Have delusions of self-virtue blinded church leaders from recognizing Jesus’ selection of a female apostle whose reputation resembles the early apostles’ … and their own?

My last blog post discussed logic fallacies used by the church, one of which was the “Red Herring” or introduction of irrelevant information into debate.  I cited this Red Herring used by church leaders: “Because Jesus didn’t appoint his mom, the most virtuous woman in history, as an apostle, he never intended any female apostles.” 

As I mentioned in my previous blog entry, accepting this Red Herring as relevant to the female ordination debate requires one to ignore Jesus selecting males who were despised (Paul and Matthew), denied him (Peter), disobeyed him (all of them) and betrayed him (Judas).  In that article, I forgot to mention he selected men who doubted him (Thomas, Nathanael), repeatedly misunderstood him (all of them) and were revolutionaries (Simon the Zealot).  He also selected men who were deluded with their own self-importance (James and John).

I think church leaders’ introduction of this Red Herring may provide insight into their opinion of themselves.  They assume that if Jesus appointed a female apostle, he would have chosen an extremely virtuous woman.  Do they believe themselves extremely virtuous men, to the point that only the most virtuous woman in history could be their equivalent?  This might lend some insight into church leaders’ true sense of humility.  Do they believe they are so “humble” as to equate themselves with the Virgin Mary’s greatness of humility, obedience, grace, perfection and purity? 

That might explain their indignation rather than abject humility as the world cries for their accountability.  It might explain their ruling and commanding like royalty rather than teaching as humble equals and servants.  It might explain decline in vocations as the truly humble might be repulsed by their attitudes and actions.  It might explain their unwillingness and inability to listen to the laity, especially women. 

Keep in mind the Apostle Paul was hated and feared by early Christians because he systematically, relentlessly and vigorously persecuted them for straying from orthodoxy.  In the eyes of early Christians, Paul’s character fell far below their standards. In a way, he represented the antithesis of Mary.

There is no male or female comparison in today’s society for someone as dangerous to Christians as Paul was in his day.  Perhaps Jezebel in the Old Testament is the closest to a biblical female version of Paul as she systematically, relentlessly and vigorously persecuted the prophets of Israel (1 Kings 18).  In the New Testament, the early apostles have a background more akin to Mary Magdalene, a reformed sinful woman than to Jesus’ mother Mary. 

Therefore, perhaps Jesus would have chosen to send as a female apostle someone more resembling Mary Magdalene than the Virgin Mary.  Oh wait, he did send Mary Magdalene with the most important news in salvation history: tidings of his resurrection.  However, church leaders choose to discredit this example of Jesus directly commissioning a female apostle by labeling her with the non-descript apostleship of “apostle to the apostles” (Mulieris Dignitatem).  Why?

Have delusions of self-virtue blinded church leaders from recognizing Jesus’ selection of a female apostle whose reputation resembles the early apostles’ … and their own?