Oh well. The arguments are fairly simple, and though scorned by most people nowadays, are deeply held by others. They are, as I understand them:

1. Jesus was male, and so, according to this argument, His representatives in the church should be.

2. Jesus chose only male disciples, despite the fact that many women followed Him also, who were both highly regarded by Him and privy to things that the men were not (i.e. His first appearance after His resurrection was to women.)

3. Paul was vehement in his opposition to females teaching doctrine: "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak...for it is shameful for women to speak in church" (I Cor. 14.34). Also, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man but to be in silence" (I Timothy 2.11).

4. Numerous non-Biblically based arguments are made by various authors, such as Leon Podles in "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity." The gist of these arguments, as I understand them, is that as women are accepted as priests in denominations, the men depart or their point of view is excluded, and the churches decline in various ways. I don't know what the evidence for this is.

Probably there are other arguments, but these are the ones I have heard. The absence of women at the Last Supper is not one that I have ever run across, although it would follow from reason two above.
 

This view was qualified by the "practical" idea that if you can't find a qualified man, then it's okay to have a woman be the minister.

To me it boils down to very simple questions: does God call women to be ordained or not? Does God give the gifts of preaching and teaching to women or not?
 

1 & 2: Jesus and his disciples were also Jewish, brown skinned, Aramaic speakers born before the invetion of the motor car, but do we require that of priests?

3: So what denomination reqires women to be silent in church? I.e. no praying out loud, not even the lord's prayer, no singing of hymns etc etc. We're all liberals at heart by that standard.

4: Is there any evidence that churches with women in ministerial roles are declining faster than those without? I imagine not, just rhetoric.

Must try harder.

Pt
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
3: So what denomination reqires women to be silent in church? I.e. no praying out loud, not even the lord's prayer, no singing of hymns etc etc

---

Some Brethren Churches ........ singing is not a problem ... but women do not speak by themselves. They have to wear hats too!!

Alex
 

It was posted here quite deliberately so that we could discuss this without degenerating into name-calling and also, whilst I'm pretty familiar with the Protestant arguments against it, I would be very interested in the more, I suppose, "Catholic" (in the church order sort of sense) arguments onthe other side of the church, because in a sense those are much more theologically nuanced than the usual "the Bible says" dogma that I'm used io from my experience of British Fundamentalism.

It seems to me that a false divide is being set up in order in the Catholic churches to not have to think about ordaining women.

It is false, because it contradicts the very point that the Nicene-Chalcedonian church kept banging away at: that the second person of the Trinity, tho' fully God, was also fully human. "What he did not assume, he did not save" went the old adage, to ram home the point that Jesus was fully human.

In the literature of the parts of the Church that pride themselves in their oh-so-radical anti-PC-ness, much effort is spent labouring the point that "Man" means man and woman, therefore it is an "inclusive" term.

Yet, when it comes to the theory that the priest represents Christ at the Eucharist (a very high view, I admit) it's not the "Man-ness of Jesus (in the wider sense) that is drawn upon to justify the position, but rather his "man"-ness, his malenss. Viz. "Jesus was a man, so only men can be priests".

This strikes me as a reasonably impossible position to hold - either you believe Jesus was fully "human", sharing the characteristics common to all 6billion of us, regardless of gender, and thus can be represented at the Eucharist (if representation is required at all) by any Human - alternatively you must believe that only a man can represent Jesus, suggesting that the God-Man* (*wider sense) must have an essential, ontological element of maleness in him, which therefore requires there to be a difference in the humanity of mene and women.

And the consequence of that is to say that women can't be saved!
 

You have to put things into the context of the first century, it would have been difficult for women to travel around freely with Jesus as the Apsotles did. Jesus did not call any slaves to be his Apostles probably for a similar reason, in fact the apsotles were generally middle class (e.g. small business men who owned their own fishing business that employed other, and tax collectors etc.) who could travel around with him.

Given his teaching on not withholding support from your family by saying that the money is dedicated to God I doubt that he would have called anyone with family responsibilities, so that rules out most first century palestinian women.
 

Alan
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
"A real woman," said a (male) speaker at a Forward in Faith* rally some months ago, "knows that a woman cannot be a priest."

---

Did you hear that, all you women! If you want to be priests, you can't be real women!

....

so you can be priests!

Seriously

We are a royal priesthood.

All of us.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stowaway:
Did you hear that, all you women! If you want to be priests, you can't be real women!

---

I'd rather be a priest than a 'real woman'.

I have a womb, breasts, two children whom I have breastfed. For me those are enough to confirm to me that I am a woman. Maybe at some stage I may eventual become real.

bb
 

"To me it boils down to very simple questions: does God call women to be ordained or not? Does God give the gifts of preaching and teaching to women or not?"

GH: The gifts of preaching and teaching do not maketh a priest ... a minister perhaps which ALL are called to be (in the sense of the universal priesthood of all believers). So in the Orthodox Church the PREACHER and TEACHER St. Nina was instrumental in the conversion of the Georgian court to Christ and therafter the evangelisation of Georgia .... the earliest Christian kingdom. She is called (and venerated) in the Orthodox Church as "equal-to-the-apostles." She was not a priest.
 

So, for me, it comes down to Christian tradition and that I have yet to see any argument convince me that we should overturn that.

(Doctrinally, so everyone knows where I am coming from, I am an Anglo-Catholic; at least here in the US I would be considered so. I'm not wholly sure if that word means the same over in the UK though. It's not a matter of "style of service" as it is my theology, i.e. not "High Church" with emphasis on candles so much as doctrines... pretty much taking C.S. Lewis as my modern teacher with a dash of Chesterton would be a good way of summing up)
 

P

( LOL @ f***ing Man Utd )
 

The only arguements against ordination of women that hold any water for me are the point of tradition put forward above and in the Anglican communion the effect on unity within the communion and the major set back to progress in relationships with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches which I value greatly.

Tradition does however evolve and I cannot oppose the movement towards the ordination of women but I don't think the time was quite right in the Anglican communion. It is not an issue that I am confronted with personally because in our diocese ordained women are not licensed to practise.
 

However, just to point out that the terms of the debate can (as ever) be skewed by the way in which it is framed. e.g. CAN women be priests? What about the question SHOULD women be priests? And the point Dyfrig raises about the doctrine of the priest being in "persona Christi" - well, I suppose in a general sense there is something in that, but is the priest not also leading or representing the people before God? It seems to me that ALL these questions - and many, many more - need to be examined.

Speaking as an Anglican now (sorry, but it has to be confessed at some stage), I have been upset by the poverty of the arguments used in this debate in my own Church. If there truly may be an underlying difference (see the thread started by Fr. Gregory) should we not understand what those differences may or may not be first? Right now so much seems to hinge on "civil rights" and "equal opportunities" language. What "rights" exactly do we have before God?

Lest this be misconstrued, I have argued since well before the priesting of women in the CofE that this was a subject that must be grasped seriously. I remain a possibilist, despite the depressing lack of answers to most of these questions.

Just one final point - I know Dyfrig's title to this thread is intended to be taken light-heartedly, but I distinctly remember there was one canon of one of the great Councils (Nicaea?) that addresses the issue of eunuchs in the priesthood. I seem to recall that the fathers thought it was OK if you had been snipped involuntarily, but that voluntary castration barred you from the priesthood. If so, they clearly thought that genitalia were unimportant, but perhaps a manifestation of something else. What?

All questions today I'm afraid.

Ian
 

From all accounts the Anglican Church in the Diocese of Sydney would come very close to this view. The proposals made by its Synod for lay presidency would mean that anyone, ordained or not, would be able to preside at Holy Communion providing that he had a viable set of male gonads. If not, wear a hat and keep stumm.
 

Fair comment - but let's start even more basic than that: should anyone be priested, and if so, why?

Is the priest not also leading or representing the people before God?

Again, a valid point - so who should represent a group of people before God?

Speaking as an Anglican now (sorry, but it has to be confessed at some stage),

You have my sincerest sympathies.

Right now so much seems to hinge on "civil rights" and "equal opportunities" language. What "rights" exactly do we have before God?

But this is not new - Paul propounded his apostleship on the basis that he had the right given to him by God. And the question of the "right" to serve God is as much one that men have to answer as women. There is no male and female in Christ - period. To apply one standard to women and another to men needs a basis in sound reflection, the various traditions, theology, reason and the teachings of Christ.

All questions today I'm afraid.

You just can't get the staff these days.
 

quote:

---

: The gifts of preaching and teaching do not maketh a priest ... a minister perhaps which
ALL are called to be (in the sense of the universal priesthood of all believers).

---

coming from a methodist background, i find this impossible to understand. what, exactly, do you hold the difference to be between a minister and a priest? far as i've ever been able to tell, its a difference in name only.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
father greg said:

coming from a methodist background, i find this impossible to understand. what, exactly, do you hold the difference to be between a minister and a priest? far as i've ever been able to tell, its a difference in name only.

---

Which is why I think it is not yet the time for the Anglican and Methodist churches to consider re-unification as we have different understanding as to the priestly role of ordained ministers.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stowaway:

We are a royal priesthood.

All of us.

---

We are a royal Priesthood, and we were chosen before the foundation of the world. It is corporate, not individual, and refers to the church. Therefore the Church ordains Priests to represent our collective Priesthood.

The main argument that I see from a catholic point of view is this;

"Women cannot represent Christ"

I find this highly suspect theologically, because I refuse to believe that the risen Christ is Male or Female.

I like Manx am an Anglo-Catholic very much in favor of woman Priests, and many of the best Anglo-Catholic priests I know are in women
 

quote:

---

Which is why I think it is not yet the time for the Anglican and Methodist churches to
consider re-unification as we have different understanding as to the priestly role of ordained
ministers.

---

well manx, instead of being snide and dismissive, you might try answering my question.
 

QUOTE: "I find this highly suspect theologically, because I refuse to believe that the risen Christ is Male or Female."

So, when the Risen Christ appeared to St. Thomas and asked him to touch the wounds s/he was androgynous yes? Will that be with or without breasts please?

Then of course we have the old neo-Nestorian schizo-christ ... a new variation indeed!

Dear Nicole

The difference between minister and priest? As a Catholic or Orthodox Christian understands it the difference lies in the sacramental representation of Christ as High Priest, (although, technically, pace St. Ignatius of Antioch this is, strictly, the bishop).

This is a sacrificial reference in relation to the Eucharist, NOT that the priest sacrifices Christ afresh but that he is the vehicle for the once for all offering of Christ of Himself to the people re-presented in each celebration and sealed in the reception of Holy Communion. In the Protestant Churches, ministers (lay or ordained) do not have this persona or function.

I am not going to get into the iconic argument here concerning women and the priesthood. My aim, simply, is to distinguish minister and priest according to our understanding. (I say "our" but actually most Protestant Christians used to make these distinctions. Insofar as many now do not, this reveals the deference with which many Catholics (not Orthodox) have articulated these things, (or, usually, not), so as to not offend. The impression has been given, therefore, (wrongly), that there is no distinction to be made.
 

Derrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!
 

If the greatests saints were OK with this for centuries upon centuries, then I am at least a tad uncomfortable gainsaying them in a matter as serious as this. It's not a question about science or technology, but on whether in spiritual matters I trust the people who told us about Jesus in the first place. I'm also not saying (have not yet been convinced of this either as many arguments seem to me to be knee-jerk from the other side) that a woman could not be a priest -- I am simply unconvinced that the women in question are in fact priests. I might be convinced someday; it would make things easier in some ways for me, but I must not let myself be convinced for the wrong reasons.

And the question is also a valid one: Even if women should not be ordained as priests, are the ones who have been in fact priests anyway whether anyone likes it or not? I.e., once the bishop has laid hands on them, mistake or not, has the mystical transformation taken effect? Can and should are two different things.

And yes, for me, this has nothing to do with women being excellent teachers, preachers, or saints for that matter -- and everything to do with the sacramental nature of the priesthood. Many male priests and even bishops will be, I am sorry to say I believe, in Hell in the end; many who have been ordained, I believe truly so, have been apostate or worse, or even preach horribly false doctrines from the pulpit or higher. I have also known at least one very faithful woman who has done many good, even seems to have gifts of healing, and while I am not convinced of her priesthood, I am most definitely convinced of her ministry.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It's not a question about science or technology, but on whether in spiritual matters I trust the people who told us about Jesus in the first place.

---

The people who gave witness to the risen Christ in the first place were women. Paul speaks of women as co-workers. I know Fr. Greg will be all over this as the usual Protestant desire to freeze Christianity at the early-church development, but I don't buy the tradition argument for this one, for one simple reason. The churches that perpetuated this tradition over centuries also supported the mis-treatment and subjugation of women over these same centuries. I don't trust them.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
manx taffy quoted my post and then said:

well manx, instead of being snide and dismissive, you might try answering my question.

---

Nicole - yes sorry
re-reading my reply is does come across like that. I was rushing to leave work.

I did not mean to be dismissive but I must admit I was taken aback. Given time I would have clumsily described the difference as Fr Gregory so accurately described them.

I also did not mean to be snide. I would love to see more church unity but I think if fundamental differences such as our view on the role of ordained ministers are brushed under the carpet then this will lead infact to old wounds being re-opened wide again under a veil of unity. Better to accept our differences and concentrate on those areas where we can have unity such as non-sacremental worship and social action.

Sorry again.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stowaway:
We are a royal priesthood.

All of us.

---

Yet, the Church has never been very good at this concept - parts of Orthodoxy have regarded monasticism as Christianity par excellence (thankfully Symoen the New Theologian told people where to get off on that one); there has always been this "prists and other ministers are better than the rest" attitude. Even the second collect for Good Friday in the BCP has the implied suggestion that the Church is actually those in formal vocations and ministry.

Pagan flower - as they were all men, the washing up after the Last Supper is still lying there in a pile. They were going to eat the leftovers for breakfast on the Friday morning, but never got round to it. Their mum is coming around later to sort them out. (interestingly, the gnostic Gospel of Simon the Zealot has James the brother of John sneaking a last swig from a beer can as they leave, only to find out that someone (Jude or Thaddaeus probably) had stuck a fag but into it. Eugh.
 

quote:

---

3. Paul was vehement in his opposition to females teaching doctrine: "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak...for it is shameful for women to speak in church" (I Cor. 14.34). Also, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man but to be in silence" (I Timothy 2.11).

---

But don’t you have to put that in context?! At the time of writing I Cor 14:34, many women would not be used to being at the Temple or being spoken to about matters of faith. A popular proverb at the time was, “Better the Torah be burnt than given to a woman”. So many women wouldn’t have a clue what was going on and would ask the person next to them – causing a disruption. What Paul’s basically saying is that “If you’re not sure what’s going on then wait until you get home or to the end of the service” before asking your questions!!!!!

And 1 Tim 2.11 needs to be put into a similar context. If you read between the lines of the Bible, there were many women in the Church who were householders and did have authority – such as Pheobe the Deacon etc. But these were the exception rather than the rule. Again, Paul is saying that as a rule of thumb, if you have two candidates for the same job and one is a man and one is a woman, then unless you know the woman very well, then the job should be given to the man. This is because you could assume that the man would have a basic level of education and understanding which you couldn’t assume for the woman unless she was known … The Early Church would have withered and died without the support and leadership of powerful, educated women.

These writings need to be put into the context of Jesus’ treatment of women – he valued them, encouraged them to use their gifts for service and servant-hood etc. The Reserection [can’t spell today!] was first revealed to a woman – in a time when a woman’s word was worthless. I suspect that he would be horrified by some of the institutionalised sexism within the church. When I was a newbie Christian I was informed [quite seriously] by one of the church elders that “men were made to manage and women were made to make the tea”. This in a denomination that has permitted the ordination of women since 1921! He seemed completely oblivious to the fact that women were managing the day to day life of the church – they just weren’t preaching! The secretary, the Sunday school teachers and youth leaders, the catering people, the music leader and several band members, a few deacons, some missionaries etc – were all women and if they stopped managing and making the tea then the Church would have ground to a halt in a few days! Every so often I feel extremely evil and wish that we women would down tools in the Church for a week or so. That would show ‘em.

God pours out his blessings and gifts on men and women and commands us to exercise them in the appropriate context! To tell someone that they can’t exercise a God given gift because of their sex is just pants! [But the appropriate context thing also kicks in as it would be inappropriate for a woman to exercise the gift of priesthood in an Anglo Catholic church due to their specific beliefs about communion and the role of the priest as representing Christ]

Tubbs
 

My statement about the priesthood of all believers is not so much refuted as dismissed with "we accept that but we ordain priests anyway". And I can't appeal to the Bible because you (or some of you) accept the Bible plus tradition, which is a circular argument. "We do it this way because we always do it this way. The fact that the NT has pretty clear statements about priesthood is ignored.

Gregory's statements here are interesting. The possesion and use of gifts does not constitute priesthood, he seems to say, whereas it certainly does in the sense of the believer's priesthood. Interestingly, the example he uses is of teacher, thereby weakening the use of Paul as a subsidiary argument against women priests. (The primary argument being the representation of Christ at the altar)

The biblical church leader office of elder does not seem to be what you are talking about either. This is more of an administrative role with mundane skills.

So the high church priestly role is one of representing Christ at an altar in the breaking of bread (or whatever you want to call it). Leaving aside the fact that to identify a single person in the congregation to represent Christ is an insult to the body of Christ, it is clear that you would need someone who most clearly is able to represent Christ.

A Jewish man in his early thirties.

Who would you choose if you had the choice of:

A middle-eastern woman in her early thirties.
An old caucasian man.

It's a bit like, who gets to play Santa Claus!

Unless, of course, it isn't, and the argument is really there to mask an uglier agenda.

If this is all about representing Christ, then we need the whole church up there.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:

I have a womb, breasts, two children whom I have breastfed. For me those are enough to confirm to me that I am a woman.
bb

---

I have the womb and the breasts, but haven't used either of them in the bearing or feeding of children. Does this make me less of woman?

I'm sure you didn't mean that, bb.

BarbaraG
 

Somebody said before about if there aren't any men maybe then it's OK to have women - what does this say about the failure of God's provision - like when Deborah was chosen as a Judge, there was not ONE faithful man in the whole nation of Israel?

In all this discussion of the importance of who presides over communion, isn't it worth bearing in mind that other than when Jesus first gave bread and wine saying "Do this in remembrance of me" (ie. eat the bread and drink the wine - no mention of how and who by it is to be served), the Bible never tells us who actually administered communion, only who shared in taking it (and who should not take it, etc etc).

Is it the bread and the wine that's important (and what that commemorates), or the person standing at the altar?

Ian
 

quote:

---

So this is really a niche debate for high churches isn't it?

---

High Church Anglicans have specific beliefs about the role of the Priest as representing Christ in Communion – yes! And although I may disagree with them, I feel it’s important to respect them. So if I ever got a call to ministry [please God nooooooooooooooo! ] then I wouldn’t expect to exercise it there.

Tubbs
 

quote:

---

So this is really a niche debate for high churches isn't it?

---

The word "priest" in English is derived from the the old French "Prestre", which ultimately comes from the Greek "Presbyteros". Usually translated as elder, this word also means "senior, advanced in years, father..." according to my koine Greek lexicon. Peter's reference to "the priesthood of all believers" (1 Pe 2) does not refer to presbyteroi but to hierateuma. We have no word for sacrificing "priests" in English - although the word persists in derivatives like "Hieratic" - so we use "priest" instead, to much confusion, especially here when we are claiming some sort of common typology.

"The priesthood of all believers" is a Jewish concept related to the passover sacrifice. As every household was obliged to sacrifice on the same occasion, the act was delegated to the head of the household, who returned from the temple with the animal for the passover supper. The entire family participated and were dressed similarly for the occasion - this was the "priesthood of all believers". The head of the household would start the family liturgy of remembrance with the words "Why is this night, of all nights..." - note the present tense. His job was to "represent" (=re-present) the original occasion in the present, so that the entire family could "re-member" it. It was as real as the original exodus.

Please re-read 1 Peter 2. You will see that the entire imagery relates to the temple and to sacrifice, whose meaning has now been burst open for us in Jesus. But it only has meaning in this context. It never ceases to amaze me how often this phrase is trotted out by those who go on to deny any sort of sacrificial meaning to the eucharist. The whole purpose of a hierateuma was to offer sacrifices.

You also wrote -

quote:

---

If this is all about representing Christ, then we need the whole church up there.

---

Speaking frankly, if you are to ignore the OT typological implications and make it mean anything you want it to mean, then I doubt if much further debate is possible. If you think a minister is someone else (we are all called to minister) then I'm not surprised that disagreements about this subject will never be settled. In fact I sympathise in a way - any attempt to inhibit the ministry of women is sinful.

Ian
 

So, priest is really New Testament elder is it? And it is the believer's priesthood that is of the Old Testament sacrificial type?

Thank you and good night.

I don't think much of the priesthood of all believers being only the heads of the fathers' households.

I thought that the point of a sacrament was to embody a spiritual truth. To have a guy at the front say something, and the people say "amen" is not a good dramatic representation of the priesthood of all believers. It says the opposite.

Which is probably the answer to your question

quote:

---

Why do you think it is so frequently said that the most important word in the eucharistic liturgy is the amen at the end of the main eucharistic prayer?

---

And, to get back to the point, there were woman elders in the early church, weren't there?
 

One of the most amazing thing that St Paul did say was "Let the women learn". Education open to women as well as men???? On an equal basis???? Subversive or what? What would people have thought?

Only certain of us with a particular agenda focus on the next few words: "in silence and submission". Maybe that was the model of learning which was practiced at the time.

St Paul was a man of his time. He couldn't imagine things which hadn't yet been invented.

He had never seen a motor car and it would be folly for us to try to work out a transport policy by seeing what the bible has to say about horses and chariots.

The modern woman, with access to education, contraception, money, employment and the vote is unknown to the bible writers and completely outside what they could imagine.

They have no more to say about the role of a woman in 21st century than they do about the role of the motor car in the 21st century.

Pt

P.S. I suppose I could have said all that in 2 words: "Please contextualise".
 

neither have you, father greg.

let me put it another way.

what does a priest do that my minister does not?

certainly my minister administers the sacrements. so whats your point? wheres the difference?
 

quote:

---

So, priest is really New Testament elder is it?

---

Also -

quote:

---

I don't think much of the priesthood of all believers being only the heads of the fathers' households.

---

Likewise you wrote -

quote:

---

And it is the believer's priesthood that is of the Old Testament sacrificial type?

---

quote:

---

To have a guy at the front say something, and the people say "amen" is not a good dramatic representation of the priesthood of all believers. It says the opposite.

---

quote:

---

And, to get back to the point, there were woman elders in the early church, weren't there?

---

Let me go back to an earlier posting of yours, where you said -

quote:

---

It's a bit like, who gets to play Santa Claus!

Unless, of course, it isn't, and the argument is really there to mask an uglier agenda.

---

Two choices offered. The correct answer being, perhaps c), neither of the above. But never mind that for now. What is this "uglier agenda" that all who have the temerity to disagree with you are constrained to be following? Perhaps you might care to share with us your own agenda - then we can discuss how ugly that might be by comparison. I was under the impression that purgatory was for the debate of these points. If you wish to disagree with me on any posting, fine - state your reasons, adducing whatever support you see fit. But your last post failed signally to do that. I was trying to give some reasons as to why this Christian, at least, agreed with another poster who pointed out why we do believe in the priesthood of all believers, and how that is not a problem for us, as you seem to think it ought to be.

If these matters are relevant then perhaps they might point us towards an answer. I don't claim to know that answer (see an earlier posting of mine). We need debate, not just assertions.

Ian
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Metcalfe:
Somebody said before about if there aren't any men maybe then it's OK to have women - what does this say about the failure of God's provision - like when Deborah was chosen as a Judge, there was not ONE faithful man in the whole nation of Israel?

---

I have been very interested in the story of Deborah for years and have wondered how she came to be a Judge.

I have never heard that at that time there was not ONE faithful man in the whole of Israel. What is your source for this? It's not in the chapter of Judges that tells about Deborah.

Moo
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The people who gave witness to the risen Christ in the first place were women. Paul speaks of women as co-workers. I know Fr. Greg will be all over this as the usual Protestant desire to freeze Christianity at the early-church development, but I don't buy the tradition argument for this one, for one simple reason. The churches that perpetuated this tradition over centuries also supported the mis-treatment and subjugation of women over these same centuries. I don't trust them.

---

This does not at all mean that I think that sincere believers in other churches are not "real" Christians, or even that God cannot bless them in any number of ways, but I wanted to make my position clear: It's not just about the nature of women, it's about the nature of the priesthood as we in the Catholic churches understand the concept. It has more to do with the nature of Sacrament (one must have bread or wine to consecrate Communion, one must have water for Baptism, and as I understand it one must have a man for Holy Orders) than the nature of ministry -- to which we are all called.

And as I said, if someone has an argument which convinces me, then I'm prepared to hear it -- but thus far all of the ones I have heard -- thus far -- have been of (1) a modern political nature and/or (2) a kind which doesn't take into account Christian tradition in general; I cannot at all believe that our greatest saints -- for two thousand years -- have been consistently and horribly wrong on such a matter as this, not a technological or scientific matter but a moral one. It is not as if the Pope, the Eastern Patriarch, and the Archbishop of Canterbury all received visions telling them that "a new era has dawned and thou shalt ordain women to the priesthood; it was right to withhold this in the past, but now the corner has been turned." It seems to me more that, in a highly political era of gender study, much of which is not particularly Christian in its philosophical assumptions, people are often treating ordination to the priesthood as if it were a legal right, in the same way as considering women for any other part of the "work force." But for people like me, it is not at all the same kind of thing as getting a job in an office or even in the military; it has to do with everything from masculine and feminine symbolism, which for many of us is not at all merely a function of human society, but grand poles on a metaphysical level -- that being men and women has much more to it than physical "plumbing" and even has spiritual ramifications, though we do not understand all of them (and probably won't here on Earth no matter how long we try). We see God as masculine and creation (including all men and women) as feminine; Christ as Bridegroom and Church as Bride. There is much more to it than this, but in some ways I freely admit -- even proclaim -- that my view of this philosophically has more in common with the ancient Pagans (Sky-Father, Earth-Mother) than with many modern non-sacramentalist Christians. (But then for me, believing that Jesus' death was a mystical sacrifice -- the deepest magic we know of -- puts me more in tune with ancient Jews and Pagans than it does with some modern bishops in my own church (Episcopal in USA) who aren't even convinced He rose again from the dead.)

Yes, I suppose this makes me look like a rude barbarian from some lost tribe. But then I participate in ritual cannibalism every week as part of my religion, and am quite up front about my view of its being that -- or rather that it is the Reality behind fallen human impulses toward same... Macrocosm and microcosm, etc.

The previous, which with bits of humour at times, was all quite serious. Yes, I am very strange...

David
 

Of course, people come back at me then and say "shouldn't you be Jewish and circumcised?" Of course not! But my interrogators have a view of gender and sexuality as a mere adornment, a human institution almost ... not the definitive (and differing) ways of being human. (See my thread on "plumbing")
 

quote:

---

The
distinction Orthodox and Catholics make between (say) minister
and priest has to do with the the clergyperson's (yuk word!)
persona and relationship to the eucharistic sacrifice ...

---

well, what does it have to do with the clergypersons persona? what exactly are you saying here? what relationship does a priest have that a minister does not have? are you talking about transubstantiation? or what?

i honestly don't think your trying to be evasive, i think we have some miscommunication problem, but your confusing me more than ever.

you have said that a woman can be a minister but not a priest. what exactly does a priest do that a minister doesn't that a woman can't do?
 

Tubbs

Back on Monday ....!
 

quote:

---

[But the appropriate context thing also kicks in as it would be inappropriate for a woman to exercise the gift of priesthood in an Anglo Catholic church due to their specific beliefs about communion and the role of the priest as representing Christ]

---

The real question is should there be any priests?

My recollection of the book of Hebrews throws significant doubt on the practices of the Catholic and Anglo-Catholic communions in this respect. My understanding is that the priestly office is abolished by Christ's once for all sacrifice.

So the question as to whether women should be priests does not arise, men should not be priests either.
 

Forget the scottish bit. I am a yorkshire lad and have not set foot in any of the large denominations since moving north of the border ten years ago. Assume I know the bible and have visited most types of denomination. I know little high church theology, but have spent enough time in high church to have a sense of the psychological dynamic.

Therefore I am taking my definitions from the Bible, which does not speak of elder (single) in relation to church and does not isolate the breaking of bread as a boss-man function. Instead it happened from house to house (acts) and with a lot of congregational initiative (corinthians).

I see what you meant about the priesthood of all believers. However, it seems that you have levels of priests (a heirarchy): the priest initiator and the priest spectator.

OK, I am happy about the sacrifice type, though you could have mentioned the sacrifice of praise - equivalent perhaps to the wave offering. Except that I can see why you could not mention it - because it is up to the whole church to offer that sacrifice.

quote:

---

You'll need to unpack your reasoning on that one a bit more - if we are in agreement, is it not fitting that someone leads us and that we signal our willing assent?

---

Well, let's say that you wanted to do a play about community. You would not present a picture of people locked in individual cells. The sacramental sharing of bread and wine portays a very strong subtext. The priest "has it", he is the lonely "set apart" source who is a conduit of the grace released in communion. He is the giver. The congregation receive.

The point about servant leadership is welcome, but a bit like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Priesthood is a power relationship because the weekly (daily) drama proves it. This criticism also applies to those churches that elevate the pulpit.

quote:

---

I doubt that you are pointing towards some anarchistic free-for-all

---

But I didn't think we were talking about directional leadership here.

I thought we were talking about administering the eucharist.

Which is it?

And I suppose this is what I mean by something uglier. A line of argument is proposed, regarding the need to have a man to represent Christ at the Lord's supper. And the next minute we have slipped to who can run the church.

quote:

---

I don't understand what you are proposing.

---

quote:

---

I was under the impression that purgatory was for the debate of these points ... all who have the temerity to disagree with you

---

quote:

---

We need debate, not just assertions

---

Christian Thinktank - women in the early church

was mentioned in the last thread on women's ministry (by Steve, I think). Summary - there is evidence of female elders, deacons, bishops e.t.c. Please read.

See, I had to do all the work in the end anyway.
 

I'm sorry about the theological short hand but I didn't realise that you didn't know that the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches have different experiences of and beliefs concerning the Eucharist and this affects how each church understands the role and personhood of its ministers, priests, whatever.

I include personhood because what you are as a priest is just as important in our traditions as what you do, (which anyone can learn and execute as a mere task).

I'm not talking about transubstantiation.

When I refer to the iconic argument I do not mean the kind of representation of Christ that an ambassador might fulfil for the Queen, (a well know misunderstanding of this by Geoffrey Lampe). In this understanding of representation, the sex of the ambassador need bear no relationship to the sex of the monarch.

In the Catholic and Orthodox churches the priest stands-for-Christ in the celebration by way of participation in what Christ does through him. This participation requires congruence in those deep things of our humanity of which sex / gender is an example and Jewishness or circumcision is not.

That is why there is a male priesthood in these churches but a male and female ministry. You don't need to distinguish the terms (which are only words). We do.

It is not a matter of the person who preaches or teaches or leads, (no headship here). In our traditions this (teaching / preaching / leading) is not exhaustive or exclusive or definitive of what a priest is about. Being the icon of Christ at the Eucharist is what the priest is about. There is a lot more to it than that but that's the centre.

Of course, if someone does thing that gender or sexuality is a deep issue then this will make no sense at all .... which is why I started the other thread on "plumbing!"

Those who question whether we should have priests at all had better be consistent. You need (if this is the case) to ask whether we should have prophets or leaders either. Remember that Christ is priest, prophet and king. The Reformation never had much problem accepting that God had shared the last two minstries ... just the first one! (.... unless that is you're a Quaker).
 

"Of course, if someone does NOT THINK that gender or sexuality is a deep issue then this will make no sense at all .... which is why I started the other thread on "plumbing!"
 

Very interesting, the last few posts. If the priesthood is not about power or leading it would certainly be less oppressive than some models (RC springs to mind). I confess my ignorance about your power setup. Are women really in positions of authority? Do you permit a woman to preach? Does the average orthodox woman feel oppressed. I suspect that even if the answers to both my previous questions is "yes", they would still be second class.

I like your logic about leadership (or at least kingship). Leader is an unbiblical term. It gathers together too many elements (The visionary, the decision maker, the organiser, the example, the exhorter).

Prophet as an office is the same. However, if you believe in guidance by gifting, the priesthood of all, and the distrubution of prophetic gifts as per the Bible, there's no problem.

Maybe you are right. It's Orthodox v Quakers. Either the church has developed as Christ wanted, or it has simply reintroduced practices fulfilled by the New Covenant.

If forced, I would go with the Quakers.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
That’s not what I said …

High Church Anglicans have specific beliefs about the role of the Priest as representing Christ in Communion – yes! And although I may disagree with them, I feel it’s important to respect them. So if I ever got a call to ministry [please God nooooooooooooooo! ] then I wouldn’t expect to exercise it there.

---

Erm, what about all the woman anglo catholic priests? I dislike this blanket "all high church anglicans are anti woman priests" just because of Forward if Faith. It's like saying "All evangelicals are against women Priests" because of Reform.
 

Quote:-

"Are women really in positions of authority? Do you permit a woman to preach? Does the average orthodox woman feel oppressed."

Yes, Yes, No.

No. 1 ... this has always been the case ... women Orthodox theologians, monastic superiors and evangelists have always existed and had authority over men .... even bishops in the case of monastics.

No. 2 ... admittedly this is rare but there is nothing in Orthodox theology or practice that forbids it in principle. Certainly there have been women preachers ... Sts. Mary Magdalene, Nina, Elizabeth the New Martyr (for a more up to date example).

No. 3 ... ask my wife!
 

Ian
 

quote:

---

But I didn't think we were talking about directional leadership here.
I thought we were talking about administering the eucharist.
Which is it?

---

Where we go wrong is in separating the two - the roles of pastor (a better term than 'directional leader') and leader of worship. The eucharist, at least in the catholic traditions, is the focal gathering of the people of God (how's that for a new bit of jargon? ) and so the one who presides is not just performing a functional task that anyone could do (like handing out hymn-books) but gathering together, in the name of Christ, the people of God. That is a pastoral task and hence the two functions should be linked in my opinion. Which is why I see - from a catholic perspective - every reason why women who - it is admitted on all sides - fulfil a pastoral role and do it very well - shouldn't be admitted to the priesthood.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
Erm, what about all the woman anglo catholic priests? I dislike this blanket "all high church anglicans are anti woman priests" just because of Forward if Faith. It's like saying "All evangelicals are against women Priests" because of Reform.

---

In the C of E, the opponents come from two small opposite and extreme wings of Evangelicalism and High-churchism. Most people are in favour, and they are a growing majority.

Generally even the most stalwart opponents of the principle of women priests gradually mellow if they have any contact with actual women priests. Hence the ostrich mentality of F in F.

Theology is influenced by experience.

Can anyone imagine a person born in this century growing up to think that women can't be priests? Let's get real folks.
 

it is part of this stretching the C of E goes through that trinity theological college in bristol trains christian ministers, most of whom go on to be ordained deacon and priest ( and because of the blind spots in their training have no idea what it means to be a priest as opposed to a minister), go look at their web site.

sigh it points to a difference in theological approach that is fairly obvious and for you to suggest that their isnt a difference is either niave or silly.

P
 

I think we have to be clear here - all traditions have differences on the issue of women in the priesthood. It's not an issue of labels - the only group that could possibly deemed to be unanimous on it within, say, the CofE, are that amorphous centre-less blob called "Liberals".

Anglo-Catholicism is not uniform on this - cp. the difference between FiF and Affirming Catholicism. On my first visit to my Anglo-Catholic Parish Church I was preched at by a woman, deaconed to by another woman, and had a woman as my representative presiding at the Eucharist.

Evangelicals are split on this issue - you have the likes of REFORM, who on the one hand despise most AC-ism, but have entered into a marriage of convenience with them on this point. It should be noted that it was the 2-1 split within the Evangelical constituency in favour of women that swung the '92 vote.

Roman Catholicism has its voices - Dr Lavinia Byrne being a notable one. And Elisabeth Behr-Sigel has written on this subject from an Orthodox point of view (I understand - from Kallistos Ware's [see the MW report on the Orthodox service in Oxford] "The Orthodox Church" that the last Patriarch of Alexandria had floated the idea as well).

However, the two "sides" - Catholic and Evangelical - argue from different positions. The Evangelical attitude is based on reading Paul as applicable today. The Catholic/Orthodox teaching, however, is more theologically nuanced - and Gregory summarises it as follows:

This participation requires congruence in those deep things of our humanity of which sex / gender is an example and Jewishness or circumcision is not.

That is why there is a male priesthood in these churches but a male and female ministry

I refer to my long and tedious post on the "plumbing" thread as to my view of this argument. Suffice it to say here that this approach requires a reading of the Nicene phrase, "he came down from heaven and was made man" as emphasising being made "a man" rather than "human".
 

quote:

---

The congregations of naughty men have sought after my soul

---

Wey hey! Lead me to 'em!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
Wey hey! Lead me to 'em!

---

Shame on you, Ms Ashton! How dare mock the great words of Coverdale! When we consider what he has achieved - giving us the English Psalter AND have a successful second career in Deep Purple, with whom he had such hits as --.....Oh hang, that's David Coverdale, isn't it? Doh!
 

ROFLMAO
 

Speaking as a former "Anglican clergyman" let me assure you that a great section of the CofE simply tolerates the use of "President" in Common Worship (from its precursor the ASB). The eucharistic theology of the "meeting chairperson" is a dated 80's thing and not catholic eucharistic theology at all. In you tradition "minister" and "priest" may be synonymous but in others they are not.

To the Catholic Anglican layman who wants to know the difference between himself and a priest ... as to sin, no difference. As to role as a Christian minister (both of you) the priest is charged with a charism and an office that have not (as yet) been recognised in yourself. You undoubtedly will have charisms and offices which he has not as well. Together you make a great team ... the body of Christ.
 

Since neither of these are New Testament terms, can anyone give me a statement on how these terms are supposed to relate to elder, overseer, deacon and pastor (apostle, prophet and evangelist too if you want)?

Also, can anyone give me a New Testament explanation for this? Since priest in the New Testament only refers to the whole church, how is priest so unique in these churches?
 

also i have no wish to divert this thread away from is discussion on "bits that do or dont make a difference" , is anyone is serious about discussinf the priest/minister thing than start a thread. but PLEASE dont us the " its not in the bible so it cant be right " argument . that is niave, silly and boring ALL at the same time. perhaps we should start a thread of "things not in the bible that we chriatians use every day" the list is endless and most have helped us get on with loving God.

P
 

As a woman, the last 20 years of my life have been spent pastoring! Family, school, even groups at Uni who naturally sort of fell into place under me.(!) It seems to me that relationally women are well-equipped to be pastors. PLUS they don't have willies telling them what to think all the time! (Unless there are some on the PCC of course...)

Hey Father G - there's one for the other thread - women tend to relate better. Is that admissible?
 

I should point out here, at the risk of offending my more Protestant brethren, that from my point of view the clergy of all non-Catholic (in this sense) Christian denominations are not "priests" in the sense I mean here at all, whatever their sex. (But then in the sense I mean, many of them would say, "Good!" as they'd think I'm calling them idolaters or magicians due to my view of Communion and the Sacraments in general.) We are all still brothers and sisters regardless, and I trust that Jesus will reconcile us all in the end later -- I'm just pointing this out because for me the issue is not whether a woman can do what a Baptist minister does -- it has to do with things Baptist ministers do not do at all (for them, the bread and wine/juice are only symbolic and such). It's whether she can be truly consecrated priest.

David
Probably looking loonier/more schismatic than ever now
 

PLEASE dont us the " its not in the bible so it cant be right " argument . that is niave, silly and boring ALL at the same time

I have already had to give Gregory a smack for this line of arguing (see Councils thread). Just because you find something desperately dull doesn't make it right or wrong. Our entertainment value to you is not a measure of truth. I would respectfully point out to you that any appeal to "Tradition" must, be defintion, take the Scriptural part of that Tradition deadly seriously, as it's as much part of that organic process as anything else.

Now, you have a choice. Either:

(a) justify your threefold condemnation of a significant section of the readership of this board, with quotations and illustrations of why the written testimony of Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, and the Evangelists should not be appealed to in this discussion (and we shall say no more about it) or

(b) I shall have to put you over my knee.
 

Bishops were really in hose days considered to be the first amongst equals since they were the overseers of the Elders nad generally elected from among the priests. so to me it is totally illogical to have female priests (presbyters) but not Bishops.

Cyprian started to tie OT theology of priesthood into presbyters (church eldership)and then being people of a different order and sacred in some way It fitted in very nicely with his theology of the eucharist.

He introduced the idea of the Bishop standing in the place of christ at the eucharist which later developed as the Priest (presbyter) standing in the place of the Bishop.

Why did he do this? partly because he was attempting to increase the authority of Bishops against heresy (isn't power the source of so many bad things)and to to avoid his presbyters being conscripted into the wars so he created a theology saying they were set aside and special and hence not eligible to being in the wars.

In the BCP minister and priest are considered to mean the same thing as is Presbyter and Priest in the ASB so to be in the anglican tradition to say they mean something different is at least odd.

I am not saying the modern doctrine of Priesthood is wrong simply that its origin is a tleast murky.
 

its in the bible but we ignore, slavery , women being silent, dress code , usery.

it aint in the bible but we use it, the trinity, the creeds ,the doctrines of the fall , redemtion and justification by faith.

resorting to this argument is often a bullying tactic, or an evading one. one claiming the unisalable high ground of supposed biblical authority and the other a un-thought out throw away to shut up someone who is annoying them.

the term priest is not found in the NT but we have had priests for 17 centuries ! also we know that the word was derived form the word presbyter which is in the NT. its silly.

the discussion should be about difference in roles between priest and minister , percieved and actual.

P
 

If you look at URL=http://www.cired.org/faith/priest.html]this Assyrian Orthodox Church site[/URL] (the crowd gasps as Lewis finally manages to conquer URL links) you'll find an interesting and quite lucid explanation of why a "priest" is needed.

However, it doesn't explore the issue of why that priest has to be a man.
 

Try again:

this Assyrian Orthodox Church site
 

But from a very subjective point of view - if God has a problem with women priests, he should stop calling us. Or does someone think this was all my idea? Because trust me, the cost of answering this call has been just about everything I had.

You can argue theology all you like. Me, I'm going to do that which is given me to do, and be what I am called by God to be. And as long as I'm following him, I can cope with everyone else arguing about the theory.
 

quote:

---

Erm, what about all the woman anglo catholic priests? I dislike this blanket "all high church anglicans are anti woman priests" just because of Forward if Faith. It's like saying "All evangelicals are against women Priests" because of Reform.

---

Of the High Anglican Churches in walking distance from my house [about three!] all of them oppose women priests. When I asked one of the wardens why I was told it was because of their beliefs about communion. Given that these are my only encounters with HC I've assumed they're typical - sorry! When I was CofE I was low church

Tubbs
 

quote:

---

In the Catholic and Orthodox churches the priest stands-for-Christ
in the celebration by way of participation in what Christ does
through him. This participation requires congruence in those deep
things of our humanity of which sex / gender is an example and
Jewishness or circumcision is not.

---

um, why? thats to say, why is sex/gender a bar to this relationship? i admit that there are some differences between male and female, though not so many or as important as you seem to feel, but why does that preclude this relationship?

i guess what i'm really asking is, what do males have that females don't that makes them fit to be preiests, from your point of view, and females not?

it seems like your arguing in circles. women can't be preiests because they are female, because females can't be preiests because they aren't male. but whats the reason? what is this essence of maleness that it requires to relate to god in the way a preiest does?

and if you can't define it, then why should i believe that it exists?
 

(1) God is masculine in relationship to His creation and to the Church; He is the Bridegroom and we are the Bride; He impregnates us, not we Him. Masculinity and femininity, as part of the order of the universe (and not merely in human culture, certainly not merely human constructions), exist to represent/symbolise/more? these two mystical poles of reality.

(2) The tradition of male-only priests (as well as other things) partly conveys this cosmic order on a sacramental level.

This does not prove that women should not be priests; there may be counter-arguments -- but this may be one aspect of this issue.
 

The maleness of Jesus is the issue here. Do you remember my comment about the two different kinds of representation:-

(1) Ambassador for the Queen .... the ambassador does not have to be female.
(2) Macbeth ... the role is better played by a male.

There are limitations of course in the second example .... in the Eucharist the priest does not "play" Jesus .... Jesus acts through him.

This is the essential difference between Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox eucharistic theology in relation to the priest.

The next question of course is:- "Did Jesus have to be male?" There are several possibilities:-

(1) No but according to God's plan, yes, because it was a defective culture.
(2) Yes because it was the divinely appointed culture.

Those who subscribe to (1) must admit of some limitation or constraint on the Christ event. Those who subscribe (2) insist on divine rectitude in essential matters .... the gender of Christ is not an inconsequential matter, they say.

How can we discern the right path:-

(a) Dismiss the question as irrelevant. Christ could have been male or female. He just happened to be male. Spin of the genetic coin. That, however, is essentially the same as (1) since it makes God's act mindless .... unless of course gender is completely irrelevant. It didn't seem to be completely irrelevant to Christ Himself of course as this revolutionary agent of God ... or rather God Himself would have made a better balanced choice for his disciples. So, would Jesus commit himself to something he knew to be wrong just to defer to cultural expectations? Jesus the Englishman? the arch-pragmatist? I don't think so. Hardly seems worth dying for does it?

(b) We could try and answer the question of course ... but the result is much the same if we assume that (1) it was important (2) God knew what He was doing.

Since we can assume that God did know what He was doing we are pushed to consider in what way gender might indeed be important and even determinative.

This is why the main action on this question lies on the other thread about "plumbing." I am going there now!
 

2) Those who are "Oh, so bored" with the scripture v tradition debate need to read their New Testament again and watch Jesus dismantling the traditions of the elders because THEY WERE WRONG!

Does 1700 years of tradition invalidate scripture if scripture is implacably opposed to something?
 

Women are not silent, in accord with St Paul's supposed dictums. They can sing, lead the music group, put overheads on the OH projector... Levels of forbidden-ness vary from place to place. At the Cathedral (until recently) a woman could preach, lead the prayers, and read lessons. Technically women may be ordained deacons in Sydney, which means they can technically marry people, and baptise, as well as preach or lead services of Morning or Evening prayer (or their equivalents).

They are not allowed at all to be priests.

However it does extend deeper in places where the Jensens hold most ferociously. Women there are not allowed to have any spoken part in leadership of services. Even at the Cathedral, the male clergy looked down on the women who did preach there, and the main liturgical action was performed by men.

The whole lay presidency thing was "suggested" as a "response" or "solution" to the ordination of women debate in the Diocese. "If we throw them a milksop they will go away." This comes from several misunderstandings:
1) "What those in favour of Women's Ordination want is to preside at Communion"
2) "lay presidency is a shortcut where we can say everyone can preside at the Eucharist, but then we can take away and ban all ministry of women in the Diocese"
3) "priesthood relates to an administrative function only. There is no sacramental importance to the role or title, all Christians (ie the Elect) being a priesthood, and there is nothing pertaining to the leading of services a "presbyter" does which could not be done by any other male in the congregation."

They take the authority thing of Paul very seriously - but as with many of their kind who are fundamentalist literalists, other things can be overlooked and ignored, eg head covering of women (surely an important issue if one takes everything Paul says as literal and binding on our time? How can one dismiss this as "not relevant to our time"? How is one to decide what is and is not relevant of the rest of Scripture?).

In other words, in regards to lay presidency and to women's ordination, the Diocese has missed the point entirely, probably deliberately, because lay presidency is designed to take the wind out of the sails of all who hold the "specialness of priesthood"...

now I am getting fit to start ranting in Hell. Maybe I should go vent off down there!
 

So, I want to flush out our feelings and beliefs on this one by asking a prior question. What is it really to be "man" ... to be "woman" ? I notice that this human ontology discomfits some contributors as much as much as ontology in another sphere ... christology. This is a fultural biase in Protestant cultures. We tend to ask:- "What is this for? How does it work?" ... rather than:- "What is this? What is it called to to be/become?"

I will now go a little further ...

The priest at the altar must "image" Jesus since He (Christ) is the celebrating High Priest. In Catholic/Orthodox Eucharistic theology the celebrating priest is not merely a "worship leader" or a representative of Christ in the sense that an ambassador represents the Head of State. In these last two examples the gender of the representative is incidental to He/She who is represented. In the Church, Christ acts through the priest who in ESSENTIAL matters (ie. not being Jewish or circumcised) must configure to Christ Himself.

I have tried to show that gender is an essential and not incidental aspect of our common humanity. I then went on to consider whether or not Christ could have been female. I think I showed that maleness was not incidental or accidental to the Incarnation. I then claimed that the burden of proof ... that God didn't know what He was doing or that 1st century Judaism was a defective culture for the Incarnation (by excluding women from certain functions sacred functions) or that Christ would have knowingly held back from the truth for pragmatic reasons ... this burden of proof falls on those who would ordain women to the priesthood, (and I don't mean Methodist ministers here, I mean priests).

Now, on the matter of WHY 1st century Judaism and Christ Himself did not admit women to certain sacred functions one has first to recognise that women did exercise certain ministerial functions that were to do with the Word, (analagous to Protestant conceptions of ministry ... not priesthood). So, there were women prophets (Anna), women preachers (Mary Magadalene), women religious / political leaders (Esther). In those sacred functions that have a sacramental and sacrificial quality about them though (eg. the Levitical priesthood) women were never admitted.

Now this is not just about menstruation or else post menopausal women might have been priests. It is about how in a sacramental-sacrificial system (which Protestants generally do not have) the priest images the divine action in and through him. The Jews were not blind to the fact that only God can deal with sin and the maleness of the priest that imaged this had everything to do with the fact that Israel had to be distinguished from her pagan neighbours who also had sacramental-sacrificial systems. In these, of course, fertility and not redemption was a primary theme. Not unsurprisingly this gave rise to a debased religiosity where divinity was naturalised and human sexuality divinised. Interestingly, in those sacramental-sacrificial Christian systems where the earth-feminine-mother has reasserted itself (see Rosemary Radford Ruether's "Women Church") the priesting of women (why do Christians resist the term "priestess"?) is part and parcel of a religious reconstruction in which the Universe is born out of the God-Womb or Cosmic Egg.

This radical feminist agenda literally creates a new religion where "God" is stripped of transcendence and Fox-like we equate spirituality with getting better acquainted with our sensuality (Sex 'n Dirt School).

Protestant Christians avoid this altogether by sticking to their non-sacramental non-sacrificial practice of ministry ... but this is not the same as priesthood where the Image, Presence and Action are controlling factors.

The key isue then is whether there is any virtue in the sacramental-sacrificial system? (NO! I hear all our Protestant brethren shout!) There IS because look what happens when you dump it! You get a cultus completely indifferent to gender which then conditions people to thinking of their own gender and sexuality as merely "plumbing" or an inconsequential aspect of their humanity. In arguing their case our Protestant brethren are really arguing backwards from their own conclusions. The difference with us Orthodox and Catholics is that SEX / GENDER MATTERS.

... which brings me finally to the key issue ...

in what sense(s) does sex / gender matter?

because:-

(1) As Ian has shown the only way to be human is to be man or woman
.... as to Ruth's example of chromosomal abnormalities .... exceptions make bad law.

(2) Mens' and womens' sexuality is different. It's not just a question of intercourse, it's to do with how we relate to each other.

(3) In religious symbolism the fertility component must be feminine and on the human side. To divinise it leads to idolatry and pagnism. That is why the role of Mary .... on the human side .... is so important in orthodox Christianity.

So the gentle goading about "tell us the disabling differences ... anything you can do we can do" ... misses the mark by a long way. There is nothing that a man could DO in priesthood or anything else that a woman couldn't DO as well if not better. Let's be clear about that. Arguments concerning female ordination from the Orthodox/Catholic side have nothing to do with function and everything to do with being man or woman, sexuality and imaging God as transcendent to the material realm.

I am sure that there will be a lot more to be said about this.

I have posted this on the "plumbing" thread because I have now brought these two threads together. They may or may not diverge again. I just didn't want the male / female issues to get lost (as they usually do) in equal opportunities.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

The next question of course is:- "Did Jesus have to be male?" There are several possibilities:-

(1) No but according to God's plan, yes, because it was a defective culture.
(2) Yes because it was the divinely appointed culture.

---

quote:

---

The key isue then is whether there is any virtue in the sacramental-sacrificial system? (NO! I hear all our Protestant brethren shout!) There IS because look what happens when you dump it! You get a cultus completely indifferent to gender which then conditions people to thinking of their own gender and sexuality as merely "plumbing" or an inconsequential aspect of their humanity. In arguing their case our Protestant brethren are really arguing backwards from their own conclusions. The difference with us Orthodox and Catholics is that SEX / GENDER MATTERS.

---

Excuse me!!! I would like to disagree with you on the following points:

• null
• I don't think any of the Protestants here said that there wasn't any value in the sacramental-sacrifical system. It's just our [my?] tradition doesn't put as much emphasis on it. In my church preaching and living the Word is considered more important

• I don't think any of us are indifferent to gender - it's just that I don't consider gender to be one of the limitations that should be used when working out what roles men and women should play in the church. The job should go to the candidate with the best ability - whatever their sex.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Tubbs
 

quote:

---

Which is why I see - from a catholic perspective - every reason why women who - it is admitted on all sides - fulfil a pastoral role and do it very well - shouldn't be admitted to the priesthood.

---

quote:

---

The priest at the altar must "image" Jesus since He (Christ) is the celebrating High Priest.

---

Pyx_e

oh i feel better now
 

We do not believe in a sacrificing priesthood in the way you describe it. Nothing can add to the significance of what God in Christ did for all on the Cross. We do however believe that in the Eucharist all the benefits of Calvary are re-presented to the world, (1 Corinthians 11:26). The priest images this presentation and Christ through Him does it.

Dear Amos

I made a misleading comment. I was resisting the idea of the necessity of the priest being ethnically Jewish and circumcised in order to image Jesus the Jew. The mission to the Gentiles makes of Christ the Jew something more.

As to Communion being received only by females because the Church is the bride ... no that doesn't follow because the feminine imagery of the Church refers to the responsiveness of the human ... males included. Men and women alike both honour Lour Lady's "fiat."

Dear Angloid and Nicole

The continuing mismeeting of minds here is because there is a disagreement over the significance of gender / sexuality when compared with other features which are ephmerally human rather than systemically human. Gender / sexuality for us is not simply a matter of charism or roles but human identity. It's very difficult I think in the Protestant tradition to appreciate what a high value we place in the feminine in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. That also doesn't help.
 

I'll BET you have! LOL

I think your last post is a semantic mish-mash to try to get out of the hole you've dug yourself into.

Systematically human? Okay - back to Nicole's list, then... baldness, etc.

I always thought the main thrust of the Gosepl was that Christ took on HUMANITY, not MALENESS.

Otherwise salvation would only be extended to men.

Therefore it should be possible for any human to image him. And I still haven't seen a convincing argument as to why women can't do so.
 

Now, down to business.

ChastMastr. I'm sorry but the "we've been doing it this way for a long time so mustn't change" doesn't wash even for the Catholics amongst us. How about (male) priests being married? The church has changed its mind on that one a couple of times. Which way is right? How about the frequency with which we make our communion? Again, the church has changed its mind about that -- maybe we should go back to receiving in one kind only, or to receiving only two or three times per anum. Oh, and how about the supremacy of the bishop of Rome? We "Catholics" can't agree about that, and even the Roman church evolved in its doctrine of Papal supremacy and infallibility. Tradition evolves.

nicole. I think you're forgetting that people like Fr Gregory do not think that what your clergyperson does with bread and grape juice is a Sacrament at all. Does that help in your confusion? Actually, I think it's terribly amusing that Fr Gregory would argue with you about whether your Methodist minister could be a woman because by his understanding it doesn't make any difference since Methodists aren't priests and don't celebrate valid Eucharists anyway.

Fr Gregory: Why do all your posts seem to be long and eloquent ways of saying the same thing "this is true, this I know, because the Orthodox church told me so."?

A final thought.

What about transsexuals? What if a woman gets a sex-change operation and aquires all the appropriate equipment. Could s/he then be ordained priest? I hear some of you saying "certainly not". If it's not the willy that makes the difference, what is it and how do you know you've got it? Chromosomes, presumably. Awfully clever of God to write valid consecration in the genetic code, no?

HT

Oh -- by the way. For those of the Anglican persuasion. In 100 years this is going to be old news, and we'll be saying OF COURSE women should be ordained because we've been doing it for so long. 150 years ago you'd have been hard-pressed to find an Anglican church with candles on the altar. Odd how quickly we get used to "norms".
 

quote:

---

Oh -- by the way. For those of the Anglican persuasion. In 100 years this is going to be old news, and we'll be saying OF COURSE women should be ordained because we've been doing it for so long.

---

However, what concerns me is an alternative scenario akin to what seems to have happened to the early Johannine Church. Judging by the J. epistles, a substantial number judged themselves guided only by their personal paraclete - obviously oblivious to claims that "that (i.e. the Gospel of J.) is not what it meant". Historically, what happened is that this group spiralled off into Marcionism & Gnosticism - and it seems to be agreed by Johannine historians such as Raymond Brown that this could well have been the main body in terms of numbers. The rest - the rump - hooked into the catholic church and became an important voice in mainstream thought.

I spend quite a bit of time listening to Anglican voices from all over the world - it seems to me that the new leadings of the Spirit (or is that with a lower-case "s"?) resemble this latter scenario far more than the first. Certainly as judged by the utterances of major figures in the US and Canadian churches. Australia and the UK being not that far behind. I suppose that in this case, "mainstream catholicism" would be replaced by Rome, Orthodoxy and the Evangelical mainstream.

But the real nightmare is this. If the ordination of women as priests is a good and proper thing, then if this auto-marginalisation of Anglicanism occurs, The Cause will assuredly sink with it. Who will suffer from this? Why, women of course - again. Gnostics, Marcionites, Collyridians - all had women priests, and quite a bit of the thinking of the early church in this area was tied up with the refutation of these heresies. That would happen again.

I would be interested in a more detailed analysis by HT (or anyone else obviously) as to why the first scenario seems so likely to you.

Thanks
Ian
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
ChastMastr. I'm sorry but the "we've been doing it this way for a long time so mustn't change" doesn't wash even for the Catholics amongst us. How about (male) priests being married? The church has changed its mind on that one a couple of times. Which way is right? How about the frequency with which we make our communion? Again, the church has changed its mind about that -- maybe we should go back to receiving in one kind only, or to receiving only two or three times per anum. Oh, and how about the supremacy of the bishop of Rome? We "Catholics" can't agree about that, and even the Roman church evolved in its doctrine of Papal supremacy and infallibility. Tradition evolves.
...
What about transsexuals?

---

quote:

---

How about (male) priests being married? The church has changed its mind on that one a couple of times. Which way is right?

---

quote:

---

How about the frequency with which we make our communion? Again, the church has changed its mind about that -- maybe we should go back to receiving in one kind only, or to receiving only two or three times per anum.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and how about the supremacy of the bishop of Rome? We "Catholics" can't agree about that,

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry but the "we've been doing it this way for a long time so mustn't change" doesn't wash even for the Catholics amongst us.

---

Speaking as someone who entered Christianity from outside, and who had to pick a denomination, I wrestled long and hard over which one to stick with. Which one's theology I thought was most true. It ultimately came down to the RC and the Anglicans (knew little at the time about EO), and while I think our differences matter, and some things did develop, I am struck by the doctrinal consistency of the catholic end of the spectrum for two millennia. If something only developed in the last 500 years, I am much less sure of it than if it was in practice for the fist 500. (Indeed, this is one reason I'm an Anglican, ironically enough; no offence to my RC (and more Protestant) brethren (and sustern), but my readings of Eusebius and other early writers led me to conclude that Apostolic Succession, bishops/priests/deacons, validity of sacraments as sacraments and not merely symbols, etc. were all present from the beginning or jolly close to it -- but that the notion of the Bishop of Rome as earthly Head of the Church was not. There's more to it than that -- I think some of the Anglican doctrinal certainty on certain doctrinal matters (Trinity, etc.) with less absolutism on some others (e.g., we don't make a specific churchwide stand on the precise nature of Holy Communion; we believe it is a real sacrament but do not all subscribe to the Lutheran consubstantiation or the RC transubstantiation) certainly makes more sense to me (the Reason part of the three-legged stool (inc. Scripture and Christian Tradition) that is this complete breakfast) than many other things. But to get into everything I believe here (gone on too long already) would be inappropriate.

quote:

---

What about transsexuals?

---

And obviously I'm an essentialist rather than an existentialist in all of these matters...

Agh, running late to work now. Look, folks, despite our differences, we are all agreed that we are Christians and that we are trying to love Jesus and one another above all else, aren't we? Yes, I think these are important issues, but I think tempers are starting to run high here and on other gender-related threads, and I think that whoever is right -- and we should not stop arguing -- we need to recognize that the other side is sincere and trying to live out their faith as best they can, yes?

God bless,

David
 

Strange as though it may be to understand for other Christians and Christian traditions I find MY OWN way of believing congruent with what the Orthodox Church teaches. I honestly, freely, without constraint or obligation and joyously recognise that faith as my own ... poor benighted fellow that I am!

Speaking very simply let me cut through ther semantics ...

Men and women are different and equal.
Some differences make some functions and modes of being more appropriate to either sex.

I'm sorry that's so unacceptable or unfashionable but there it is.

I don't thing anything further can be achieved by this thread. I applaud David's sentiments. Let's get on with gospel.
 

Imagine that you go to church and wish to serve the Lord according to your calling and giftings. Now imagine that you get told that you can’t do that because … you’re a woman. [Like we had any choice]. Imagine being told stuff in all seriousious by people in authority like “men were made to manage and women were made to make the tea”. Now imagine how p’eed off you feel. The message you get, even if that’s not what was intended, is that as a woman you’re God’s second best. Not good enough for this or that …

The reason that so many of us get angry is that we’re “as mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more”.

Tubbs
 

If Father, Son and Holy Spirit have consented to take up abode in me, I don't see why any human being needs to "image" that for me, nor to "administer" bread and wine in Eucharist/Communion. His presence consecrates and blesses me inwardly. And hopefully I learn to "image" that myself.

But then, if more people believed that there would be a lot of men looking for a new job.
 

I wondered when someone was going pull that little corker and claim the moral high ground.

This is about that Gospel, Gregroy - whether our church structures, our underlying assumptions and our teachings truly embody the Gospel.
 

Given the totalitarian behaviour of our so-called “host”, RuthW, I am forced to put this here.

Some have questioned the meaning of my words to Karl (see ”Plumbing”). For their benefit I will set out below their meaning. Patristic scholars will notice that my ideas draw heavily uupon those of St Origami of Neurosthesia and St Stilettos the Pachyderm.

The words must be taken in their fuller, spiritual sense. When I say to Karl, “You are an angel”, I am equating him with the cherubim and the seraphim. I see him as pure mind, standing so close to God in worship that they reflect the uncreated light of God’s nature.

As mind, Karl has no need for carnality. But as the Logos is begotten of the Father, so too Karl/the angel begets pure thoughts. These are his babies.

I wish, with my whole being, to be impregnated by Karl’s mind and bear his thought-children! I then wish to clutch them to my bosom so that they can suckl- Cont. p.94
 

I can't make head or tails of your argument. You say the catholic church universal hasn't changed its mind about the celibate priesthood and then demonstrate how Romans and Anglicans and Othodox understanding all differ. What are you saying?

Also, I'm always entertained when Anglicans talk about modern innovations and things that have been thought up in the last 500 years. Let's see -- does 1534 ring any bells? The Church of England as currently constituted is only 500 years old. Yes, yes, I know some catholics are going to tell me the Church of England after 1534 was the very same church that the blessed Augustine brought to England. But if so, it's a church that has undergone some rather significant changes in both practice and theology. Have a quick flick through the 39 articles. And then come to grips with the fact that without the Oxford Movement we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the Anglican Church as Catholic at all! And that's only 150 years old.

My point here is that it seems as though innovation is fine when it suits (when it's catholic) and abhorrent when it doesn't. It's clearly not the INNOVATION that's the problem, it's whether one likes it or not.

Ian -- I don't follow the drift of your argument. I guess I would say in breif that those 16th century Anglicans had to worry a little bit about what they were doing, but I think even the most hyper-orthodox reactionary would be hard-pressed to declare the Church of England a bunch of looney-fringe heretics.

HT
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
????????????????????????????

---

I don't know why I bother sometimes.

In a hundred years time I will be recognised for the comic genius that I am, d'you hear? Oh well. Prophets not being honoured, etc.

[Exit LEWIS in despair at the youth of today...]
 

quote:

---

Ian -- I don't follow the drift of your argument. I guess I would say in breif that those 16th century Anglicans had to worry a little bit about what they were doing, but I think even the most hyper-orthodox reactionary would be hard-pressed to declare the Church of England a bunch of looney-fringe heretics.

---

Ian
 

Odd how both you and Gregory have introduced the concept that the ordination of women is linked to syncretistic/pagan undercurrent. It reminds me of the "taint" argument put forward during the early 90s - that somehow women can "infect" the body and blood at the Eucharist - as if the Presence of God could be made dirty by the touch of a woman's hands. Not that the pride, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance or sin of a man could ever taint the Eucharist of course.....
 

excuse me? this seems theologically unsound. if something is impregnated by something else, that to me implies two seperate individuals. i was impregnated by my husband, and we are certainly seperate individuals. i hope no one is impliying that the creation exists seperatly from god... if so, where did it come from? now if this is simply a metaphor, then it seems to me that an equally appropriate one is god giving birth to creation, which is a female image.

though an even better one is god impregnating him/herself, which then gives us male and female as simply being two halves of the divine nature.

after all, you know, in nature, not everything is either male or female. some are both together (and i don't mean just plants!). some start as one and change later in llife.
 

quote:

---

I can't make head or tails of your argument. You say the catholic church universal hasn't changed its mind about the celibate priesthood and then demonstrate how Romans and Anglicans and Othodox understanding all differ. What are you saying?

---

quote:

---

I consider those areas on which ... Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans all agree, or have agreed up till very recently ... to be doctrinally more important than our differences.

---

quote:

---

Also, I'm always entertained when Anglicans talk about modern innovations and things that have been thought up in the last 500 years. Let's see -- does 1534 ring any bells? The Church of England as currently constituted is only 500 years old.

---

quote:

---

Yes, yes, I know some catholics are going to tell me the Church of England after 1534 was the very same church that the blessed Augustine brought to England.

---

Now one could argue, "Aha, the US church is even younger than the C of E," and in one sense that's true but in another we believe (and the C of E agrees) that we are indeed in proper succession there also.

(The complications we're now going through with the Lutheran Concordat make me very nervous about the future of the church in the US, at least as nervous as the whole female priesthood issue does if not more so; not sure how the Lutherans view it either...)

quote:

---

But if so, it's a church that has undergone some rather significant changes in both practice and theology. Have a quick flick through the 39 articles. And then come to grips with the fact that without the Oxford Movement we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the Anglican Church as Catholic at all! And that's only 150 years old.

---

Yes, and I think we have been brought back to some of our roots very well by it. But in no case did we break the succession, by my reckoning. We've had turbulent times over the years, but so have the others; Rome is no longer at all in favour of, say, Tetzel, and I have no idea what the EO's have been through.

In some ways I barely see 1534 as a real break; certainly not in our succession, though of course our Roman friends disagree with us on that. (I believe the Pope is truly the valid Bishop of Rome, just not that he is the earthly head of the Church, and that the RC church is indeed one of the "valid" ones in that sense. And therefore I don't see the Church in England as having any true break as such before, during or after the "Roman Catholic" period.)

quote:

---

My point here is that it seems as though innovation is fine when it suits (when it's catholic) and abhorrent when it doesn't. It's clearly not the INNOVATION that's the problem, it's whether one likes it or not.

---

quote:

---

Chastmastr (how does one pornounce that?)

---

Once again I implore everyone to remember to love one another, and yes these are serious matters, but not worth -- nothing in the cosmos is worth -- our hating one another. And to my more Protestant brethren, I know we disagree about the whole "Apostolic Succession" thing, not to mention "priests" and "bishops," but I would hope you accept me despite what I am sure must look like a "snooty" and "idolatrous" doctrinal position to take...

Tempers are high, yes, especially on matters where one feels marginalized, but I think part of the point of this sort of debate is to show people where we come from and why. I'm not even convinced one person will be convinced the "other side" is right here; but perhaps the best that we can hope for and aim for is that each side will understand that the other isn't acting out of immoral motives and intellectual dishonesty.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
on the other thread, someone used a line about god impregnating creation.

excuse me? this seems theologically unsound. if something is impregnated by something else, that to me implies two seperate individuals. i was impregnated by my husband, and we are certainly seperate individuals. i hope no one is impliying that the creation exists seperatly from god... if so, where did it come from?

---

quote:

---

But do we not claim valid Apostolic succession nonetheless, not as if we were a group of laymen who suddenly decided to "consecrate" ourselves.

---

quote:

---

But do we not claim valid Apostolic succession nonetheless? Only not as if we were a group of laymen who suddenly decided to "consecrate" ourselves.

---

All clear(er), I hope!
 

so after creation exists, then maybe he can get all masculine and impregnate it, but since creations already been, um, created, whats the point?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
no, no, i think your missing my point here. ok, he created it, how? by impregnating it? no, that implies it already exists. he created it out of himself? as in giving birth? thats more to the point.

so after creation exists, then maybe he can get all masculine and impregnate it, but since creations already been, um, created, whats the point?

---

As for the purpose of later "impregnation," I do not know, wholly; we are to bear "the fruit of the Spirit" ourselves, Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Creation "groaneth in travail waiting for the manifestation of the Sons of God," etc. Certainly it is because He loves us but I don't know what you mean...
 

as to god writing creation as a book, i thought we were supposed to be the children of god, not a bunch of his literary creations?
 

You said:

"In other words, while we have differences regarding a celibate priesthood, we have all agreed that only men can be ordained to that priesthood, until very recently."

I still don't understand. You privilege the masculine nature of the priesthood but you think it doesn't matter if they're married or not? Why is one position more "catholic" than the other?

And actually you seem to be saying that what makes a priest a priest is the laying on of hands in apostolic succession. All except women? So when the Bishop lays hands on a woman, she doesn't receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit (imagine the Holy Ghost saying -- Oh, gross! I detect a vagina!)?

And while we're talking about the Historic Episcopate -- doesn't that imply obedience to our bishops? Is the Archbishop of Canterbury WRONG about the ordination of women? Is the Bishop of Washington not a true priest because she's a woman? Perhaps you, like the vicar of the parish of the Ascension and St Agnes or the wanna-be vicar of Christ Church Accoceek do not recognise the Episcopal authority of our bishop? That doesn't seem very Catholic to me.

Oh -- and if the ordination of women is wrong, and all the bishops who do it are wrong, does that mean that the Holy Ghost has gone out of the Anglican Church?

HT
 

QUOTE FROM PLUMBING ...

I think we just have to agree to disagree. Some of us here feel that gender is incidental to being human ... some feel that it is essential to being human. For those who posit difference having male and female priests is essential because otherwise God and humans are not being properly represented, imaged or talked about / acted upon. Others feel that such differences do not compromise equality if certain functions or modes of being are reserved to either sex. Often we ALL (me included) use symbolic language to bolster an a priori position which has either sociological or personal references, or both. I don't see this one being solved through discourse. Let Gamaliel have the last word. I'm off this (and the other) thread now. Thanks.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
oh, and how is giving birth like an amoeba splitting? what a ghastly image. please don't impute things to me that i never implied.

as to god writing creation as a book, i thought we were supposed to be the children of god, not a bunch of his literary creations?

---

Okay! Glad to know I misunderstood you; but there are people who see the act of Creation in just that way -- Eastern religions, as I say, which teach that God is everything and everything is God, and that only when it comes back together in the state of Nirvana will things be well.

We become His children, don't we, through Jesus? I did not think we started out that way.
 

we are all gods children. always have been. how could it be otherwise?
 

(By the way, what DOES it mean when he puts GH before a reply?)
 

By David

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:

---

"In other words, while we have differences regarding a celibate priesthood, we have all agreed that only men can be ordained to that priesthood, until very recently."

I still don't understand. You privilege the masculine nature of the priesthood but you think it doesn't matter if they're married or not? Why is one position more "catholic" than the other?

---

quote:

---

And actually you seem to be saying that what makes a priest a priest is the laying on of hands in apostolic succession.

---

quote:

---

All except women?

---

(Warning! Mild explosion next -- no malice to any person here intended -- but this is how all this makes me think and feel. It's more exasperation than anything else.)

Is that not the position one is expected to take? That's a lot of what stands in my way. (burst of frustration) I'm not about to tell the holiest saints, the ones who taught us all about Jesus in the first place, passed on, developed, and preserved the Christian faith, people far wiser and holier than I, that from Peter and Paul down to now, They Were All Just A Bunch Of Woman-Hating Twits. Why should the twentieth century, with its lack of faith, lack of good judgement, lack of wisdom, ultra-democratising notions of theology (we didn't elect God Creator and Ruler of All That Is, after all), have gotten this one bit right and say that everyone from the Apostles on down got it horribly, unjustly and immorally wrong?

(Explosion ended.)

quote:

---

imagine the Holy Ghost saying -- Oh, gross! I detect a vagina!

---

quote:

---

And while we're talking about the Historic Episcopate -- doesn't that imply obedience to our bishops? Is the Archbishop of Canterbury WRONG about the ordination of women?

---

quote:

---

Is the Bishop of Washington not a true priest because she's a woman?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you, like the vicar of the parish of the Ascension and St Agnes or the wanna-be vicar of Christ Church Accoceek do not recognise the Episcopal authority of our bishop?

---

quote:

---

That doesn't seem very Catholic to me.

---

(As a side note -- which ultimately is another issue -- it does not help when some of the advocates of women in the priesthood have basic theology which is vague at best and absolutely heretical at worst. Nor does it help when people on "my" side are arrogant and self-righteous. I find it disturbing, too, that we have had clergy for decades now -- Lewis wrote about this in the 1940s! -- who don't even believe Jesus died and rose again (physically, for real, not a legend, etc.) to save humanity from sin and death -- and yet people (my lot, that is, the ostensible traditionalists) get much more upset over something comparatively minor like women in the priesthood. Look at Bishop Spong -- the man doubts the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and Lord knows what else -- and what do so many people on my "side" complain about? His stance on gay people! A serious issue, yes, but not the primary thing which makes us Christians in the first place! Which I notice they didn't raise nearly the same hue and cry over. As someone who came to Christianity from outside, this baffles and saddens me.

Sigh. So you can see, surely, that I am happy to stand united with someone -- even if I am not sure she's truly ordained in that way -- as a fellow Christian?

The Florida woman I mentioned before (very good minister, I am just not convinced of her priesthood) and I talked once about bad theology among clergy, and she did find it frustrating at times that often those whose basic doctrines she agreed with opposed her ordination, and those who favoured her ordination held beliefs she thought heretical.

quote:

---

Oh -- and if the ordination of women is wrong, and all the bishops who do it are wrong, does that mean that the Holy Ghost has gone out of the Anglican Church?

---

I think doctrine is immensely important -- but one of those doctrines is that some things matter more. That doesn't mean the lesser ones don't matter at all.

Baa-ing out in a field somewhere,

David
 

GH stands for Gregory Hallam, my name. Sorry.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
chastmaster, uh.... no.

we are all gods children. always have been. how could it be otherwise?

---

To the irate poster above FG (or GH) - which is preferable THEOLOGICALLY - a woman preaching traditional Christianity, or a man preaching that the Resurrection never happened?

Serious question.

Is his heresy okay cos he's male?
 

seems to me that the essence of the good news is that god loves everyone, and we are all his children. god loved everyone enough to come and die for us... the love was there before the death obviously. or else what would the point be?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
okay...

To the irate poster above FG (or GH) - which is preferable THEOLOGICALLY - a woman preaching traditional Christianity, or a man preaching that the Resurrection never happened?

Serious question.

Is his heresy okay cos he's male?

---

Heck, if it comes to the point I'd say that many non-Christians show more charity than many Christians, including the clergy! I get on better in Wiccan chat rooms on AOL than in Christian ones most of the time.

If you mean "if I were presented with two churches, and only two, no other options available, and one had a female priest (like the one in Florida), and the other a male priest (but like Spong), which one would I go to?"

Oy Vey Maria! What a choice! Either (1) Go where the sermons will be crap but have Communion I'm sure of, (2) go where the sermons will be good but where I won't be sure of Communion, (3) not take Communion at all. I think I'd have to go for (1). Though I could perhaps take Communion at the Spong place and listen to sermons at the woman's church. Skipping Communion is not an option for me, I think...
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
chastmaster, not quite sure what to say to that. if thats how you want to see things, go ahead. sort of hard on people who aren't christian though.

seems to me that the essence of the good news is that god loves everyone, and we are all his children. god loved everyone enough to come and die for us... the love was there before the death obviously. or else what would the point be?

---

thats not something that changed with the incarnation. thats the way its always been.
 

And just in case you thought I was being overly nice to you, David , -

I'm not about to tell ... Peter and Paul down to now, They Were All Just A Bunch Of Woman-Hating Twits.

Erm, why not? Paul had to tell Peter to stop dithering so much and get his mind around the fact of the experience that Gentiles had had of God (this appears to be despite God telling Peter direct!). Respect your elders, CM, but don't forget you are as much a part of the communion of saints as they. Mary could have told her reprobate son to get out of her house and never come back to Galilee; Peter seems to have taken quite a few goes at grasping things; and I bet not even you go along with everything that Paul says about women
 

Bleat
 

quote:

---

It's very difficult I think in the Protestant tradition to appreciate what a high value we place in the feminine in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. That also doesn't help.

--------------------

Yours in Christ

Fr. Gregory

---

What sort of "high value" do you place on the feminine? Why are females valuable? Is it because we are servants, who keep the buildings clean and the fair linens pressed, so that the males can do the real work of administering the sacraments? (Time saving appliances can be very "expensive," which is a possible synonym for "value.") Or because we pop out the babies that can be made into new bodies in the pews?

Because we are certainly not good enough, in these "traditions," to be doing the "highly valued" tasks.
 

Well, because we're not talking about a lapse in Peter's judgement (which was corrected in Scripture also); we're talking about the doctrine of the whole church down till now, not only Peter and Paul but everyone. Some things in the Old and New Testaments do indeed confuse and at times even worry me (posted about Canaanite infants in another thread just today) but I have to work with what I have; I try to synthesise it all together as best I can, though the Church has done this for two millennia.

I'm not sure which bits you mean that Paul says, but I try to understand it as best I can.

And it's not some bit taken out of Scripture and perhaps out of context -- the people who taught us how to interpret and understand Scripture -- who came up with the Creeds, explicated the Trinity, and so forth -- are the ones, and their successors down till now -- seemed to believe this way. And if people holier and wiser than I (part of the Body of Christ though I am) who am I to gainsay them? These are the people who taught me -- or who taught the people who taught me -- about Jesus and His teachings in the first place... if 2000 years of different Christians from different places the world over have not seen fit to change this, despite female saints, despite the veneration of the Virgin Mary to heights some Protestants consider idolatry -- and yet still did not make women priests -- if St. Teresa of Avila was recognised as a Doctor of the Church in the RC church -- yet not as a priest... why, of all cultures and times, would we suddenly get this one thing right? The verses people use as reasons were certainly not unknown to the church, especially to the people teaching and exploring church doctrine; and in fact if anyone could explain what they mean, surely the people closest to the time and culture would better than we, 2000 years later? So why should we distrust their understanding? Why would the Apostles, and their successors, and THEIR successors, so on and on, get this bit horribly wrong for hundreds of generations... and all of a sudden we understand what Jesus "really meant"?

Baa...
 

• I think this far too important a subject where we can "agree to disagree" - since it emerges not solely from individual preference but from perceptions of the work and being of God. This are theological issues, in that how the Church presents itself is an outworking of what it believes about its God.
• The arguments put forward against women priests are, I believe, fourfold: it has been traditionally barred, it is ontologically impossible, male language is more appropriate in talk about God, and finally it's verging on paganism.

  In reverse order, I'd say the last is malevolant and is unworthy - if you're forced into that argument, you've gone through the bottom of the barrel with all your scraping already; the third, if honestly held, ignores not only the biblical witness but the work of God's Spirit in people throughout Christian history, as well as being just down right insulting to half the world's population; the second is as secure as the Welsh football team's ability to hold on to a lead (i.e. non-existent); and the first is open to quite serious challenge.

There, I'm done with this. ChastMastr, the floor is yours.
 

Definitely going now .....
 

quote:

---

Odd how both you and Gregory have introduced the concept that the ordination of women is linked to syncretistic/pagan undercurrent. It reminds me of the "taint" argument put forward during the early 90s - that somehow women can "infect" the body and blood at the Eucharist - as if the Presence of God could be made dirty by the touch of a woman's hands. Not that the pride, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance or sin of a man could ever taint the Eucharist of course.....

---

BTW, I've been trying to find a way forward on this very topic for over a decade now, and whilst I cannot claim to be much closer to resolving it, the exchanges between Fr. Gregory and yourself were helpful, as well as those of others. However, this "taint" thing again - where did it come from? I keep hearing it (it figured largely in a recent series of pamphlets edited by Monica Furlong - if I recall Angela Tilby was the author of one(?)) - primarily to be held to ridicule. Yet whenever I speak to convinced "Forward-in-Faith" types they also consider it ridiculous. What's going on? It doesn't seem to figure in the thought-processes of anyone I have spoken to or read on this matter.

The reason I mentioned these things together is as follows. Take a deep breath.

From Schleiermacher onwards, the school of thought that we broadly call "liberal theology" has been categorised by the project of explaining God from our own experiential data. As against classical Christianity, which seeks to do the opposite. This is not to say that the liberal view on any point is necessarily wrong. Simply that it has forfeited the ability to tell, because it has (implicitly) abandoned the seriousness of what God's self-revelation, as mediated through the witness of his prophets and the apostolic witness, has said in the past. The "righteousness of God" (i.e. that God does the right thing, he is not capricious etc.) means nothing. If the ordination of women as priests arises from within this sort of milieu - as I believe accurately characterises the predominant view in the episcopal churches of Canada and the USA, it will likely be associated with theological liberalism. If liberalism cannot tell that syncretism et. al. is heretical, predominantly liberal denominations will ultimately suffer increasing ostracism from the others as heresies develop AND ARE NOT REJECTED. (Heresies can of course pop up anywhere). As I said, if the priesting of women is right and proper, they risk going under with the other stuff. And that is over and above any other thing, such as those matters Fr. Gregory mentioned - my own thoughts were elsewhere on this occasion.

As to HT's queries concerning current matters at Accokeek - I guess I would ask the same question - how will you know if it's right? Just for the record, the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he firmly believes women should be priested, but that he may be wrong. The agreement of the entire communion - proposed by the Eames Commission and endorsed by the whole communion - is that until a common mind is developed, it is imperative that both views be respected. If Fr. Sam Edwards cannot be a priest at Accokeek because of his stated views on women priests, then what happens to your argument about obedience? Is ECUSA not disobedient?

Just asking of course...

Ian
 

What should I do?

Seriously.

Ian
 

BTW I'm a female Orthodox theologian, who is very active in the Church, does not feel at all oppressed and has no intention of becoming a priest! Besides, I'd have to grow a beard
 

Also, you speak of telling the holiest of saints that they were wrong. Surely in some sense when Blessed Cranmer wrote the prayer book, and diverged from Roman practice, he was also, in a sense, telling the holy saints they were wrong?

In any case, if you truly believe in the Communion of Saints, then those holy saints are still with us in the church now.

It just seems to strange to me to say that some things are sacrosanct because we've done them a long time, and other things can be changed because they are incidental. And to claim all this in an ecclesiological environment which claims that Bishops have authority and that the Church is inspired by the Spirit.

Ian -- I obviously don't have a problem with the gender of the celebrant. Actually, I'm quite happy with lady vicars and bishops. If I *did* have a big problem with it, though, I doubt I could in conscience remain within a community so different from my personal faith. For what it's worth. However, I also think the Church has a better grasp on these matters than I do, and I'm tempted to aquiesce to the better judgement of the Church.

I'll try to think of an agenda the church could follow that would prompt me to leave it. Truthfully, it would have to be a grave enough matter that would convince me that the Holy Ghost had gone out of the church.

HT
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

---

quote:

---

Chas Mas: I still don't get it. You say that the things we share in common are more important than what divides -- but you pick and choose.

---

quote:

---

Celibacy, Eucharistic theology, liturgy, sacramentalism all divide but these you overlook.

---

quote:

---

Gender of the celebrant, tho, this ONE thing must remain the same.

---

quote:

---

And since the CofE and ECUSA have begun ordaining women, does this slowly slide over to the side of things that are different but don't matter?

---

quote:

---

Also, you speak of telling the holiest of saints that they were wrong. Surely in some sense when Blessed Cranmer wrote the prayer book, and diverged from Roman practice, he was also, in a sense, telling the holy saints they were wrong?

---

Can I ask you a question? What is your view of Scriptural authority and of Christian tradition? Because someone above (can't view their name in this window) talked about different views of theology in the first place and views of tradition, Scripture, etc. and this may -- or may not -- explain our different positions.

quote:

---

In any case, if you truly believe in the Communion of Saints, then those holy saints are still with us in the church now.

---

quote:

---

It just seems to strange to me to say that some things are sacrosanct because we've done them a long time, and other things can be changed because they are incidental.

---

quote:

---

And to claim all this in an ecclesiological environment which claims that Bishops have authority and that the Church is inspired by the Spirit.

---

quote:

---

However, I also think the Church has a better grasp on these matters than I do, and I'm tempted to aquiesce to the better judgement of the Church.

---

quote:

---

I'll try to think of an agenda the church could follow that would prompt me to leave it. Truthfully, it would have to be a grave enough matter that would convince me that the Holy Ghost had gone out of the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

Heresy is never OK. A woman preaching traditional Christianity is fine by me. It's the issue of her priesthood which troubles me, and if that is the dilemma you present, I don't know quite how to answer; the woman's doctrines are preferable as doctrines, certainly.

---

...but then for many, the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" bypasses the debate. Women can be believers, hence...

Coming from a rather "low" Anglican tradition, the division of roles through gender seem to fundamentally misapprehend discipleship...

The sad problem with this whole debate is, frankly, the abject appearance of selfishness of many on both sides.

Coming from a more inclusive (though distinctly in Church terms evangelical) background - refusing the free expression of conviction of others to satisfy ones own spiritual needs shows many undesirable traits. This is a two-edged sword I happen to strongly believe in.

In N.Ireland, there are plenty of people who like to say "no" to others - sadly in the church we all too often do the same. As it seems to me, this is a question of great personal significance to many, and inclusiveness of each calling is the only appropriate way forward - trying to say "yes" to each other instead.

Not an easy path, but Jesus' footsteps are not guaranteed to rubber-stamp our own convictions, nor to be unchallenging.
 

Perhaps God has ALLOWED my three chin hairs to grow, to encourage me to become an Orthodox priest?

And I've been plucking them! Dear Lawd, forgive me!!
 

Good one!

Perhaps my abruptly-turning-white hair (I'm 33!!) is a sign of... of... something!

Other than getting really really really old fast...
 

quote:

---

...but then for many, the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" bypasses the debate. Women can be believers, hence...

---

This seems to play on an equivocation in the word "Priest." On the one hand there is "priest" as in "intermediary between God and man" -- of which there is only one, viz., Christ (cf. Hebrews). Then there is the priesthood of all believers. Then there is the presbytery, which (alas!) is called the 'priesthood' in English-speaking countries (The greeks still use the word "presbyter" -- not the Gk. word for "priest" which I don't remember just now).

Women are clearly part of the priesthood of all believers. This doesn't mean, however, prima facie, that they are in the presbytery.

Reader Alexis
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I am saying that the things that the three strains of traditional catholic orthodoxy has agreed upon are the most important things. How is this personally, as an individual, "picking and choosing"?

---

First -- how about Swedish Lutherans? Do they get to be in the "catholic club"? They maintain Apostolic Succession.

This whole "what is agreed on is the most important thing" is a sticking point for me. Let's say the reformers in the 16th century HAD decided to ordain women in the Church of England? Would the Anglican Church still be Catholic even if it had had women priests for 500 years?

Well, of course it would, because of the 3-fold ministry and the historic episcopate.

I hear you saying "but they DIDN'T start ordaining women 500 years ago." Very well. But in 1534 and subsequent years the Church of England took on a very different aspect from the Roman church. It seems to me that you're saying the liturgy (which changed) is a detail but the gender of clergy (which stayed the same) isn't. In other words, the 16th century changes are all details, and everything that didn't change til now is not.

See I just don't get that.

When you say the three strains of catholic orthodoxy agree, I always read "agree now".

If the events of the 16th century were not enough to make the Anglican church heretical, how then are the events of the late 20th?

quote:

---

The details of how sacraments in general work are less important than our shared belief that they really exist, aren't they?

---

Except that this is a belief that we also share with Lutherans and Methodists.

Which raises another point. Our ordination of women might distance us from the "catholic" churches like Rome, but does it not align us with Apostolic churches (i.e. churches that believe themselves to be Apostolic whether or not they possess the Historic Episcopate)?

quote:

---

Why repeat a creed at the service which they overtly don't believe in?).

---

The Nicene Creed is not a statement of personal faith. It is a profession of corporate faith; "we believe". The Church believes. And in any case, it doesn't say anywhere that you have to sign up to the Creed to be an Anglican.

I personally don't believe in the filioque, but I say it anyway, because I worship in a church that theologically holds to the filioque.

quote:

---

Perhaps; I thought he [Blessed Cranmer] was trying to get us back to where the earliest ones were.

---

Now see, that sounds very Protestant to me.

quote:

---

I'm reminded of a long poem -- Pope? Dryden? -- in which the author told the story of three brothers, Peter, Jack and... someone.

---

Swift. You're thinking of TALE OF A TUB. The brothers are Peter (pope), Jack (John Calvin) and Martin (Martin Luther, the original protestant, who Swift considered to be the founder of the tradition in which Anglicanism exists. Swift was also a Dean in the Church of Ireland).

quote:

---

Can I ask you a question? What is your view of Scriptural authority and of Christian tradition?

---

Well, if my monicker isn't a dead give-away, I'm pretty much a scripture, reason, and tradition man.

quote:

---

[/QB]But do you mean that they [Holy Saints] are inspiring people to take positions opposite to their own on Earth?[/QB]

---

Are you saying you've never changed your mind? And that Holy Saints or the Holy Church can't either...?

quote:

---

Don't we also look to Christian tradition to interpret Holy Scripture?

---

But tradition isn't some static thing like a rule book you must consult. Tradition is the Authority by which the church as the Body of Christ interprets. Living God. Living Church.

quote:

---

Because I would think the logical conclusion of not trusting tradition is that everything, every doctrine, is perpetually in question, from the Trinity on down.

---

Now see, this is the same "baby and bathwater" question oen gets with Fundamentalists when discussing the inerrency of the Bible. Well, if "x" bit of the Bible isn't true, how do you know any of it is?

I don't have any problem questioning the Trinity. Question away. Questions make a strong faith stronger. Locking up Truth in a tabernacle and never letting anyone see it for fear of questioning it sounds like the paranoia of a weak or uncertain faith.

If all the little ducks aren't in a row the whole thing goes out the window, is that it?

quote:

---

Yes. This [episcopal authority] is also part of our traditional theology. What do you mean exactly?

---

What I mean exactly is that Bishops ordain women. In the ECUSA some bishops ARE women (mine is). Refusal to acknowledge or obey one's bishop strikes me as extremely un-episcopal, and untenably un-catholic.

It also is tantamount to saying "I am right about this issue and the Bishops and Church are wrong."

quote:

---

What if they changed their minds, decided it had been a mistake, and went back to not ordaining women to the priesthood?

---

Like tomorrow? While I think that would be extremely odd, and would look rather silly to backpeddle, I would accept it.

As Presiding Bishop Griswold said "schism is a worse sin than heresy."

HT

[UBB fixed]

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

Just a few comments. Some of which may repeat things that other people have said to an extent.

On page 4 Father Gregory wrote

quote:

---

It is about how in a sacramental-sacrificial system (which Protestants generally do not have) the priest images the divine action in and through him. The Jews were not blind to the fact that only God can deal with sin and the maleness of the priest that imaged this had everything to do with the fact that Israel had to be distinguished from her pagan neighbours who also had sacramental-sacrificial systems. In these, of course, fertility and not redemption was a primary theme. Not unsurprisingly this gave rise to a debased religiosity where divinity was naturalised and human sexuality divinised. Interestingly, in those sacramental-sacrificial Christian systems where the earth-feminine-mother has reasserted itself (see Rosemary Radford Ruether's "Women Church") the priesting of women (why do Christians resist the term "priestess"?) is part and parcel of a religious reconstruction in which the Universe is born out of the God-Womb or Cosmic Egg.

---

The reason why Christians resist the term 'priestess' is because priestess would imply the sort of pagan fertility religion to which you refer. By refusing to use the term we are making the point that female Christian priests are not like that. They are PRIESTS not PRIESTESSES.

quote:

---

I have tried to show that gender is an essential and not incidental aspect of our common humanity. I then went on to consider whether or not Christ could have been female. I think I showed that maleness was not incidental or accidental to the Incarnation. I then claimed that the burden of proof ... that God didn't know what He was doing or that 1st century Judaism was a defective culture for the Incarnation (by excluding women from certain functions sacred functions) or that Christ would have knowingly held back from the truth for pragmatic reasons ... this burden of proof falls on those who would ordain women to the priesthood, (and I don't mean Methodist ministers here, I mean priests).

---

It is certainly true that he could not have been both male and female, and that in the culture into which he came, as male he was able to travel, speak etc which he would have had far more trouble doing as a woman. Therefore he came as a man when he became man. However, if you look at how he treated women, he did not treat them as second class citizens – he spoke to them; allowed them to sit at his feet and listen; appeared to them first after his resurrection. He challenged the cultural norms of his day – 1st century Jewish culture was not perfect even though it was the culture God had formed and nurtured and taught and led in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.

quote:

---

So Ruth, your gentle goading about "tell us the disabling differences ... anything you can do we can do ... misses the mark by a long way. There is nothing that a man could DO in priesthood or anything else that a woman couldn't DO as well if not better. Let's be clear about that. Arguments concerning female ordination from the Orthodox/Catholic side have nothing to do with function and everything to do with being man or woman, sexuality and imaging God as transcendent to the material realm.

---

So although a woman could do the job just as well she is debarred from doing the job just because she doesn’t have the magic Y chromosome? And you say that

quote:

---

at no point am I indicating inferiority to the female

---

I accept that you think you are not, but statements like the above do not come across like that to this female. I am less able to represent God because I’m a woman.

Chastmastr

quote:

---

(1) God is masculine in relationship to His creation and to the Church; He is the Bridegroom and we are the Bride; He impregnates us, not we Him. Masculinity and femininity, as part of the order of the universe (and not merely in human culture, certainly not merely human constructions), exist to represent/symbolise/more? these two mystical poles of reality.

---

And if the human race is feminine in relation to God then how the gender of the celebrant make a difference?

Carys
 

What can a husband do that a wife can't, aside from sire children?

Answer: be a husband. A husband can do everything a wife does (except bear and suckle children), but he does these things as a man.

St. Paul tells us that marriage is somehow an image of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The church is the Bride of Christ. It is not the husband of Christ; Christ is not the bride.

When the presbyter (or bishop) stands between the altar table and the nave, he represents Christ qua* bridegroom. He "icons" Christ the Bridgegroom, as we say.**

Like so:

Christ:Church: :presbyter:congregation

Only a male can be a husband. It is a male thing. Thus, only a male can be a presbyter.

One reason God created us male and female, rather than making us unisex, was to teach us something about the relationship between himself and ourselves. The two are not interchangeable. Each has its own dignity and power and glory.

This does not mean that for us, women are inferior to men. You might just as well say that men are inferior to women because they cannot give birth or suckle children. Neither is correct.

Nor does it mean that men are more "in the image of God" than women are. Indeed God brought us all into being, and feeds us (do we believe it when we say "give us this day our daily bread"?), which are analagous in some ways to the roles of a mother, but that doesn't mean women are more "in the image of God" than men are. Neither is correct.

So I have been taught; so I believe.

Reader Alexis

*please forgive the philosophism; it's the easiest and most succinct way to say what I mean here.

**The icon of Christ as Bridegroom is one of suffering, not of exaltation or earthly power; "nymphios" (bridegroom) in the Orthodox Church indicates the one who suffers for his beloved, not the one who rules over or abuses his beloved:

[disabled smilies]

[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

Maybe one of the ship's elves can fix that for me; it should read:

Christ:Church::presbyter:congregation

(hope this works!)

Rdr. Alexis
 

quote:

---

Christ:Church: Presbyter:congregation

Only a male can be a husband. It is a male thing. Thus, only a male can be a presbyter.

---

I still don't get this. I can cope with only a male can be a husband, but I don't get the thus. Maybe I'm being thick but I can't see the link. I recognise that this is in the context of the previous bit about Christ:Church and Presbyter:Congregation, but having just said that the whole church is feminine in relation to Christ, why should only the half that is masculine as humans be able to represent Christ when we none of us are equal to him. Sorry, I can't explain what I mean at all well.

You've set up a divide between Christ (Male) and Church (Female), and then taken 1 person out of the Church to represent Christ, and said that only the male part can take on that role, even though in comparison even human men are not Male like Christ.

Actually the problem here is that by setting up this Christ (Male): Church (Female) you are putting the Male as being better. It draws on ideas about the Male as dominant, Female as submissive, Male as sower, Female as Garden. If God is Male, then what are we women other than incomplete men? Where does female come from?

God is neither Male nor Female, but both are created in His (blast the English language! we need an asexual personal pronoun) image. Thus both reflect part of the Godness and so if we deny women the major role in the church then lose that part of the image of God which is expressed as female.

If Christ is essentially Male, how can he save women? If he can save women, why can't women represent him?

Traditionally male is regarded as including the female - so references to men include women as well etc. So men represent women, but women can't represent men. That implies that woman ain't equal. That woman are less than men. That's not what the Bible teaches (IMO), although it is a cultural assumption that has been confused with Christianity throughout much of Christian history.

Maybe this confusion is easier for us to see with Islam. In this day and age Islam is often perceived as being anti-women, with pratices such as FGM and the attitudes to women's education held by the Taliban for example. But from what I understand about Mohammed's (sp??) attitude is that he was for women being educated and indeed if you look at the medieval period Islamic countries had a far better record on women's education than did Christian ones. The cultural and religious attitudes have been mixed.

Sorry if this post comes across a bit strong, it's an issue that I feel passionately about. It goes into the depths of my identity.

Carys
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
God is neither Male nor Female, but both are created in His (blast the English language! we need an asexual personal pronoun) image. Thus both reflect part of the Godness and so if we deny women the major role in the church then lose that part of the image of God which is expressed as female.

---

Are you taking into account the outer/inner argument? It may or may not be valid, but I haven't yet seen it on this thread.

The male is the outer part, the female is the heart and substance.

So God is always described in Scripture as male - Father, Son, etc. We can only see and comprehend the outer part - the substance being impossible for us to deal with or even to think about.

Femininity miraculously represents the inner, silent, and unknown qualities of God's love.

Therefore the outer aspects of religion - the words, the organizational leadership - are traditionally carried by males.

Religion itself, however, is female, and is depicted consistently that way in Scripture - as the daughter of Zion, the holy Jerusalem, the bride and wife of the Lamb.

We can certainly change our traditions, but these archetypes are fairly universal in human civilization, not to mention Christianity. It is hard to leave them out of the account, even in the name of fairness and equality.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:

Perhaps God has ALLOWED my three chin hairs to grow, to encourage me to become an Orthodox priest?

And I've been plucking them! Dear Lawd, forgive me!! [/QB]

---

Yep! Well, if you pluck them out then even more grow back --soon you'll have a really bushy beard, and before you know it we'll make you a Patriarch -- or would that be a Matriarch?
Whatever, you'll get to wear three crosses instead of one! And a mitre
(Interesting etymological point: the Greek word mitre is the same word used for womb (in modern Greek at least).
So there you have it, you don't need a 'mitre' as you've got one already!

Marina

 

quote:

---

You've set up a divide between Christ (Male) and Church (Female)

---

Well, I didn't set this up, the New Testament did. Over and over again.

quote:

---

and then taken 1 person out of the Church to represent Christ, and said that only the male part can take on that role, even though in comparison even human men are not Male like Christ.

---

But men are male as compared to women; that's why the Christ:Church: resbyter:congregation is an ANALOGY. The Christ:Church relationship is a male/female relationship, described by the words "bridegroom" (or "husband") and "bride"; and since the Presbyter:congregation relationship is a model or icon of the former relationship, then it too must be a male/female relationship, and thus the presbyter is a husband, and husbands are male. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

quote:

---

Actually the problem here is that by setting up this Christ (Male): Church (Female) you are putting the Male as being better.

---

Again, I didn't set this up. This is part of the "faith that was given once to the saints" that has been handed down. Does it make the male "better"? Better at what? Ontologically better? What exactly does "ontologically better" mean? You seem to be making some sort of comparison which makes no sense to me. Christ is the head of the church; he is "better" inasmuch as he is uncreated and we are created; he is God in essence and we are not. Is this what you mean?

quote:

---

It draws on ideas about the Male as
dominant, Female as submissive, Male as sower, Female as Garden.

---

Does it? You're not talking about meaning any more but origin or history. I'm not at all sure how this is relevant, let alone provable/discoverable.

quote:

---

If God is Male, then what are we women other than incomplete men? Where does female come from?

---

God isn't Male. Christ is a husband in relation to the church, which is a bride. This is a relational thing. When you're not talking about his relationship to the church, Christ is male in the flesh, but in his Godhood he is neither male nor female.

We may end up having to agree to disagree on the "better" thing.

Reader Alexis

[previous post deleted at poster's request]

[ 28 July 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

I know I shouldn't do this, but what the hell....

Freddy - the imagery is not "always" male/female, God/Church. "Today you have become my son" - addressed to the male representative king of Israel; "I brought my son up out of Egypt", again about Israel. And so on and so forth...

Alex - is representing Christ the only part of the priest's role? The priest is also (as Orthodox writer Gillian Crow says) there at the head of the people, leading them.

Therefore (this is my point, not Crow's), by the reasoning that says only a man can image Christ as bridegroom, we should have an equivalent woman to represent the bride - which suggests:

- you need some sort of male and female double act during the service,
- at the very least the deacon should be a woman; or
- that you truly believe that a male priest is congruent enough to represent all the people, male and female, which somewhat undermines the need for congruence on the plane of representing Christ

[slopes off, knowing he'll bet dragged further and further in if he doesn't leave this instant...]
 

quote:

---

First -- how about Swedish Lutherans? Do they get to be in the "catholic club"? They maintain Apostolic Succession.

---

quote:

---

This whole "what is agreed on is the most important thing" is a sticking point for me. Let's say the reformers in the 16th century HAD decided to ordain women in the Church of England? Would the Anglican Church still be Catholic even if it had had women priests for 500 years?

---

From a more Protestant point of view -- say, the Baptists' -- the Church did go terribly wrong from very close to the beginning, and was only corrected a few hundred years back. But from a Catholic/Orthodox point of view, it's been at least mostly right all the way down to now. We disagree over whether or not the Pope is the head but we do agree on the nature and role of bishops, for example. And one of the things we have agreed on until very, very recently is the role of women with regard to the nature of the priesthood.

quote:

---

Well, of course it would, because of the 3-fold ministry and the historic episcopate.

---

But part of what's at issue here is "are women, when they go through that process, truly consecrated in that episcopate, and how does that affect Apostolic Succession in our church?" So I don't think it's as simple as that. From the "women can be priests/bishops" point of view, of course it follows, but not from the other one.

quote:

---

I hear you saying "but they DIDN'T start ordaining women 500 years ago."

---

quote:

---

But in 1534 and subsequent years the Church of England took on a very different aspect from the Roman church. It seems to me that you're saying the liturgy (which changed) is a detail but the gender of clergy (which stayed the same) isn't.

---

I don't really see this as the same kind of thing, sorry.

quote:

---

In other words, the 16th century changes are all details, and everything that didn't change til now is not.

See I just don't get that.

---

I don't either, which is why I didn't say that. In fact, if a doctrine dates only from the 16th century I am less certain of it than one which dates back (and has been consistently held) from the 6th. I'm progressively more dubious about even more recent ones, say from the 17th or 18th centuries -- that is, if they were devised then rather than recovered. In many ways I like the Dark Ages more than the Middle, though I do love the Middle. The Renaissance had some wonderful things, too, but also some bad ones. I could go on but I thought I should mention this lest people think I'm only interested in the 1500s or such.

quote:

---

When you say the three strains of catholic orthodoxy agree, I always read "agree now".

---

quote:

---

If the events of the 16th century were not enough to make the Anglican church heretical, how then are the events of the late 20th?

---

quote:

---

"The details of how sacraments in general work are less important than our shared belief that they really exist, aren't they?" -- Except that this is a belief that we also share with Lutherans and Methodists.

---

quote:

---

Which raises another point. Our ordination of women might distance us from the "catholic" churches like Rome, but does it not align us with Apostolic churches (i.e. churches that believe themselves to be Apostolic whether or not they possess the Historic Episcopate)?

---

quote:

---

The Nicene Creed is not a statement of personal faith. It is a profession of corporate faith; "we believe". The Church believes. And in any case, it doesn't say anywhere that you have to sign up to the Creed to be an Anglican.

---

Part of the Ordination of a Priest (and Bishop) even specifically requires the candidate to say, "I solemnly declare that I
do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to
salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine,
discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church." (http://www.holycross-raleigh.org/bcp/526.html and http://www.holycross-raleigh.org/bcp/513.html) In Baptism, the celebrant and congregation say to the newly baptized specifically to "Confess the faith
of Christ crucified" and to "proclaim his resurrection" (http://www.holycross-raleigh.org/bcp/308.html) -- I suppose Spong believes that Jesus was crucified but if the man is denying the resurrection this is pretty basic stuff...

quote:

---

"Perhaps; I thought he [Blessed Cranmer] was trying to get us back to where the earliest ones were."
Now see, that sounds very Protestant to me.

---

quote:

---

Swift. You're thinking of TALE OF A TUB.

---

quote:

---

Are you saying you've never changed your mind? And that Holy Saints or the Holy Church can't either...?

---

quote:

---

But tradition isn't some static thing like a rule book you must consult.

---

quote:

---

Tradition is the Authority by which the church as the Body of Christ interprets. Living God. Living Church.

---

quote:

---

Now see, this is the same "baby and bathwater" question oen gets with Fundamentalists when discussing the inerrency of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

I don't have any problem questioning the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Question away. Questions make a strong faith stronger.

---

quote:

---

Locking up Truth in a tabernacle and never letting anyone see it for fear of questioning it sounds like the paranoia of a weak or uncertain faith.

---

quote:

---

If all the little ducks aren't in a row the whole thing goes out the window, is that it?

---

quote:

---

What I mean exactly is that Bishops ordain women. In the ECUSA some bishops ARE women (mine is).

---

quote:

---

Refusal to acknowledge or obey one's bishop strikes me as extremely un-episcopal, and untenably un-catholic.

---

quote:

---

It also is tantamount to saying "I am right about this issue and the Bishops and Church are wrong."

---

quote:

---

"What if they changed their minds, decided it had been a mistake, and went back to not ordaining women to the priesthood?"
Like tomorrow? While I think that would be extremely odd, and would look rather silly to backpeddle, I would accept it.

---

quote:

---

As Presiding Bishop Griswold said "schism is a worse sin than heresy."

---

I am still of course stuck with the "church A has lots of heresy but some orthodoxy and more love" and "church B is trying very hard to be orthodox in a self-righteous manner," and I am still in Church A.

Ah, rambling again... back to work for me...
Whoops, forgot:

Carys said:

quote:

---

And if the human race is feminine in relation to God then how the gender of the celebrant make a difference?

---

Back to proofreading!

[URL links fixed]

[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

quote:

---

Therefore (this is my point, not Crow's), by the reasoning that says only a man can image Christ as bridegroom, we should have an equivalent woman to represent the bride - which suggests:

- you need some sort of male and female double act during the service,
- at the very least the deacon should be a woman; or
- that you truly believe that a male priest is congruent enough to represent all the people, male and female, which somewhat undermines the need for congruence on the plane of representing Christ

---

No, no, you're not getting it. The congregation represents the bride. That's why the last term in the analogy was "congregation". Don't you guys do those "A is to B as C is to D" things over there in Blighty? Ye gods, I remember enough of them from tests I took to flummox a Vegan snow leopard.

Reader Alexis
 

Fr. Gregory explained that the priest is an "icon of Christ" which seemed kind of helpful in clarifying the role of the priest. But then we got into the mess over why a person representing Christ has to male (tho' he could be Jewish or bald etc.). Sorry Fr. G., many of us are losing you there. I can see a perfectly clear image of Christ in female form, just as we have all seen icons of a black Christ. If there is a distinction there, it escapes me.

Dyfrig pointed the whole discussion in a helpful direction by referring to the two possible readings of the Nicene line "he came down from Heaven and was made man". That's the choice, right there. Fr. G. says it means that Christ was A MAN, and nothing else. But IMHO it is clearly an indication that He was HUMAN. And ain't we all?

Obviously I can't agree that "gender is an essential". All that is essential for a person to serve as an icon of Christ in the sacraments is humanity -- and of course the call to this role, and an appropriately trained understanding.
 

Yep! Well, if you pluck them out then even more grow back

Fortunately, I can assure you that ain't so!

Freddy, why do we have primitive carvings of fertility goddesses then? I know I am fairly ignorant of some of the finer points here but some of what you take as takens aren't. IMHO.
 

quote:

---

4: Is there any evidence that churches with women in ministerial roles are declining faster than those without? I imagine not, just rhetoric.

---

Erm, Methodists? Dying on their feet in the UK. And 'inclusive'language too.

Not causality of course, pure correlation, but this particular discussion never bends to reason on either side.
 

Aroudn here severl chrcuehs led by women, ro in which men and womenn are clergy togtehr are actually breaking new ground.

And no-oine seems to have said "rubbish" to the wild generalsiation a few posts back that in the Old TEstament God is always male. What?! Amazingly, given the cultural context God is sometimes described using female imagery eg Isaiah 66: 13 (and many wake Jeruslem here as a periphrasis for God), Hosea 11: 3 - 4, and the whole Wisdom tradition in which Wisdom becomes in Greek Logos wich leads into the thought of John 1.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
Freddy, why do we have primitive carvings of fertility goddesses then?

---

Yes many religions have had, and even do have, goddesses as well as gods. The OT & NT, however, disapprove of all of it.

I'm not saying that the exclusive imagery of all religions worldwide is of a male god. Nor is the heart of religion exclusively female. I'm just saying that it tends that way worldwide, and is exclusively that way in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Although granted, as Dyfrig pointed out, the female imagery is not as consistent.

But imagery doesn't prove anything one way of the other. It is an analogy, not a directive.

To echo the point St. Rumwold made above on the question:
Is there any evidence that churches with women in ministerial roles are declining faster than those without?

A source of information would be www.gallup.com - the Gallup Poll site for the United States. The relative declines and increases in membership of the major denominations over the past 50 years supports what he says. Again, no causality indicated, merely guilt by association. Still, the declines are dramatic, whatever the cause.
 

Sorry, where was I?

Oh, yeah. Help me a little here, Alex. You said:The congregation represents the bride. That's why the last term in the analogy was "congregation".

So, accepting the analogy for now (it's not the only one in the NT, of course):

Christ=Bridegroom=Male, Church=Bride=Female,

Therefore we have one Male Priest to represent the first because you can't have a woman representing the Male element, and the Bridegroom is singular. And we have ... a large body of people of both sexes representing the Female element because...er...er... you can have a lot of people of different sexes represent the Female, singular Bride..... erm..... erm..... Do you see my problem in getting this?

You said as well: since the Presbyter:congregation relationship is a model or icon of the former relationship, then it too must be a male/female relationship, and thus the presbyter is a husband, and husbands are male....so by definition to complete the icon of this relationship you need to properly represent the wife. Is that achieved by a group of men and women together?

It's not that I object to symbolising things - it's the fact that the symbolism doesn't seem to work itself out fully into the whole Church.
 

In the A:B::C :D, both A and C are male, and both B and D are made up of persons of both genders.

B contains both men and women but is called "bride."

I admit we're holding "groom" to be male while allowing "bride" to be less gender-specific. I don't know what the answer to that conundrum is. I'm trying to parrot back what I've learned, but I haven't been at it all that long. I've only been Orthodox 4.5 years. Maybe there is no specific answer; maybe there is one and I haven't heard it yet. Can't help you any further along this route! Sorry!

I feel terrible! She feels worse!
We can hardly talk in verse!
---Salman Rushdie

As for what was mentioned earlier about women iconing Christ: yes I ahve seen black icons of Christ but they are (according to Orthodox iconology) heretical. The incarnate Christ was a male first century Palestinian Jew. This is the "scandal of particularity." He had a specific hair colour, a specific height and weight (at any given time, of course). He was not a generic human being, but a very specific one, existing at a specific time and place, with specifiable features (at least to those who witnessed His incarnate body first-hand).

Did he come as a man because the 1st century palestinian culture made it easier for men than for women to get around? Then why didn't he wait until the 20th century, when he could have come as a woman? Yet somehow we believe he chose the time and place of his incarnation. It wasn't an accident. Thus his being male wasn't an accident of time and culture, but something He intended.

Seems to me.

Reader Alexis

[smilies disabled]

[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

Alex
 

quote:

---

But men are male as compared to women; that's why the Christ:Church: resbyter:congregation is an ANALOGY. The Christ:Church relationship is a male/female relationship, described by the words "bridegroom" (or "husband") and "bride"; and since the Presbyter:congregation relationship is a model or icon of the former relationship, then it too must be a male/female relationship, and thus the presbyter is a husband, and husbands are male. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

---

I do not think that this particular analogy is necessarily the best to describe the priest’s role. Yes there is the Bridegroom/Bride relationship of Christ and the Church but I do not think that that is the relationship which the Presbyter:Congregation relationship is mirroring. That is the Christ as High Priest relationship, and Christ as Victim, Christ on the Cross reconciling us to God.

It sets the priest up as being separate from the congregation – playing Christ, rather than being one of the congregation given a certain task by the congregation/Church.

There is a danger in relying to heavily on one analogy. Generally in trying to talk about God there are a number of analogies at work, as we try to understand what’s going on.

RE:Better. Better as in ‘more like Christ’ for one.

quote:

---

God isn't Male. Christ is a husband in relation to the church, which is a bride. This is a relational thing. When you're not talking about his relationship to the church, Christ is male in the flesh, but in his Godhood he is neither male nor female.

---

ChastMastr,

quote:

---

Carys said:
quote:

And if the human race is feminine in relation to God then how the gender of the celebrant make a difference?

But once again I look to tradition and find no support for female priests, so here I am.

---

Which doesn’t in fact address what I said (and you quoted). But anyway,

Tradition operates within the culture of the time. I suspect the issue of women priests has not been an issue in other centuries because of the role of women in society as a whole, but that role is changing and women are no longer regarded as some incomplete men, with no brains. We are educated, no longer chattels and are accepted (in theory at least) within the workplace, not told to shut up because we’re just illogical women. We are at last being treated as equals by men – something that Jesus did 2000 years ago. So why oh why is the Church lagging behind society in this rather than leading the way? The Bible acknowledges that men and women were created equally in the sight of God, so why does the Church insist on treating women as second class citizens?

I’m a strong-minded, intelligent, girl who 75% of the time forgets she female and just regards herself as human. Probably about 50% of my friends are male, I just relate to people as people not as some strange other species. But maybe I’m abnormal in that regard.

Carys
 

quote:

---

Did he come as a man because the 1st century palestinian culture made it easier for men than for women to get around? Then why didn't he wait until the 20th century, when he could have come as a woman? Yet somehow we believe he chose the time and place of his incarnation. It wasn't an accident. Thus his being male wasn't an accident of time and culture, but something He intended.

---

Aah, but if he hadn't come would we now be in the position that we are. Would society have developed to what it is now without Christianity?

Also there was an interesting article in the Church Times today (which unfortunately isn’t on their website) about Fr Rob Esdaile, chaplain at Sussex University, whose appointment as theology tutor at the Venerable English College in Rome has been blocked by the Congregation for Education in Rome. In a letter to the Guardian in October 1999 he wrote, ‘The major issue which Catholicism has to face is not the ordination of women but the fact that official decision-making authority is reserved for male clerics. The best way of symbolising a real will to improve women's status would be the appointment of women cardinals (a theologically unproblematic step). But of course, that will be over the present pope's dead body - and therefore need not be far off.’

An interesting idea. Is it possible – what are cardinals? Do they have to be ordained?

I agree that the lack of women’s voices can be a problem. Men might think that they are not putting women down, when unconsciously they are.

Carys
 

quote:

---

[qi]Carys said:[/qi]
Mousethief, yes I know that the Bridegroom/Bride analogy is Biblical, however, analogies can be pushed to far and that is what I think is happening here.

---

This may be the place where we have to agree to disagree.

quote:

---

Thanks, you have explained the thus. I still don’t agree with it, but I do now follow the logic.

---

Then I haven't lost all ability to communicate!

quote:

---

As Dyfrig has stated on a number of occasions, the presbyter represents Christ to us AND us to Christ. Why is a male person able to represent the whole of humanity to Christ but a female person not able to represent Christ to us? This implies that male includes female but female does not include male. A view that I think is wrong humanity = male+female, we are equal, not a sub-set.

---

I'm not sure I know how to explain this. I keep turning it over in my head but can't come up with words that come out right. Sorry!

quote:

---

I do not think that this particular analogy is necessarily the best to describe the priest’s role. Yes there is the Bridegroom/Bride relationship of Christ and the Church but I do not think that that is the relationship which the Presbyter:Congregation relationship is mirroring.

---

Whereas the O. Church does think this; we seem to be at an impasse here.

quote:

---

It sets the priest up as being separate from the congregation – playing Christ, rather than being one of the congregation given a certain task by the congregation/Church.

---

Only if you think of Christ as being separate from the Church, which we do not.

quote:

---

There is a danger in relying to heavily on one analogy. Generally in trying to talk about God there are a number of analogies at work, as we try to understand what’s going on.

---

As of course is the case here. Again I have to make the (lame, I know!) excuse that I am trying to present what I have been taught, and (a) I'm not a perfect student, and (b) I have only been taught a fraction of all there is to learn!

quote:

---

RE:Better. Better as in ‘more like Christ’ for one.

---

In that case I would say that neither gender is better simpliciter.

quote:

---

I’m glad you accept that God isn’t Male.

---

See?! There is one area where we agree!!

quote:

---

So if we don’t accept that Presbyter:Congregation is mirroring Christ as Bridegroom in relation to the Church his Bride (as I don’t think I do), then what is there to stop women being priested?

---

There are of course other reasons. "The Apostles didn't do it" is a very powerful one with the Orthodox. If it's wrong to not ordain women, then it was wrong for the Apostles to not ordain women.

quote:

---

What is not assumed is not saved,

---

You've been reading our theologians!

quote:

---

so Christ in his humanness saved all of humanity, by denying woman that role aren’t you losing part of God’s image?

---

Don't see how this follows. God has denied men the ability to bear children, but that doesn't diminish God's image.

quote:

---

Tradition operates within the culture of the time. I suspect the issue of women priests has not been an issue in other centuries because of the role of women in society as a whole,

---

I think this is not entirely accurate. Women in the early church took on many roles that were downright scandalous to both the Greeks and the Jews. Yet not the presbytery. If avoiding scandal were really the issue, they wouldn't have been denied the presbytery either.

quote:

---

We are educated, no longer chattels and are accepted (in theory at least) within the workplace, not told to shut up because we’re just illogical women.

---

All of these things are excellent things.

quote:

---

We are at last being treated as equals by men – something that Jesus did 2000 years ago.

---

Yet he did not select any female apostles, nor leave instructions with his apostles to select female bishops. Was He a misogynist?

quote:

---

So why oh why is the Church lagging behind society in this rather than leading the way?

---

Maybe the church realizes that women and men aren't interchangeable, impersonal cogs, and realizes that gender really does encapsulate something about the nature of the mystery of God?

quote:

---

The Bible acknowledges that men and women were created equally in the sight of God,

---

And yet it says the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. There's more than simple mathematical equality going on here.

quote:

---

so why does the Church insist on treating women as second class citizens?

---

I assume you are saying that not ordaining women to the presbytery is tantamount to treating them as second class citizens. We, of course, do not see it that way.

quote:

---

I’m a strong-minded, intelligent, girl who 75% of the time forgets she female and just regards herself as human. Probably about 50% of my friends are male, I just relate to people as people not as some strange other species. But maybe I’m abnormal in that regard.

---

This is impertinent, and you can tell me to mind my own business if you choose, but: Are you married? I can't imagine forgetting I'm male when I relate to my wife; nor do I believe that she forgets she's female in relating to me, even though we relate as equals in all areas. I never tell her what to do, and vice versa. This is something we worked out and talked about quite a bit before getting married, so I'm not just blowing smoke here.

quote:

---

God wants spiritual fruits
Not religious nuts

---

I love your sig, by the way!

foolish and sinful,
Reader Alexis
 

1. Cardinals are the leading clerics in the Roman church (and I mean Roman as in Rome - they elect the bishop of Rome). In practice they are chosen worldwide but nevertheless still have a technical responsibilty to a particular church in Rome

2. Cardinals can be bishop-cardinals, priest-cardinals or deacon-cardinals. None of the latter at present I think.

3. Whilst Rome currently does not ordain women to the diaconate, it has done so in the past.

4. Therefore technically there exists a route (currently heavily overgrown) by which women could be involved in the topmost decision-making body of the church.

I think....

Ian
 

Anyway.

Where was I?…. oh yes, the Orthodox and Catholic (see above) contributors are correct in one thing: Tradition (with a butt-kicking capital T) is the prime argument against women’s ordination. It has been a consistent position since, as far as I can tell, the 4th century (I’ll explain this choice of date below).

So, let’s think about the issue from another angle for a minute, because as mousethief says, there’s a bit of an impasse going on here.

We know that certain things were done and said in the 1st century (we have the NT record - e.g. that bit in 2 Tim about women being save by childbirth, Paul’s rules about women speaking in church) - however, even in the more "Traditional" Churches, parts of Paul’s teaching is not considered all that binding (hats, speaking in church, long/short hair, etc).

We also know that Chrysostom was saying things in the 4th/5th centuries (for example that women are incapable of reason and wisdom - comments which suggest he wasn’t exactly the most informed or empathetic bloke on the planet). Those more familiar with the period will be able to answer this question - what does the literature between these two points tell us? Did the Church ever ask the question, "Should a woman be a priest?" in that intervening period?

The reason I ask this is because there are many questions which the bible record simply doesn’t address. That’s the failure of most Fundamentalism and Literalism - it asks of the Bible questions that it simply cannot answer because the writers - the Apostles, the Prophets, the Martyrs - never thought of asking the question, in the same way that Byzantium never had to face the grace/works argument because the question wasn't even asked east of Carthage.

Equally, there is much silence on various issues between the NT and the Settlement of 325-451 (which created the institution to which Orthodoxy is the legitimate heir - sorry, John Paul!)

Now, whilst we know that institutionally by around 400 the Church had a view on this issue, are we sure that the Tradition before this even bothered asking the question? Can we say for certain that the Apostles even considered the issue? We know Paul (or at least his stream in the Church) did so, but we don’t adhere totally to what he says on all things, so is there a way of seeing this as a remaining faithful to Tradition without necessarily damning all that has gone before us?

Let me give you examples of the way I’m thinking here - Peter, lovely Peter. Zealous, passionate Peter. Thick, pigheaded and often wrong Peter. Up to Acts 9 seems to have accepted the Jerusalem church’s position that Jewish people only could be Christians. Even after the vision of Acts 10, still seems to be struggling with this issue - cf. Paul’s account of the Council of Jerusalem (the First Ecumenical Council? ) in Galatians - he seems to have struggled quite a lot with the vision that Paul had of the Gentiles being part of the Church. But he (and James, it would appear) came round to Paul’s opinion. So we know that faithful ministers of the Gospel can legitimately change their mind on an issue - we have a typology of it, if you will. And it also suggests that the Church needs to be very careful with its pronouncements - after all, Jesus told Peter that what he bound on earth would be bound on heaven, so he really needs to take a lot of care when taking decisions!

Now, consider Paul - he went out, bursting with zeal to bring the Good News to the Gentiles. He declared that there was no Jew nor Greek in Christ - just people. He managed to work that bit out because he saw it with his own eyes.

And yet his own attitude to women and slaves does not quite match up to his own mark.

Though he said there was no slave or free, he never quite grasped the full implications of that - in fact, the West didn’t do so till about 1800 years later.

Equally, he made the statement "there is no male nor female in Christ", but doesn’t seem to have worked that out theologically (though having Pheobe as a Deacon and Junia as an Apostle suggests that his practice didn’t always match his theology.)

So, like Peter, we have in Paul a paradigm of setting a goal - there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female - and yet not, in his own lifetime, managing to live up to that. Not because he was a particularly useless person, but rather because the question never arose.

For both Peter and Paul the immediate question was "Should Gentiles be accepted into the Church?" They concluded - after a divine vision, a blazing row and a lot of dithering on Peter’s part - that the answer was "yes".

Next comes the question of slavery. Paul has no real view on the institution itself, apart from one comment somewhere in the Pastoral Epistles (which may be deutero-Pauline) that slave traders were not exactly welcome. So, here we can see the Church having set itself a goal, but yet to have worked it out in its life. As previously said, the Western Church would take a long, long time to grasp this one.

So what of women? Did Peter and Paul even ask the question, "Should a woman be a priest?" Was it ever on the table? Can we say with any confidence "The Apostles didn’t allow it"? Or were there more pressing issues - impending martyrdom; the need to bring all these different "Christian" communities together; the threat from both Jewish and Roman authorities?

And if the question wasn’t even asked, do we have the resources and the ability, whilst still remaining faithful to Tradition, to come to the conclusion that women can be priests?

I shall leave you with the words of Gillian Crow, (in 1996, at least) Diocesan Secretary of the Russian Orthodox Church in the UK, and their rep. on the Council of Churches of Britain and Ireland*: "The place of women is another area in which tradition’s vision of the wholeness of the Church is waiting to be rediscovered. Orthodoxy does not have a good record for treating its members as ‘either male nor female’… The status quo has been accepted for the most part unthinkingly, in another confusing of Tradition with traditionalism, that blind lethargy of acceptance without any prayerful thought."

* from Gillian Crow’s article "The Orthodox Vision of Wholeness" in "Living Orthodoxy in the Modern World", Walker and Carras (eds.) SPCK London 1996. Emphasis mine. It should be noted that both Crow and Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, another writer on the issue of women’s ordination, both consider that the Orthodox must explore the issue from within its tradition, rather than having it foisted upon them from the outside.
 

I've been an Anglican for nearly 30 years, and I don't think I've ever heard that said. I know that we are told even Jesus doesn't know the time of His return...

Anyway, if all this rubbish is true, how come people think it's okay to ask Mary to pray for us? What is that, if it isn't standing in our place interceding? (Not that I do that. I don't like to bother the poor love after all she's had to go through.)
 

quote:

---

DO we "believe He chose the time and place of His Incarnation?"

[qb]I've been an Anglican for nearly 30 years, and I don't think I've ever heard that said. [qb]

---

Really? Sorry. That's kinda part of the background in Orthodoxy. Our take on the verse "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son," (Galatians 4:4a). "Fullness of time" means God chose when the time was right.

What is the Anglican gloss on this verse?

Reader Alexis
 

I have always heard it preached as God the Father having knowledge which God the Son didn't. No doubt this is some mild form of heresy. Someone explain please...?
 

quote:

---

I have always heard it preached as God the Father having knowledge which God the Son didn't. No doubt this is some mild form of heresy. Someone explain please...?

---

That will do for me. As long as one of the Persons of the Trinity knew the time, I don't much care which one. The point I was trying to make is that Christ became incarnate at a time of God's choosing, and therefore at the RIGHT time, and thus hope to knock some wind out of the sails of arguments about "well they couldn't do it then because of the culture, etc."

God picked which culture Christ would be born into. So any arguments from the nature of that culture that would require overhaul of Tradition (note the almighty CAPITAL "T") are suspect, at least to me and other likeminded Orthodox types.

Reader Alexis
 

Or so I have been taught!

Reader Alexis
 

Well I can come up with nothing more constructive than that all this simply ISN'T self-evident to a lot of Christians. 'Tradition' can't be appealed to unless there is a consensus on what it IS. To be REALLY honest, if this was in Hell, I'd say...

(but I shan't, cos it isn't!)
 

quote:

---

I'm not sure I know how to explain this. I keep turning it over in my head but can't come up with words that come out right. Sorry!

---

Glad I’m not the only one who has that problem! I’ve been struggling on this one too. It’s not just the words, there’s a lot behind them.

quote:

---

As of course is the case here. Again I have to make the (lame, I know!) excuse that I am trying to present what I have been taught, and (a) I'm not a perfect student, and (b) I have only been taught a fraction of all there is to learn!

---

And where does questioning the tradition come in this? I’ll only stick up for the party line if I’ve worked it through myself and agree with it. Blanket statements don’t wash with me. E.G. Saying ‘no sex before marriage’ on its own isn’t helpful, but I’d agree with it for a number of reasons, and because I’ve thought it through I’ll stick to it.

quote:

---

In that case I would say that neither gender is better simpliciter.

---

Sorry my latin’s failed me. Only done a semester. But I’d argue that by saying a man is better able to icon Christ you are implying that they are closer to Christ.

quote:

---

If it's wrong to not ordain women, then it was wrong for the Apostles to not ordain women.

---

Dyfrig’s answered this one. It maybe wasn’t a question then – and Paul’s statement about ‘no Jew, no Greek, no male, no female’ I think is pertinent here. We’ve already mentioned that Christ was a Jew but that we’ve ditched that entry qualification – although why hasn’t exactly been explained – Fr Greg helpful said ‘of course’ when asked if Christ’s Jewishness was pertinent, with no support. I can see why – because the early Church answered this question. It was perhaps the major theological point, do people have to become Jews before they can become Christians and it was answered with a resounding no. But Paul also said in Christ there is ‘no male, no female’ so in the light of that how can we continue to discriminate on those grounds while we no longer discriminate Jew/Greek within the church? Yes, it’s taken longer to be worked through, but that doesn’t mean we can say because it’s taken us this long we can’t change.

quote:

---

You've been reading our theologians!

---

No, but I’ve picked that one up somewhere! Must do more theological reading!

quote:

---

Don't see how this follows. God has denied men the ability to bear children, but that doesn't diminish God's image.

---

No, but that pertains to the earthly sphere and is part of what does differentiate between men and women and how men and women relate. What I’m talking about is how we relate to God. Surely we need both the male and the female working together to properly image God. (This is one of the places I struggle to express what I mean)

quote:

---

Yet he did not select any female apostles, nor leave instructions with his apostles to select female bishops. Was He a misogynist?

---

No – I’ve just said he wasn’t. But what about Mary Magdalen? Wasn’t she called ‘the apostle to the apostles’? Did he leave instructions with his apostles to select MALE bishops, for that matter? What about people like Phoebe and Junia, called an apostle (and I’ve seen arguments about whether Junia was female or male, in an attempt to avoid this one).

quote:

---

Maybe the church realizes that women and men aren't interchangeable, impersonal cogs, and realizes that gender really does encapsulate something about the nature of the mystery of God?

---

I recognise that there is perhaps a danger in feminist thinking which tries to make us androgenous. However gender encapsulating something about the nature of the mystery of God brings us back to my point about losing something if we exclude the female from the priesthood. We are losing that part of the mystery of God being represented fully within the Church. Although we can do the same jobs it doesn’t mean that we do them in exactly the same way (although often women who have succeeded have done so by trying to out men the men – see Margaret Thatcher, she was hardly a feminine woman.) but that by having both men and women doing a job you get the benefit of the two different approaches.

quote:

---

And yet it says the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. There's more than simple mathematical equality going on here.

---

And that’s a bit I admit I struggle with. It needs the context of submitting to each other in love (or am I conflating to bits of Paul here?)

quote:

---

I assume you are saying that not ordaining women to the presbytery is tantamount to treating them as second class citizens. We, of course, do not see it that way.

---

No but then you and probably most at the top of Orthodoxy are men. To me it feels like I’m a second class citizen because like a black person under apartheid I am deny the chancing of doing (being) something because of an accident of genetics.

quote:

---

Are you married? I can't imagine forgetting I'm male when I relate to my wife; nor do I believe that she forgets she's female in relating to me, even though we relate as equals in all areas. I never tell her what to do, and vice versa. This is something we worked out and talked about quite a bit before getting married, so I'm not just blowing smoke here.

---

No, and I’ve not even been out with anyone! Although around 50% of my friends are male, I do not have a boyfriend! It’s never really been a priority with me. I get on with people, I don’t view blokes as being potential boyfriend fodder and get all shy or anything. I’ll admit that if I were in a relationship my perspective would probably change on this particular aspect at least!

quote:

---

I love your sig, by the way!

---

Thanks, got it off a poster. There are far too many religious nuts out there!

Re: Christ and his Culture. Yes, it was the fullness of time - God had spoken through the prophets and was now to speak through his Son, but that doesn't mean that every aspect of the culture was perfect. The religious (and I know that maybe this is a false dichotomy) understanding had been prepared, but it wasn't imperative in the same way for the culture to be completely perfect - and perhaps it needed Christ's coming to change the attitude to women. As I see the incarnation is the crux of history. It makes sense of history - prior and subsequent - and everything is seen by the light of it. If Christ could die for my as a woman, then he must, as man, contain everything which makes us human, even though he was not female. In fact maybe it makes sense that he was a bloke - Men have both X and Y Chromosomes - so he has both the male and the female - it was the X Chromosome he inherited from Male. And if he could die for me, then I can represent him.

Unfortunately I’m going to have to bow out of this thread for a while. I’m off to Taize tomorrow, and I haven’t packed yet! Not back ‘til a week Monday and then I’m off to the Eisteddfod pretty much straight away. Don’t know when I’ll get a chance to catch up on the ship!

Carys
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
And yet his own attitude to women and slaves does not quite match up to his own mark.

Though he said there was no slave or free, he never quite grasped the full implications of that - in fact, the West didn’t do so till about 1800 years later.

---

Slavery as practiced in OT and NT times was not the (IMO) much more horrible thing it became in recent history (last few hundred years) any more than the kingship of Alfred the Great was like starving under the bubble-brained poster-child for cluelessness (and her clique) who said "The people have no bread? Let them eat cake" in France just before Bastille Day. The fact that the OT, and the NT, and most of Christian tradition, treat earthly hierarchy as a good thing rather than a bad one (all things being equal), preaching obedience to earthly rulers except when they command us to sin against God, is itself one thing which leads me to think our modern impulse toward revolution against hierarchy and toward democracy is not as good as people in America seem to think.

In other words, while I think freedom a good thing in many respects, I do not have any doctrinal objection to slavery in the abstract, though of course I do object to cruelty, treating people as subhuman, etc. which I do not think intrinsic to hierarchy. The form that we most remember in the US was a racially-based one, using concepts of race which did not seem to exist until historically recently.

I could ramble here but I wanted to comment on that. I think the kind of slavery we had in the US and in recent centuries was, or had become, truly horrible, but I do not see all slavery, or all hierarchy, as forbidden; instead we see St. Paul's command that slaves obey their masters as if they were obeying God, and masters to remember that they have a Master in Heaven. And that we are all slaves of Christ, having been set free from slavery to sin, bought with a price, etc.

But then perhaps my views on this will surprise no one...

David
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That will do for me. As long as one of the Persons of the Trinity knew the time, I don't much care which one. The point I was trying to make is that Christ became incarnate at a time of God's choosing, and therefore at the RIGHT time, and thus hope to knock some wind out of the sails of arguments about "well they couldn't do it then because of the culture, etc."

---

*Shame-faced* Oh. Sorry... I must have nodded off...

I was having this WEIRD dream about priests...
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I’ll only stick up for the party line if I’ve worked it through myself and agree with it.

---

I take Christian tradition first of all, even over (GASP!) the Bible -- but necessarily so. I mean, why do we believe the Bible is true, whether inerrant or inspired or mostly true, whether symbolic or literal? Isn't it because that's what Christian tradition has taught us? Did the Bible drop out of the sky into the hands of the various Pagans who converted centuries ago? No, it was word of mouth from missionaries, wasn't it? And aren't there all sorts of cults who use the Bible but out of context? Wouldn't we say to them (as well as to each other in more minor ways when we disagree), "You're not reading this right?" Even the books of the Bible (which ones are canonical, I mean) are, themselves, a matter of What The Early Church Decided, and there is some disagreement there but we all agree that, say, the Gospel According to St. Thomas isn't one.

I became convinced that Jesus as understood by Christianity was, in fact, the Son of God. CS Lewis helped me tremendously in this. This, for me, is the centre of it all, the keystone that makes everything else make sense. (I say this because I've been asked before, "Well, why not believe in non-Christian Judaism instead? It's older!" The irony that by blood I am Jewish (mother's side) though not raised in its theology (I make a good matzoh-ball soup, though!) does not escape me, but I do not see any contradiction between that and following Y'shua Ha-Mashiach as the promised Messiah...)

If a Christian tradition has been consistently followed for, say, the first 1500 years, I am much more likely to think it certain than one which started in, say, 1000 AD. Much more so if it started in 1500 AD. One which started in 1700 AD even more. And so on. I'm a US citizen and I'm not even convinced that the American revolution was morally right! But (oh Irony!!) as England accepted the US as a valid country, and I do not believe in revolution as an acceptable Christian thing to do, I will be obedient to the nation in which I find myself a citizen as best I can until such time as, if ever, I emigrate elsewhere.

Now as far as the sciences are concerned, I think we have made some genuine discoveries, as well as some unwarranted philosophical conclusions based on those. (For example, think the evidence for biological evolution looks good, though various assumptions make this less of the "absolute fact" some people make it out to be, and since I accept the Bible as inspired by God, I have to wrestle that out. However, some of the earliest traditions (Lewis mentions St Jerome as an example; he says those chapters of Genesis are "in the manner of a popular poet") allow for (whether in addition to literalist interpretations or instead of them) symbolic, allegorical, anagogical etc. interpretations of Biblical books, and I find it interesting that those "days" seem to correspond to the most recent archaelogical conclusions about the order in which various creatures evolved... which for years I thought was odd because birds didn't fit -- till I read about James Hunter's quite recent conclusions that the dinosaurs became birds, and suddenly it did. But all this may change in future and I don't want to get sidetracked. In any case I'd say that perhaps the Adam/Eve story is the only way our minds can grasp some truth which is beyond our understanding apart from myth and symbol -- that there is something in the story which cannot be grasped by fallen human minds in a "literal" fashion, and this need not contradict the theory about Australopithecus. But moving on...

If Christian tradition does not give me a solid answer, or has divergent views which date back some time, I look at what I know about OT Jewish principles (which are often absorbed into Christian). Also for additional weight on some issues.

If this does not tell me -- and for more additional weight -- I look to the greater general human tradition, not recent but largely the old Pagans, primarily western but some eastern also. So for example, not only does Christianity teach that Pride is a sin, not only does Judaism teach that humility before God is wise, but the Greek pagans taught that hubris is a very bad thing.

(Including my temptation to be snooty toward the whole modern era, which is a terrible temptation to guard against for me. When one feels isolated but believes one is right, it can be perilously difficult not to wind up a ghastly, self-righteous crank. But I also have tradition to help there also; in a sense, finding that which is good in the present day is, itself, more in line with all of these traditions than merely worshipping tradition for its own sake and not being open to new things which do not contradict that tradition. But it's still hard sometimes and one reason I have not left for -- forgive me, ACA people if there are any reading this! -- a split-off group like the Anglican Church in America is that most of what I have seen from them seems like it would help me become even crankier than I already am. Also, the very traditions I revere so highly teach me that doctrine matters very much, but love matters much, much more.)

In matters of metaphysics as well as theology, I follow these principles; which leads to some odd conclusions which some Christians may be troubled by, even some who would be considered "old fashioned." For instance, I definitely believe that casting spells and attempting to predict the future is forbidden me; but I am not constrained to follow the (quite recent) attitude that many Christians have about the paranormal/supernatural. They take a mechanistic view of the universe and tack on God, angels and demons, with no room for anything else. But I do not see a reason to believe in this mechanistic view in the first place, which I think is not derived from genuine scientific experiments, but the modern philosophical assumptions which many of those scientists have held and the way they have expressed them.

In other words, the existence of everything from "the fair folk" to someone's great-aunt's second sight (not miraculous nor demonic, just unusual) to all sorts of things which do not strictly contradict Christian theology, and have even been held without religious contradiction at various times, are things which I am potentially open to. Some quite devout people have believed in fairies (I hope I don't have to explain I don't mean something funny or cute here) without thinking them demonic or outside of God's sphere, just different than us and very rare (and dangerous) to meet, and one of the early Christian writers (Lewis quoted him) said regarding such things that he didn't have a specific doctrine about their spiritual state. I know of no doctrine which forbids belief (or commands belief) in such things; I do know that I must not worship them -- if they exist in the first place. That's not the same as saying that (if they exist) they are demons in disguise (as some say about them, or even about modern "close encounters" some people claim to have with aliens). In the Middle Ages there were several theories (none of which was formally accepted by the Church as far as I know) about them ranging all over the place about their nature, spiritual status, etc. (I'd tend toward "beings not quite as purely spiritual as angels or demons but not quite mortal the way humans are, perhaps not relating to time the way we do, and which are probably very difficult to understand until we can do so safely and with clarity in Heaven when all unfallen and redeemed beings will be together with God in harmony and love"; I suppose, as we are to "preach the Gospel to every creature," it could make for some interesting meetings should they exist, but this goes into the "missionaries to aliens" thread elsewhere on Purgatory.) (Did I mention that while not necessarily depicted as evil, they're usually depicted as really dangerous to play with? Like wanting to pet a (created-by-God and non-immoral) tiger, perhaps... "ooo, look at the beautiful stripes! ... ouch!")

My, where was I? Ah yes. Some areas of ethics too -- Lewis points out (to the frustration of an economist friend of mine whom I am not sure is right) that the Christians in the Middle Ages, the Jews in the Old Testament, and the pagan Greeks all forbad usury, or loaning money at interest. (Aquinas said it violated justice to make X amount of money equal X + more amount of money -- like saying $20 = $30 and $30 = $40 and such.) I'd not be surprised at all if by ignoring this warning-sign, old-fashioned though it is, we have been getting into the inequity of wealth the world over that many people have. Politically, too, I have become more "liberal" than "conservative" (by US standards) because I look back and see that the government using taxes to feed the poor was usually regarded as a very, very good thing by most people, including most Christians, at most times, and therefore (to me) modern economic "pure free market" principles -- with no government help for the poor -- are on very shaky ground even though many "conservative Christians" here in the US believe in them.

So if someone comes up to me and says, "what do you think about notion X?" I will first want to see what the Church has always said about it, if anything, what the Jews and Pagans have said, and try to learn from that rather than simply take what seems to me to be the "party line" of the present day. I don't always do this right but I think it is the right thing to do...

So some things I believe in, or am open to, seem strangely divergent from a modern, even a modern Christian point of view -- very traditionalist about one thing, seemingly very liberal or New-Agey on another, but I think my beliefs are consistent with themselves and with traditional views both within the church and across cultures. In some ways I think, very seriously, that the Medieval Church, the Jews, and the old Pagans (even some new ones!) have much more in common with each other than any do with the modern set of beliefs we have nowadays, even among many Christians (who may also be sincere and quite faithful -- I think Jesus accepts us from where we are, and will accept a modern person who can't imagine believing that interest on loans is a bad thing, or that fairies might exist, just as He accepted (I believe) people in the past who might be almost polytheistic in their limited understanding of God, and who assumed that torture was a perfectly acceptable way of treating prisoners because it's the "done thing" in their society. In the end, God will correct all our blind spots, whether from the twenty-first century or from the first. But we all have to use the vision we have and work from there...
 

I'm not sure what else to say here but I thought if I didn't explain the principles I'm following we were going to go round and round and round without end. I think our disagreement may simply be on the nature and value of tradition itself, and as I am an admittedly extreme case, this might help clarify things.

Where should we go from here? Can I ask my fellow traditionalists if there is any case in which you could conceive yourself accepting female priests? Or the other side, if you could ever see yourself as deciding it was a mistake?

I'm willing to hear all arguments but given what I believe about the nature of tradition, the basic principles the "women should be priests" side are giving here are based on are things I'm not convinced of either, and the Scriptural verses people cite as evidence seem to me not have ever been interpreted that way till now.
 

a) Bible

b) Tradition

c) Reason

In which case, one can say a) is equivocal, b) is more or less against and c) is more or less for.

Let women be priests, let people not have women priests.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
"A real woman," said a (male) speaker at a Forward in Faith* rally some months ago, "knows that a woman cannot be a priest."

---

Believing this doesn't permit people to be rude. It's precisely this kind of bullying that embarrasses me for more about my "side" and makes me stand firmer in the Episcopal Church rather than leaving for one of those other groups I mentioned. Ods bodkins, what else does he mean, are all the ones who disagree with him not "real" but pretend? Or perhaps they're men in disguise? (Which would neatly solve the problem, wouldn't it? Women who believe this way are not "real" women -- therefore are men -- and therefore are appropriate candidates for the priesthood, QED. (QED is Latin for "so there."))

Did I mention that a lot of these people also have no sense of humour? I'm not convinced of it, but I have enjoyed The Vicar of Dibley -- we have some episodes on videotape at the local library. I imagine the best we'd get out of some of the people I've known would be to sigh and look grim.
 

Radical departure from 2000 years of Christian tradition seems to imply (to me, anyway) that at some point along the line, the "true" practice was lost or subverted. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing how or when, but by the time the Church was free of persecution, the question of women priests was decided. Shall we open all questions the Church has decided in the past? Let's start with the canon of Scripture. Then the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ.

At some point you have to give up re-inventing Christianity, and just live it.

PS on the question of Junia the apostle -- can someone with a Greek NT say if the word "apostle" there is in the masculine or the feminine? Tx.

Rdr Alexis
 

Ah, but this is worth a thread all on its own...
 

I can work out the letters, but I can't do the genders yet. As far as I can tell she is part of a group who are then described as "tous sun autois pantas halious". Any ideas?
 

Clearly at least SOME of the Fathers (or at least 1) believe "junias" refers to a woman.

And yet he feels no reason to ordain women as bishops.

A thought: perhaps Andronicus and Junia were a husband-and-wife team. Even today the Greeks call a presbyter's wife presbytera.

Rdr Alexis
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
we seem to have very different views of what Christian Tradition means.

---

We certainly seem to.

I've come to the conclusion that anything more I say here wouldn't be very useful. I think we're just speaking at cross-purposes. But thanks for your very illuminating replies.

If it makes you feel any better, Bishop Jane looks silly in a mitre. But she looks very fetching in rochet & chimere.

HT

Oh -- Chas Mas, you should try the parish of the Ascension and St Agnes. I think you'd really appreciate what goes on there.
 

quote:

---

If it makes you feel any better, Bishop Jane looks silly in a mitre. But she looks very fetching in rochet & chimere.

---

There's irony in that, HT! Mitres were first originally worn by deaconesses I seem to recall.

Re: Junia(s) - it's actually a masculine noun but that means little - forget English ideas of gendered nouns. John Chrysostom should know the gender of the described person.

Ian
 

Interesting in re: the deaconesses. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes no mention of this, explaining it thus:

"The pontifical mitre is of Roman origin: it is derived from a non-liturgical head-covering distinctive of the pope, the camelaucum, to which also the tiara is to be traced."

From a very interesting article in the Catholic Encyc.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

Was out on the piss all weekend

---

quote:

---

But thanks for your very illuminating replies.

---

quote:

---

If it makes you feel any better, Bishop Jane looks silly in a mitre. But she looks very fetching in rochet & chimere.

---

quote:

---

you should try the parish of the Ascension and St Agnes. I think you'd really appreciate what goes on there.

---

David
desperately wanting to work in a pun about 'mitre maids'

[UBB fixed]

[ 31 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

The picturesque expression 'out on the piss'* indicates that the poster spent some time imbibing alcoholic beverages.

Incidentally, one (of many) British phrases for overindulgence of alcohol is 'getting wasted' which I believe has rather more serious overtones Stateside!

Hope this helps!

Tony

* As in: What is the difference between a pint of beer and a pea?

Answer: About twenty minutes!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QUOTE]
Golly. I was expecting everyone to say, ah, right! A total loon! Thanks!

---

You said it, not I.

A rochet and chimere is choir dress for bishops. The long red number over the long surplice with puffy sleeves gathered at the wrist. The bishops of Virginia are generally photographed in them.

I know I said I was done, but I lied.

It strikes me that there are a few reasons oft-cited in objection to the priesting of women. Let's summarise:

1. Jesus was not a woman

2. It's never been done before

3. Women do not possess penises and without that essential body part cannot celebrate the Eucharist

4. I just don't like it

Now -- I don't really get #1, because most of us believe that the priest concelebrates with the people (hence the eastward facing -- we're all facing the same way), and not that the priest is doing some magic "for us".

Of course, if you DO believe that the priest is doing magic for us, makes sense.

#2. Church never changes. Well, that's unconvincing because it obviously DOES. Corollory to that one is "church can change some things but not any that I care about (see #4 below). Now, if your conception of the church is a body that jealously guards a static tradition and never changes, then again, makes sense.

#3. You really can't have #2 without #3, because presumably the church had a very good reason for having men-only priests. This one really confuses me. I've never been to a church where the priest celebrates with his little partner. His Honourable Member and Two Back Benchers. His crozier and... Well, you get the idea. Of course, no one really says you NEED to have a penis to celebrate. Sometimes people say men are just "different" irrespective of genitals. Or that it's chromosomes. Or that it's some special manly trait known only to God. This is the argument that men, because they are men but NOT because of anything biological or chemical or anatomical that MAKES them men, makes them uniquely designed to celebrate the Eucharist. Oh, and to pronounce absolution.
But since no one can really explain what that magic thing is that sets men apart, I am left with

#4. Women can't be priests because I don't like it.

No one wants to say that. Oh, it sounds so... self-centred, and maybe sexist. Much better to spout a load of bollocks (ha ha pun) about male-ness and Jesus's gender (some people spend WAAAAY too much time thinking about the genitals of Our Lord).

But really, honest, confession time. I would be SO much happier and would respect the opposite opinion SO much more if someone would just come out and say "I just don't like women priests. End of story."

HT
 

I really think Chas would be enjoy a visit to Ascension/St. Agnes periodically for a dose of old-time Episcopal church. It's really a short trip from Arlington. As I recall, they almost didn't let the suffragan bishop in on her appointed rounds. Aren't they sort of officially "Anglo-Catholic"? actually?
 

The church of the Ascension is the only one in the DC area I can think of where birettas may reliably be seen.

HT
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
The church of the Ascension is the only one in the DC area I can think of where birettas may reliably be seen.

HT

---

You have armed priests in DC?
 

Is there anybody who thinks that, however? If so, I pity them.

Rdr Alexis
 

HT
 

It's those lady priests who are so disarming...
 

You do pique my curiosity but I'm vaguely nervous as well... do you really think I'd like it, or do you think I'd be icked out at their attitude? I've been to an ACA church before...

It's not only doctrine, even; it's love also. Attitude. And if I have to choose between one and the other, God help me, love has to win. (Which is ironically one of the doctrines, ah paradox...)
 

I think this is possibly the problem that many have with the concept of Tradition as posited here. We know damn well that this thing called Tradition has been less than loving. This is not a denominational issue – A, RC, O, L, P, R the whole lot of us – have been.

But on the issue of women, there are some glaring deficiencies in the way the Fathers thought – Fathers who, on many issues, should be listened to and respected, but when it comes to women just have this enormous blind spot which undermines their credibility and puts into doubt their allegiance to the substance of the gospel.

I’ve already referred to Chrysostom. He was not alone in this (emphases mine)

Tertullian (the guy who coined the term “trinitas” and was the first to consider the Three as “persons”): And do you not know that you are Eve?… You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: man!

Clement of Alexandria: Nothing disgraceful is proper for man, who is endowed with reason; much less for woman, to whom it brings shame even to reflect of what nature she is

Chrysostom again: The woman taught once and ruined all…the sex is weak and fickle

And finally Augustine: The woman together with her own husband is the is the image of God…but when she is referred to separately…then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him

This demarcation between men and women is neither true in the sense that it follows from the relevation of God in Jesus Christ, nor is it loving, because it’s the product more of prejudice than real knowledge of what women are like. Odd how we accept the pronouncements of celibate men on what it’s like to be a woman – especially if you wish to argue that there is an ontological difference between them! These words of great men bring to mind the comment of the Apostle John in his first letter – how on earth can you say you love God, who you can’t see, when you demonstrably don’t love the people right in front of your face.

I think we need to ask what is the Tradition? Irenaeus, who is probably the only truly ecumenical Father, in whom East and West meet, and from whom we know most about how this concept emerged, regarded it as that which was handed down from the Apostles. This seems to point to the handing down of the story of God’s actions in jesus Christ. There was no developed Trinitarian doctrine, no elaborated ecclesiology, no filled out theories of how the Christians should relate to the State. Instead what we had was a basic core – the saving action of God through Israel had come to a climax in the person of Jesus, who is known to be God’s Anointed, the Christ. That’s your basic “Tradition”.

You then get the different streams in NT Christianity applying that. Peter and James start off with a Jewish Church, with a very “low” Christology. Paul goes off to the Gentiles. John becomes a little sectarian, but you can understand that in the context of the persecutions around 90 C.E. Mark writes a very different gospel, which as literature is very dark and unsettling. Matthew and Luke write books for different audiences. They all draw on the same Tradition, but they do different things with it, “working out their own salvation with fear and trembling”. Their practical outworking of the gospel story often differs, sometimes even contradicts, but always requires an application of the basic Tradition to the Now. It’s a slightly more sophisticated and mature version of WWJD, if you will – if Jesus said this, if Jesus did that, how does effect what we are saying and doing now?

The classic illustration of this “working out” is the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m not convinced that Mark or Peter would actually have seen it that way, but the cumulative effect of the revelation that God gave us led to an analysis which requires some sort of Trinitarian doctrine. The Divine Economy forms your Theology. However, we know that that process took at least 400 years. It didn’t fall out of the sky, but required argument, dialogue, punch ups and some very creative thinking. But that conclusion, if pushed to its extreme, would exclude the very evidence that brought it about – some of the Apostles would be very close to be being anathematised because they clearly weren’t that fully Trinitarian as the Church would later demand.

You can see these processes in the NT – although we don’t if Paul actually punched Peter – particularly over the question of the Gentile Christians. If you take Tradition to mean “what the Apostles did”, then to follow Peter would be difficult because he quite dramatically changed his mind on the fundamental nature of participation in the Church. To parallel the m/f ontology argument for a moment, Peter was convinced at one point in his life that a basic ontological qualification for being a Christian was to become Jewish first. However, both he (and presumably James) had to change their minds on this. So clearly “Tradition” isn’t just what the Apostles did, but rather the substance of why they did it – i.e. the working out of the consequences of God’s actions in Jesus and applying those consequences to the real world.

This is why we don’t follow those parts of, say, Paul’s letters we don’t like. CM, if you’re going to appeal to the fullness of Tradition as you define it, then logically you must insist that no woman speaks or has short hair. Otherwise there’s a fatal inconsistency in your approach. It should also be noted that Paul actually makes major cock-up in his argument about headship. He argues that a woman should submit to a man based on the order of creation - and yet anyone who's read Genesis will know that the submission of a woman to a man is a punishment from God and a consequence of the Fall, which leads one to think that, if Christ has restored us to relationship with God, such factors simply don't apply anymore. Maybe Paul was being subtly ironic - I don't know. I'll have to read him again.

Christianity is not a mediaeval RPG or dressing up and playing at Middle Ages – it is the outworking of the consequences of Jesus. Regarded as “the story about Jesus” rather than the Church’s activities, you can change things, no matter how old, if the application of that Tradition requires you to do so for the sake of truth and love. I sincerely believe that the anthropology required to sustain the Chalcedonian Definition of Jesus as fully human must, to remain internally consistent, move also towards the recognition that women can be priests too – otherwise you fall into the nonsense that the Fathers previously quoted did, which at its heart has the unbiblical and unChristian premise that a man is the image of God on his own, whilst women are only partial and must have a man around in order to be the image of God. The Catholic Church changed much purported tradition in 1963. The test of whether something "traditional" is "Tradition" is to ask whether it fits in with what we know about God revealed in Jesus Christ.
 

Mousethief, how does the O interpret that passage, anyway?

Yes, I disagree with some of the early Church writers in those matters you mention about Girls Being Icky; but I'm not aware of, say, the present Pope agreeing with them either. All this may be part of the reason all of Chrystostom's writings aren't canonical Scripture!

But yes, those passages about hair length and such -- in Scripture -- do trouble me at times. There are only a few passages in the NT which I think might be culturally limited, and if they are then how do we know which ones?

(And what does "long" mean here? 8 feet? 2 millimetres?)
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(And what does "long" mean here? 8 feet? 2 millimetres?)

---

Size isn't important my friend
 

I do wonder, "what is left to say here that has not been?" I mean, it seems like both sides have stated their positions pretty much in depth. It seems to come down to different ideas about tradition (this includes Scripture for this purpose), especially whether or not it can truly contradict itself. Myself, as I do natter on, I go with "what the A, EO, and RC churches have agreed upon for the longest" -- which certainly does not assume that Gurlz Ar Ickee, and thus some of the Church Father's comments (which aren't considered Scripture anyway) are not canonical for me -- which also does include the changes Peter made in his understanding of things and the conclusions made by the "hammering-out" process we see in Acts and such -- but which does treat Old and New Testaments as solidly inspired, though I do not know if the precise nature of that inspiration has been codified. (I'm not sure it leaves room for it being simply wrong, as some people here argue Paul was in his views on women.)

I'm going to implore people to not keep assuming that someone who holds these views must be a nasty person; personally, saying this as someone who came to Christianity wholly from outside (by blood I am Jewish but was not raised even in that; if I were not a Christian I'd likely have become a sort of self-directed pagan, actually) and who has tried to understand his religion from scratch, going over every single doctrine painstakingly, until years later finally learned to trust that Christian Tradition was probably right on the matters he was not yet convinced of. I really think God's shown me a lot of mercy by helping convince me of some basic Christian teachings which the rest of you probably got in Sunday School or something, but it took years of waking up in the morning and worrying about Abraham and Isaac and what it implied about God's love if He could command something like that (say), what it meant about the Bible, etc. just to get the basics down. C.S. Lewis helped tremendously. When I first became a Christian, or started becoming one, I was hung up on major things like "did the death of Jesus on the cross really affect us? How??" (It made more sense to me later.) But I finally concluded, "If the source for all these doctrines has turned out to be right on every single one I've dug into and angsted over, maybe it's right on the others" -- and when I accepted that, at first tentatively, then other things began to fall into place a bit more. I've had to approach most things in life from the outside, and am following tradition -- and not only Christian tradition but the larger human tradition -- as best I can, as the guide which has proven the most reliable to me about life in general. It is Christianity and its traditions which taught me that the body was a good thing; before I became a Christian, I was horribly gnostic about that. ("Bodies? Just a vehicle to carry our minds till we're free of them at last..." Urgh.) It is Christian tradition which taught me ... well, the principles on which I'm much more politically liberal than some of my "conservative Christian" acquaintances, frankly. (Lots of examples snipped here; this is not the place for that.) It is Christian tradition which I try to pattern my life on, though God knows I fail an awful lot of the time. Some bits in the Bible I do not understand (hair length, Canaanite massacres -- see thread on nuclear weapons), but one has to use what one understands and work from there rather than say "Oh, this makes no sense to me, chuck out the Bible" -- as some ex-Christians I know have done. So I'm trying to work through it as best I can.

Have I mentioned that I'm not convinced of the validity of women's ordination to the priesthood? I try to choose my words carefully; in fact, I always say it that way because (based on references in the NT to "deaconesses" if I read that right) I am convinced of their ordination to the diaconate. I also say it that way because while I think the mystical symbolism of male and female is significant, and I do believe in the headship of the husband over the wife in marriage, NONE of the arguments often used by some of the... erm, shrill opponents to this have convinced me yet that a woman can never be a priest. I remain, simply, unconvinced that a woman can. That's not the same.

I've tried desperately to avoid being shrill or rude myself. There are arguments which have occurred to me that I do not wish to use because I think them unjust. I will mention the biggie just now but with the caveat that I do not think this is a real, solid argument -- the issue for me is not someone like below, it is whether a woman who has absolutely correct doctrine in all other ways can be ordained priest.

That said -- it does not help mattes that the people (male and female) who are most vocally -- or most audibly (media perception?) -- promoting ordination of women to the priesthood (OOWTTP for now?) are, in more significant doctrinal ways, absolute heretics. I don't mean people here on SoF; I mean Bishop Spong (the US poster child for heresy), who openly doesn't even believe Jesus rose from the dead. If I recall correctly, Barbara Harris also has pretty dubious theology, and many other people who are most frequently heard do as well.

I mean, surely you can see how it looks -- how it feels -- to many of us on "my" side of the fence. It looks like a lot of clergy, having disposed of the most central doctrines of Christianity, are now getting around to things like this. I'm trying to avoid arguments ad hominem. I don't consider Spong worth arguing with; the man is not even, as I understand him, a Christian in the first place. I'm trying to imagine a "best-case scenario," someone whose basic theology I think is right, rather than the ones who get noticed the most. Interviews I have read with various female clergy, when it comes to basics of the faith, tend to dishearten me. (The woman in Florida I mentioned is an exception, and thank God for her.) There really are people who want to bring a sort of feminist paganism -- in a real way -- into the church. Those are not the ones I'm thinking of. But it does make it more difficult for a lot of people to accept. If we saw some of these women saying things a bit more vocally about the saving power of Jesus -- about the dangers of Hell and the real joys of Heaven -- about the real basics of Christianity, whether Roman Catholic or Baptist, not only Anglican -- you'd likely have more people wrestling with this rather than dismissing it.

I mean, someone could say (I DON'T, but this is how it FEELS for some people who are not sticking just to the doctrinal issues, I believe), "Look. A bunch of maverick bishops in 1976 got together and ordained a bunch of women illegally, they got it shoved through, and the ones who push this most heavily have theology which is suspect at best -- it's a war, it's a war, we must dig in and put up barbed wire, aieee!" I'm trying to avoid that attitude. It makes people into cranks in un-Christian ways. I want to build bridges as best I can here...

Please tell me you can see how this must look to some people, people of good will who see the basics of the faith under attack -- in their own church by their own clergy -- and perhaps over-react by assuming this is Just One More Thing Spong Is Pushing?

(I know how it looks from the other side -- a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant fuddie-duddies who want to retain control. Sadly, yes, those are there too. I don't agree with their attitudes in the slightest and have been losing friends over that; one person I worry about and pray for often because I think his anger, fear and hatred of "liberals" is destroying him... and he has been a kind of bad example for me to avoid following. He wasn't always like that...)

But I can't just say "Oh, this side is often self-righteous so I must switch to the other" any more than I can say "Oh, this side has lots of heretics, therefore everything they say must be wrong." So I go by something which is not merely stuck in our own place and time, and try to see what I can across the centuries and across the churches whose theology I think most right overall... and that is why I am unconvinced of women's ordination to the priesthood at this time.

David
 

However, I think the theological issues behind this are far too fundamental to just say "agree to disagree". To me it was important to have dialogue on the theologically substantial parts of the issue, rather than just the slaning match of the sloganeers. Yours and others' contribution have helped me have a clearer picture of the arguments, and in a sense have reinforced me in mine - that theologically ther is no bar to the ordination of women. Indeed, by being faithful to the over-arching Tradition, I believe that women must be ordained so that the Church can truly express in its structures the gospel it purports to preach.

I care little for the ascendent liberals of ECUSA - however, in England the argument has been much more "orthodox". It is not led by pseudo-pagans and Resurrection-deniers. Rather, the women coming forward for ordination represent al traditions - liberal, evangelical and catholic, the latter two being very much concerned with a conservative view of scripture and/or tradition. Beither do I agree with oft-cited, but never substantiated, view that women's ordination has led to a decline in attandance. For the 50 years up to '92 the CofE was dying on its feet. That had nothing to do with the role of women. Interestingly during a period which saw half our priests being women, the main church in our benefice saw a 50% increase in its Sunday attendance.

One final, definitely going now, not coming back to this thread point to illustrate how a church's outward expression, however traditional, can be at odds with the truth of the Tradition it purports to protect: the Mar Thoma Church in India celebrates the Liturgy of St James. By miles this may be the oldest complete liturgy in the world, and might even have 1st century elements in it. So, chronologically, they beat everybody else into a cocked hat and could claim that their way of doing it is the most true.

But the Mar Thoma has a cancer at its heart - it did not allow untouchables (Dalits) to join. Its own practice was at odds with its Tradition - contradicting the letter of the very same Apostle to whom they ascribe their liturgy! I don't know if this is changing, but it's a clear example of how a church, tho' claiming Tradition as its justification, can itself be acting contrary to it through its own structures.
 

For example during the commonwealth period (mid 17th century) when almost any group was accepted as a church (except the Roman Catholics) and even synagogues were allowed again - some groups such as the general Baptists were not recognised beacause they had women ministers.
 

I'm impressed with the quality of debate on this subject, and it has avoided stridency for the most part. I wish that the public debate reflected that, but public debate often involves strident speaking on both sides. I think this is because both sides are so invested in their positions (and their relative trappings) and fearful of the other side -- they fear that the other side is really just trying to drive a wedge in that will lead down a dark thorny path to a) total conservative scary stuff or b) wacky liberal wishy-washy crap, depending on which side is yours.

In other words, there's a lot of emotional baggage being hauled around. Women got tired of being called icky, and started assuming that objection to WO was shorthand for "you're icky". Which of course, it needn't be. People opposed to WO were being told they were fundamentalist Neanderthals and started assuming opposition is shorthand for "you guys are jerky fundamentalist Neanderthals".

So to the extent we could all rein in our fears, the whole public debate about this and other things like it would work better.
 

Perhaps this is a good stopping place for me...

God bless you all, whatever our differences are on this and other matters.
 

AMEN!

-Rdr Alexis
 

You folks are probably going to tell me to go away, but I still think that making a distinction between what males and females are eligible to do is an abusive behavior.

Do you know what a bonsai tree is? This is a tree that, if left in the wild, would grow to be 12 or 18 feet tall. But it is put in a little ceramic pot, its tap root (the main root) is cut, and it is fed and watered and given light only enough to survive, not to grow. Also, the limbs are pruned severely to limit photosynthesis, and are usually wired into a shape that pleases the gardener, but may not serve the interests of the plant.

Many, many women in the church feel like bonsai trees.
 

Wouldn't it be good if we could find a huge loaf and a never ending wine bottle which St Peter had consecrated himself, then the catholics and orthodox who feel the need for something consecrated by a male in apostolic succession could use this and we wouldn't need any priests in that sense, and the church could have an equal opportunities policy for all its employees and keep the liberals happy.

In fact why don't we have a factory somewhere where a handful of priests with Catholic approvals do some consecrating in bulk and then it could get shipped out and all the parish ministers could serve it up when required with no-one worrying about their sex.

Of course it would subvert the powerbase of the priests so it might not be very popular!!!

Pt
 

I appreciate the respect shown in these posts...and thanks to Nancy am joining in myself. I also applaud Dyfrig's recent long remarks.
A point on "tradition". "Tradition" can uphold a lot of quite nasty things. So can the Bible. the obvious example being slavery, which the Scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian, make no apologies for and indeed support. Folks who want to use women being quiet in church and woman obeying their husbands as head of household should be equally willing to use, "Slaves obey your masters."
I do believe it is true that everyone, myself included, tend to take literally in the bible the parts they want to.
A bit on research. Biblical study and archeology in recent years, especially that done by feminist scholars have shown that women were evangelists along with Paul, women no doubt headed house churches....and women perhaps presided at early Eucharists.
Enough said. I find that tradition is not a necessary and sufficient argument. I imagine that when we face God we will all be quite surprised at the breadth of God's inclusivity in everything. Personal confession: I am an Episcopal priest. I know many women who will not set foot in a church of any denomination because of the ongoing abusive treat ment of women.
 

*She's really gone off this time*

*In Gill's dreams she sees endless words scrolling down a page, tiring her eyes so much that she can't read what they say.*

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 

Amusingly, posting more just keeps it going and in the public eye.
 

I think I was the one who referred to Harris as possibly heretical, and having tried to do a Net search on her doctrines and coming up largely empty-handed -- though I did specifically note one time when she said that she was often quoted out of context -- I retract, for now at least, my comment on her as an example. She does seem to focus more on social issues than on theology from the bits I found -- but on the other hand that's what people will quote the most, isn't it? -- and I wanted to avoid any of the invective-spewing sites which listed her without explaining why as "one of those people we don't like." If someone claims that a person's theology is off-base I like to see more evidence than that.
 

Rdr Alexis
 

As I am just about fully persuaded that women can be priests/ministers (having once been very hostile to the whole idea), I think it's about time some women appeared on our preaching rotas!
 

I don't know the ratio in Baptist theological colleges but a couple of years back it was revealed to the Methodists that the Average ministry candidate in the (English) Methodist church was a 42 year old woman with 2 children.
 

Where are you?

This is your kind of debate!!!

That said, I will back up the view that often supporters of WO come across as 'shrill' in their arguments. Both sides do. The BIG problem from the point of view of FiF (and with this I agree) is that the 'ordination' of women in the CoE is still, in theory, 'optional' for a congregation or indeed for a priest. But this is still the case only in theory. 'Doubters' of the validity of WO are mocked or harassed: 'persecution' is a regular term in New Directions. I refuse to accept, incidentally, the equation of opposition with WO to support for slavery.

It's nonsensical as noted earlier to assume that all doubters or opponents of WO are mad conservatives: I'm a dyed in the wool liberal that finds myself horrified to be agnostic on the issue. I don't think it serves anyone any good to mock doubters or to assume we're feeble minded, 19th century, scared of change, scared of losing their position or whatever.

In the end, the arguments for WO are as flimsy or strong as the arguments against are. Opposition to women's ordination is indefensible in terms of 'natural' (i.e. mankind's) justice: but then there are no good arguments for WO based on scripture or tradition, merely arguments against opposing arguments based on tradition or scripture.

Incidentally, an earlier posting tried to refute the idea that there is a link between WO and declining church attendance. I don't think there is a link between the two. I also don't think women's ordination has made a blindest bit of difference to the decline: which has continued apace. The Methodist church (in the UK) was one of the first to embrace inclusivity, yet it is now in danger of collapse- the two are not related (one could of course argue that such moves are reactions to decline if not causative)- WO has neither saved nor damned it. WO may have released the pent-up frustration of a number of women in the CoE but it hasn't helped stem the decline. Sorry.
 

quote:

---

The Methodist church (in the UK) was one of the first to embrace inclusivity, yet it is now in danger of collapse- the two are not related

---

I don't think women's ordination has any effect on demonination growth bothg the Cogregationalists (now United Reform Church) and Baptists began ordaining women in the 1920's, and yes sometimes the United Reform Church seems in danger of colapse but the Baptists are the only mainstream denomination to being showing numerical growth at present.

Having said that the first woman minister I heard preach was in the URC and she was dire
I later heard a woman Baptist minister and she was really good, since then I have heard many women in many demoninations preach and some good some bad, similarly I expect some are good pastors and some bad,
last week I experienced an Anglican woman priest who was somewhere in the middle. I don't think genitalia is in any way relavent.
 

I have recently taken serious flack for stopping the practice of reserving consecrated bread/wine in the church. The practical reason is that it doesn't get used as I take what I need for home visits after the Sunday service. The objection I have met is that some people have a different spiritual experience in church if they know the reserved sacrements are present.

I am interested to know what range of opinion exists between 'its just bread' to 'Jesus lives in the box in the wall'.

Anyone care to comment?
 

This was meant to be in the 'what happens in holy communion' thread. I'll just go ver there now and try again.

Sorry.