No one has yet managed to refute the arguement that male and female He created them. Both with the divine spark. Both with the image of God within them. Both reflecting the glory of God. Not better than but equal to.

I think this is the other great circular argument.

Now, bearing in mind IanB's quite helpful piece on the different word used here (hier..something or other as opposed to presbyteros), let us consider the requirement of "congruence" in this context.

Presumably there is congruence of the whole church with Jesus Christ in order to be able to image him to the world, and equally congurence with the rest of humanity (and creation itself - humanity being priest of creation too according to Orthodox thought...and, of course, creation is female! ) as well. Otherwise, by Gregory's reasoning of required ontological congruence, it could not "priest" Jesus. With what, in Jesus, is the corporate Church congruent? Is it his maleness?

And if the whole cannot be a priesthood due to lack of congruence in maleness, why would the Holy Apostle use such a word?

This juxtaposing of male and female language as appropriate/inappropriate for describing "God" is a red herring. There is no must about its use. As has already been pointed out, that part of Holy Tradition written in the Old Testament contains descriptions of God in feminine terms (and sometimes non-human terms - rocks, lions, chickens) so to read back into these Classical categories (from that oh-so woman friendly society) is both anachronistice and does violence to the testimony of the people of God.

[UBB fixed]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Karl, you're an angel and I want to have your babies.

---

I will refrain from asking about the mechanics of this.

Speaking of function, how come in your church married men can be priests but not Bishops?

Is this a matter of function, modelling or yet more dubious theology?

GH: Because bishops have too much on their plate and need to take a step back from the world. Celibacy and marriage are BOTH gifts to ministry.

How do married guys feel about it?

GH: Just fine thank you. Speaking as an ex-Anglican I was always suspicious of people who wanted to become bishops.

Oh, and one more thing...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the mystical symbolism has to do with God-language. It's NOT that God is male, it's that male language is better suited to the description of creation in montheistic theology (ie., Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh for GOODNESS' sake! What utter crap! What the HELL is 'male language'???

GH: Our Father who art in heaven .....

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.