75). While the change in framing over time is interesting, it is tangential to the primary argument and therefore not included in the summary above.
Another insight Chaves provides is to note that Biblical inerrantists can fall on either side of the ordination of women debate, “A striking feature of women’s ordination debates is the ease with which either proponents or opponents of gender equality are able to use the Bible to support their position. Equally striking is that the Bible-based pro and con arguments of 1990 are virtually identical to the Bible-based pro and con arguments of 1890 and before. It is very difficult for an observer of this sort of intellectual stalemate to avoid the conclusion that the biblical text simply is not definitive on the issue of women’s ordination” (pp. 91-92). This same point can be made to a lesser degree with the sacramentalists as the internal logic, the experience of the ritual by congregants, and the consensus among Catholics all lends toward acceptance of women as priests. In fact, “a 1996 poll found that 65 percent of Roman Catholics in the United States favored women’s ordination” (p. 119).
The only criticism I have of the book involves the two groups of denominations that use elements of their tradition or theology to justify not ordaining women (the Biblical inerrantists and the sacramentalists). Readers of this review may find this criticism ironic in light of the previous paragraph, but I still feel compelled to make this point. In both cases, Chaves argues that it isn’t so much the theology or doctrine of the religions that is preventing the ordination of women but rather the traditional connection of doctrinal positions with an anti-modernity stance. In discussing the sacramentalists, Chaves describes this connection explicitly, “the cultural connection between sacramentalism and resistance to women’s ordination, like the connection between inerrancy and women’s ordination, emerged as part of the antiliberal identity of the sacramentalist world, a world in which the Roman Catholic Church is the dominant, though not the only, actor” (p. 119). While there is certainly merit in this argument (see the above paragraph), it just seems too… simple?!? Basically Chaves is arguing that both groups are anti-modernist (which seems to be a characteristic of most religions) and, as a result, they don’t want to ordain women. Maybe this isn’t a criticism – since I do find the argument compelling – but I’m still surprised that it just boils down to these religions fighting the influence of modernity. Isn’t there something more complicated to it?
Overall, there isn’t much to criticize about this book (though I should admit I’m not an expert on this topic). The analysis, though glossed over to some degree when it gets complicated, is erudite and the final conclusions are compelling. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the question of female ordination in U.S. denominations. It may not lead to the ordination of women directly, but it certainly provides a clear understanding of why some women are being ordained and others are not.
(Note: This review was written in the Jackson Library at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Doesn’t affect the review, just an interesting side note ;)