|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
That was, um, a brave first post.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sinisterial:
Well, it is less than a week until the big vote™ in the Lutheran Church of Australia.
For the first time in LCA history, the General Church Council has not been able to provide a recommendation to the synod because they themselves are split!
Arguments for and against are here.
Another interesting point in our case is that the poster boys on either side are brothers!
Man, is that a well-stated pro-argument.
I'm sure the eyes of the Lutheran world are on this one. Particularly those eyes in Missouri and Wisconsin.
[epfraim b: I'm sure history will support my assertion that sometimes baby steps take decades, centuries. Patience.]
[ 30. September 2006, 21:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Kelly Alves: quote:
[epfraim b: I'm sure history will support my assertion that sometimes baby steps take decades, centuries. Patience.]
The only problem with that is that millions of women live and die during those "decades, centuries", meaning hundreds and possibly thousands of women miss the opportunity to respond to God's call to pastoral ministry.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amy the Undecided
Shipmate
# 11412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Man, is that a well-stated pro-argument.
I particularly like the cited concern in point 14 about the ordination of women as "cav[ing] in to the 'spirit of the age,'" and think they missed a golden opportunity to point out what follows logically from that concern and from points 5 and 9: women have only been denied ordination because "the spirit of the age" in almost every age has been that women are inferior, unworthy, automatically sinful, etc. etc. If men had been heeding the Spirit instead of the Zeitgeist--or, to put it more bluntly, their own quest for domination--they'd have welcomed women into leadership of the church long ago.
--------------------
The world is too dangerous for anything but truth and too small for anything but love. ~William Sloane Coffin
Posts: 263 | From: Northern California | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:
I...<snip>...think they missed a golden opportunity to point out what follows logically from that concern and from points 5 and 9: women have only been denied ordination because "the spirit of the age" in almost every age has been that women are inferior, unworthy, automatically sinful, etc.
That's a very bold assertion which has been offered with nothing to support it.
Also, why the particular terminology? To talk about a particular group of people being denied something implies that they are in some way entitled to it to begin with. A couple of years back, even as a staunch supporter of the Ordination of women, I squirmed when I read an article in my diocesan magazine where a recently-ordained woman spoke of her "right to be ordained". The Christian understanding is that nobody has a right to any of the Sacraments and so there can be no Christian concept of anybody being "denied" any of the Sacraments. Rather, they are bestowed upon us by God's grace, for the purposes of salvation, according to our suitability in each case, which may or may not be related to our sex.
The very fact that people seem to think it perfectly natural to take the Sacraments, which exist in God's economy of salvation, and to speak of them instead in 20th/21st-century "western" cultural terms, trying to force them into the realm of rights, equality and denial, is itself evidence that many people's judgment on this is clouded precisely by "the spirit of the age".
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Kelly Alves: quote:
[epfraim b: I'm sure history will support my assertion that sometimes baby steps take decades, centuries. Patience.]
The only problem with that is that millions of women live and die during those "decades, centuries", meaning hundreds and possibly thousands of women miss the opportunity to respond to God's call to pastoral ministry.
Do they, though, Lyda*Rose?
Priestly ministry is about much, much more than pastoral ministry, and pastoral ministry isn;t restricted to priesthood.
If a woman (or man, for that matter), feels called to pastoral ministry, then that's brilliant However, it's a big jump to then assume that this call is a call to the priesthood, for which the person (sex aside), may be completely unsuitable for a whole host of other reasons unrelated to the person's pastoral capabilities.
If a person, for whatever reason, is unsuitable for priesthood, it does not follow that the person is missing the opportunity to exercise pastoral ministry. The only problem is if the person has inextricably linked the two in his/her mind, in which case (s)he has misunderstood priesthood anyway.
Certainly in the Orthodox Church, pastoral ministry is by no means limited to priesthood, as many Orthodox women and men will testify. With campaigns underway in some quarters to restore the office of deaconess (which was never abolished but just sort of fell into disuse), this reality is all the nearer to being codified.
[spelling]
[ 02. October 2006, 22:01: Message edited by: Saint Bertolin ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Since this portion of the discussion has been about the discussions in the Lutheran church about women becoming Lutheran pastors, not priests, I called it pastoral ministry. Perhaps I should have said vocational/professional pastoral ministry.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mayle
Apprentice
# 11892
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
Oh, for GOODNESS' sake! It wasn't church practice for the priest to have a car for 2000 years, either!
Derrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!
Ahh, but cars didn't exist. All the evidence suggests, however, that women did.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amy the Undecided
Shipmate
# 11412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:
I...snip...think they missed a golden opportunity to point out what follows logically from that concern and from points 5 and 9: women have only been denied ordination because "the spirit of the age" in almost every age has been that women are inferior, unworthy, automatically sinful, etc.
That's a very bold assertion which has been offered with nothing to support it.
That's true. So I will offer this very short summation of my reasoning:
Premise one: Through the centuries, most men (and all too frequently, many women) have claimed that women are not capable of thinking rationally, co-creating a child (we're just the soil the man's seed grows in), doing mathematics, etc.
Premise two: These claims have been wrong.
Premise three: In many cases (e.g., the one about children being descended only from the male), these claims have also been stupendously stupid and contrary to observable fact.
Conclusion: The "spirit of the age" causes people to believe things such as women's inferiority (or even non-humanity) against all evidence.
Further conclusion: This has had an effect not only on the views of women's educability, role in procreation, etc., but also on the views of women's worthiness for ordination.
It's not exactly a watertight syllogism, but it's logical to me.
An even shorter version is: in most ages, "the spirit of the age" has been profoundly sexist. Therefore it is no surprise that in those ages, the judgment of most people has been that women must not be ordained. The idea that the admittedly new idea that women are in fact fully human is simply a fad stinks to high heaven.
I'm not sure where the argument about the word "right" came from, since I did not use it. I said "denied." As in, prevented from. If you don't think that's a good word for what most churches have done vis-a-vis women seeking ordination, I think your argument is with the dictionary, not with me.
A "right" to ordination does seem like a mixing of languages. I don't believe anyone has a "right" to ordination, even in my tradition (in which ordination is not a sacrament). Rather, the issue is that it is an incalculable loss to the church and to the women whose gifts have withered on the vine (of course, they have often been used in other ways). Rather like all the Jane Austens and Margaret Atwoods whose work was burnt, or never written, because "women can't write." We will never know what we're missing. I'm just glad that in the realm of fiction, we've got it now (mostly), and I look forward to the realm of religion catching up.
--------------------
The world is too dangerous for anything but truth and too small for anything but love. ~William Sloane Coffin
Posts: 263 | From: Northern California | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sinistærial
Ship's Lefty
# 5834
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm sure the eyes of the Lutheran world are on this one. Particularly those eyes in Missouri and Wisconsin.
Considering that the LCA is a sockpuppet of LC-MS I am almost sure that the proposal will not get up. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Having said that, early reports have stated a 50/50 split amongst pastors.
Given that 2/3 of the delegates at convention are lay and that a 2/3 majority is required pass the resolution, 75% of the lay deligates will have to vote yes. The last time womens and mens ordination was rasied (in 2000), the lay vote was above 50% but less than 66%. I am still ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) like crazy.
Maybe I will place a post on the prayer thread too
--------------------
People laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at other people because they are all the same.
æ = æ
Posts: 894 | From: The Holy City - Adelaide | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sinisterial:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm sure the eyes of the Lutheran world are on this one. Particularly those eyes in Missouri and Wisconsin.
Considering that the LCA is a sockpuppet of LC-MS I am almost sure that the proposal will not get up.
Having said that, early reports have stated a 50/50 split amongst pastors.
Given that 2/3 of the delegates at convention are lay and that a 2/3 majority is required pass the resolution, 75% of the lay deligates will have to vote yes. The last time womens and mens ordination was rasied (in 2000), the lay vote was above 50% but less than 66%. I am still like crazy.
Maybe I will place a post on the prayer thread too
I didn't want to make assumptions, but from some of the wording of the documents, I guessed about the LCMS sockpuppet-thing (I guess that's why I found the documents impressive- although they may not be scathing, they use all the right language, Lutheran-wise.)
And I don't know if this makes sense, but the fact that things have gotten to the ***50/50!!** stage, given the above, is astounding to me. Back when I first started following the LCMS version of this stuff in the 90's, it was more like 38/ 62.
And about 20 years before that, it was probably more like "who the hell would even ask the question?"
Lyda, I totally hear what you are saying, and more or less agree. But history moves like an glacier. If we don't look for small measures of encouragement, we'll go nuts-- or worse, give up.
[ 03. October 2006, 03:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sinistærial
Ship's Lefty
# 5834
|
Posted
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
50% In favour
44% Against
06% Abstained
--------------------
People laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at other people because they are all the same.
æ = æ
Posts: 894 | From: The Holy City - Adelaide | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose, thank you for clarifying. I'm sorry for reading your words outside of the Lutheran contxt in which you intended them.
quote:
Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:
I...snip...think they missed a golden opportunity to point out what follows logically from that concern and from points 5 and 9: women have only been denied ordination because "the spirit of the age" in almost every age has been that women are inferior, unworthy, automatically sinful, etc.
That's a very bold assertion which has been offered with nothing to support it.
That's true. So I will offer this very short summation of my reasoning:
Premise one: Through the centuries, most men (and all too frequently, many women) have claimed that women are not capable of thinking rationally, co-creating a child (we're just the soil the man's seed grows in), doing mathematics, etc.
Premise two: These claims have been wrong.
Premise three: In many cases (e.g., the one about children being descended only from the male), these claims have also been stupendously stupid and contrary to observable fact.
Conclusion: The "spirit of the age" causes people to believe things such as women's inferiority (or even non-humanity) against all evidence.
Further conclusion: This has had an effect not only on the views of women's educability, role in procreation, etc., but also on the views of women's worthiness for ordination.
It's not exactly a watertight syllogism, but it's logical to me.
It needn't be watertight. What you're saying here makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with most of it. However, while your explanation goes some way to explaining why the past social concept of the inferiority of women would have coloured opinions regarding the suitability of women for priesthood, it doesn't support your assertion that:
quote:
...women have only been denied ordination because "the spirit of the age" in almost every age has been that women are inferior, unworthy, automatically sinful, etc.
(emphasis my own).
What you have said above does not offer any support that the appallingly low view of women is the only reason women were not ordained.
quote:
An even shorter version is: in most ages, "the spirit of the age" has been profoundly sexist. Therefore it is no surprise that in those ages, the judgment of most people has been that women must not be ordained.
Fair enough. As mentioned above, I agree with this completely, but to say that this is the only reason why women were not ordained seems to imply that doctrine and church practice are dictated solely by popular opinion.
If we're going to take seriously the promise of Christ to give us the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all Truth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, then we cannot entertain the concept of doctrine by popular opinion. It would mean that for the past 2000 years, the Holy Spirit has been leading the Church into error.
quote:
The idea that the admittedly new idea that women are in fact fully human is simply a fad stinks to high heaven.
This is a red herring. The discussion is not about whether women are fully human because "fully human" does not equate to "suitable for priesthood".
quote:
I'm not sure where the argument about the word "right" came from, since I did not use it.
I didn't claim that you did. I was merely citing another example of the mindset that thinks of the Sacraments in terms of rights, or something that can be denied to somebody.
quote:
I said "denied." As in, prevented from. If you don't think that's a good word for what most churches have done vis-a-vis women seeking ordination, I think your argument is with the dictionary, not with me.
I must disagree with this. Your clarification of your use of the word denied only goes to support what I said. To speak of anybody being denied or prevented from receiving any of the Sacraments implies that the Sacrament is something that the person was entitled to, or had a right to, in the first place. I can concede to the use of the word prevent but only in the sense implies that a barrier has been put in the way of the person receiving the Sacrament.
That is simply not how the Sacraments work. We are all unworthy of the Sacraments, and the default "setting", as it were, is that we do not receive them. However, by God's grace, they are offered to us through his Church, according to our need and suitability, in accordance with the nature of the Sacraments.
Not everybody will receive all of the Sacraments because the natures of the different Sacraments are such that not all of them are suitable for all people - because of what those Sacraments actually are. This isn't a case of anybody being denied them or prevented from receiving them, unless you specifically phrase it in such a way that makes it clear that the person is prevented from receiving the particular Sacrament by the very nature of what that sacrament is, and not because of anybody is intervening to deny the prson anything.
quote:
A "right" to ordination does seem like a mixing of languages. I don't believe anyone has a "right" to ordination, even in my tradition (in which ordination is not a sacrament). Rather, the issue is that it is an incalculable loss to the church and to the women whose gifts have withered on the vine (of course, they have often been used in other ways). Rather like all the Jane Austens and Margaret Atwoods whose work was burnt, or never written, because "women can't write." We will never know what we're missing. I'm just glad that in the realm of fiction, we've got it now (mostly), and I look forward to the realm of religion catching up.
In the context of a community that doesn't recognise Ordination as a Sacrament, then I can understand the comparison between Austen, Atwood, and others, and I can see how, removed from the Sacramental context, that all fits together.
All of what I said above is from the traditional understanding of Ordination as a Sacrament and so we've probably been talking at cross-purposes here.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
The question has been raised on the S. Clement's thread of women officiating at Mattins, Evensong, and/or Compline in parishes where women priests are unofficially not recognised. Meaculpa said that he wouldn't have a problem with a woman officiating at Mattins "in civvies', not "as a priest". I must confess that this distinction baffles me somewhat (but then, I am not very good at putting myself in the mind of one who does not recognise OoW). In my parish, when our rector (a woman, but that's beside my point) officiates at Mattins, she wears an alb and academic hood - both of which can be worn by a layperson, male or female. So what would "civvies" mean here?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Alb and hood?
That sounds like a very odd combination to me. The alb is part of the Mass vestment and I don't see why anybody would ever wear one with an academic hood. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
For the Office, the clery should be in choir dress, which for deacons and priests is cassock, surplice and scarf (with optional hood if the cleric has a degree). If the Office is said solemnly, then the cope is added (and I think the hood would be discarded).
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
My parish is notoriously idiosyncratic, and I may in fact be entirely wrong. But in either case, the vestments worn can be worn by laypersons as well as clerics. So why the problem with women officiating at the Office vested?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amy the Undecided
Shipmate
# 11412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
while your explanation goes some way to explaining why the past social concept of the inferiority of women would have coloured opinions regarding the suitability of women for priesthood, it doesn't support your assertion that:
quote:
...women have only been denied ordination because "the spirit of the age" in almost every age has been that women are inferior, unworthy, automatically sinful, etc.
(emphasis my own).
What you have said above does not offer any support that the appallingly low view of women is the only reason women were not ordained.
You're right. I grant that I can't back up that flourish of rhetoric. However, I believe the church has been resisting the call of the Spirit for 2000 years and I'd like to see someone suggest a good reason why, other than "it was made up of flawed human beings who were extremely resistant to the idea that women might be worthy of receiving this Sacrament" (if I may borrow your theology for a moment).
quote:
If we're going to take seriously the promise of Christ to give us the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all Truth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, then we cannot entertain the concept of doctrine by popular opinion. It would mean that for the past 2000 years, the Holy Spirit has been leading the Church into error.
So the Church has never, in 2000 years, been in error? The bits about burning the Talmud and requiring Jews to listen to sermons urging their conversion, the Inquisition, those were okay at the time?
I would say that people are quite capable of ignoring the Holy Spirit, and often do, even if they are leaders of the church. I'm weary of the irresistible grace thread (I think it was The Background of Calvinism, in Purg), but of course if you believe everything that happens is the will of God then you will think it has been God's will, not men's alone, that women should not be ordained all these centuries. I cannot actually disprove this, not being God.
quote:
Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:
The idea that the admittedly new idea that women are in fact fully human is simply a fad stinks to high heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
This is a red herring. The discussion is not about whether women are fully human because "fully human" does not equate to "suitable for priesthood".
I was alluding to my favorite short definition of feminism, "the radical idea that women are human beings." I should have just said "feminism" but I lost my nerve. So please allow me to rephrase my statement as, "The fact that we are only recently recognizing the basic equality of men and women should not mean that women's claims to equal access to the priesthood are merely a fad."
Yes, it takes more than humanity to be suitable for the priesthood. But the idea that the possession of a certain set of genitals rather than another is a requirement needs to be bolstered by something more than "the priesthood isn't a right, you know." Otherwise, why not exclude blue-eyed people? Brown-skinned people? People with one leg (the Jews did this in ancient times, of course)?
One must be human, one must be called, one must be comparatively good though of course not without sin . . . what other requirements should there be for the priesthood (or ministry)? This is a profound question. Arbitrary exclusions don't affirm it; they insult it.
Women don't have a right to be physicians, either. Some are incapable of it and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. But to therefore exclude women per se from being physicians is in no way a logical conclusion. It tells us something else is going on.
quote:
Not everybody will receive all of the Sacraments because the natures of the different Sacraments are such that not all of them are suitable for all people - because of what those Sacraments actually are. This isn't a case of anybody being denied them or prevented from receiving them, unless you specifically phrase it in such a way that makes it clear that the person is prevented from receiving the particular Sacrament by the very nature of what that sacrament is, and not because of anybody is intervening to deny the prson anything.
Now I'm just confused. Are you saying that women can receive this Sacrament whether or not other people try to stand in their way?
Women have not thus far, in many traditions, received the Sacrament of the priesthood. I am asserting that the reason has nothing to do with the grace of the Holy Spirit, but rather to do precisely with the intervention of other people. Just as people sometimes intervene to deny other people life. It's wrong, it is not the holy thing to do, yet it happens. To again (and I hope correctly) borrow your language, people judge themselves superior to God's grace.
quote:
All of what I said above is from the traditional understanding of Ordination as a Sacrament and so we've probably been talking at cross-purposes here.
Well, maybe so, but here we all are, talking about the meaning of sacraments and of ordination, and we don't all mean the same things. So I appreciate the conversation and a chance to learn what you mean by Sacrament.
I don't think you mean to say that "whatever is, is what should be," but I'm having trouble drawing a different conclusion from your argument. And how then do we know whether the Holy Spirit is moving us toward a change? The implication seems to be that it never is.
--------------------
The world is too dangerous for anything but truth and too small for anything but love. ~William Sloane Coffin
Posts: 263 | From: Northern California | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
If we're going to take seriously the promise of Christ to give us the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all Truth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, then we cannot entertain the concept of doctrine by popular opinion. It would mean that for the past 2000 years, the Holy Spirit has been leading the Church into error.
No, because the church on earth is made up of sinful men and women and they may well resist the leading of the Holy Spirit.
You are Orthodox I think. For some years most of the church prefered Arius to Athanasius. But it was fixed later.
Can you limit the scale of heresy? Can you say tht the Spirit would permit the majority of Christians to fall into heresy for ten years but not twenty? Twenty but not a hundred?
For all I know we'll be doing this for the next ten million years, and spread over the whole galaxy, and not more than one in a billion Christians in the whole of history will ever be members of churches that don't ordain women.
Anyway, most Christians who have ever lived have been members of the Roman Catholic Church since it broke off from the east. So your argument would equally well apply to the Papacy. How could the Holy Spirit lead the church into such an error?
Maybe the spirit didn't, sinners did. And the gates of hell have not prevailed because some Christians somewhere (maybe still a minority though) refuded to be taken in?
The same could apply to the ordination of women. The Spirit has his faithful remnant who reject the Manicheeism and Gnosticism inherent in the refusal to ordain women.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amy the Undecided:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
while your explanation goes some way to explaining why the past social concept of the inferiority of women would have coloured opinions regarding the suitability of women for priesthood, it doesn't support your assertion that:
quote:
...women have only been denied ordination because "the spirit of the age" in almost every age has been that women are inferior, unworthy, automatically sinful, etc.
(emphasis my own).
What you have said above does not offer any support that the appallingly low view of women is the only reason women were not ordained.
You're right. I grant that I can't back up that flourish of rhetoric. However, I believe the church has been resisting the call of the Spirit for 2000 years...
...whereas I don't believe that the Church can exist aside from the will of the Spirit because of what the Church itself is.
quote:
and I'd like to see someone suggest a good reason why, other than "it was made up of flawed human beings who were extremely resistant to the idea that women might be worthy of receiving this Sacrament" (if I may borrow your theology for a moment).
With respect to you, Amy the Undecided, that isn't my theology, as I would very strongly take issue with the idea of worthiness. The concept of worthiness isn't what I've been expressing here.
quote:
quote:
If we're going to take seriously the promise of Christ to give us the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all Truth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, then we cannot entertain the concept of doctrine by popular opinion. It would mean that for the past 2000 years, the Holy Spirit has been leading the Church into error.
So the Church has never, in 2000 years, been in error? The bits about burning the Talmud and requiring Jews to listen to sermons urging their conversion, the Inquisition, those were okay at the time?
In matters of Truth, no, the Church hasn't erred. That people within the Church have murdered, pillaged, raped, &c. does not reflect on Christ's promise of the Spirit of Truth for these were not matters of the Faith and were not actions of the Church, and so aren't relevant to what I'm saying. The Sacraments are actions of the Church and that's what we're discussing on this thread.
quote:
I would say that people are quite capable of ignoring the Holy Spirit, and often do, even if they are leaders of the church.
Ok. I'm agreeing with you so far.
quote:
I'm weary of the irresistible grace thread (I think it was The Background of Calvinism, in Purg), but of course if you believe everything that happens is the will of God then you will think it has been God's will, not men's alone, that women should not be ordained all these centuries. I cannot actually disprove this, not being God.[/qb]
I must admit to not having followed that thread, and so I can't immediately relate. However, I can say that I do not believe that everything that happens is God's will. Far from it. However, I do believe that the Christian Faith is revealed by God through the Church that He established, and that the Sacraments are part and parcel of that. By definition, the Church is not separable from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for then it ceases to be the Church.
quote:
Yes, it takes more than humanity to be suitable for the priesthood. But the idea that the possession of a certain set of genitals rather than another is a requirement needs to be bolstered by something more than "the priesthood isn't a right, you know." Otherwise, why not exclude blue-eyed people? Brown-skinned people? People with one leg (the Jews did this in ancient times, of course)?
If I recall correctly from my reading a few weeks back, (although I may not ), that was dealt with to some degree earlier in the thread. I'm not sure yet where I personally stand in my own understanding but where I am currently up to on the issue is just slightly beyond what I expressed a few weeks back here.
I'm sorry I can't delve further than that right now. It's still something I plan to explore. I've just had other things to work through since posting that.
quote:
Women don't have a right to be physicians, either. Some are incapable of it and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. But to therefore exclude women per se from being physicians is in no way a logical conclusion. It tells us something else is going on.
Again, with respect, this is a false analogy. I don't think that anybody would argue that the quality of being a physician is, by its nature, male. The point is that this isn't about rights: the argument against the Ordination of women is that priesthood, by virtue of what it is, is intrisically male. The question isn't whether or not women ought to be ordained priests: the question is whether it is possible for the Sacrament of Ordination to the Priesthood to be conferred on a woman. It isn't a question of rights or worthiness. It isn't a question of anything being denied anybody, and it isn't a question of inferiority of women. It is a question of what ordained priesthood actually is. The same questions simply don't exist with regard to being a physician.
quote:
quote:
Not everybody will receive all of the Sacraments because the natures of the different Sacraments are such that not all of them are suitable for all people - because of what those Sacraments actually are. This isn't a case of anybody being denied them or prevented from receiving them, unless you specifically phrase it in such a way that makes it clear that the person is prevented from receiving the particular Sacrament by the very nature of what that sacrament is, and not because of anybody is intervening to deny the prson anything.
Now I'm just confused. Are you saying that women can receive this Sacrament whether or not other people try to stand in their way?
I'm sorry. I'm honestly not trying to be obtuse but I genuinely don't see how you've understood that from what I said, even after re-reading what I said.
What I'm saying is that the question of whether or not women can (not should, but can) be ordained has nothing to do with whether or not people stand in their way. It has to do with what Priesthood is.
quote:
Women have not thus far, in many traditions, received the Sacrament of the priesthood. I am asserting that the reason has nothing to do with the grace of the Holy Spirit, but rather to do precisely with the intervention of other people. Just as people sometimes intervene to deny other people life. It's wrong, it is not the holy thing to do, yet it happens. To again (and I hope correctly) borrow your language, people judge themselves superior to God's grace.
Whereas for those of us in those traditions where women are not ordained, the position is not that we have judged ourselves superior to God's grace but rather that we are acting in accordance with the Faith of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that it isn't our place to judge ourselves superior to that.
quote:
quote:
All of what I said above is from the traditional understanding of Ordination as a Sacrament and so we've probably been talking at cross-purposes here.
Well, maybe so, but here we all are, talking about the meaning of sacraments and of ordination, and we don't all mean the same things. So I appreciate the conversation and a chance to learn what you mean by Sacrament.
I too, appreciate a deeper understanding of where others are coming from. Having been brought up Anglican, dabbled with Catholicism in my teens and now being happily Orthodox, I have been aware of some of the perhaps less traditional understandings of sacraments but haven't really delved into them. I suppose that when I have come across them (mainly here on the Ship over the past four years), they have generally (with exceptions, of course), been associated with a downplaying of the Incarnation & Ascension within the Christian Mystery, and a very different ecclesiology, perhaps stemming from this.
For us, a Sacrament is part of God's economy of salvation under the New Covenant - i.e. the Church - established by Christ. One could fairly say that the Church is the first among the Sacraments but essentially, a Sacrament is a means of the grace of God for a particular purpose within his work of salvation in us, which not only points to the grace it conveys, but is also the means whereby that grace is conveyed. Therefore, the Sacrament of Ordination conveys the grace and charism of the Priesthood of the Church. It is not just an outward sign of commissioning or public affirmation of a person's pastoral gifts.
The question at hand here is what that priesthood actually is, and whether its nature is such that it is intrinsically male. I'm sorry that you aren't on the Star of the Sea board because there is a thread there on just this topic that I personally found helpful due to the articulate nature of the posts there. I struggle to express myself properly sometimes.
quote:
I don't think you mean to say that "whatever is, is what should be," but I'm having trouble drawing a different conclusion from your argument. And how then do we know whether the Holy Spirit is moving us toward a change? The implication seems to be that it never is.
Not at all. Change is perfectly possible in that Holy Tradition is a living thing, which is built on the foundation that has gone before. Note, though, that the Truth of God is eternal, and that Holy Tradition is simply the revelation of that Truth to us, and so yes, of course change (from the human perspective, at least) is perfectly possible under the Spirit's guidance, as more of the Truth is revealed to us, but when a proposed development is in stark contrast to the Truth that has been revealed before, then, while I cannot speak for everyone, we Orthodox would have to seriously question how this could be viewed as consonant with Tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
If we're going to take seriously the promise of Christ to give us the Spirit of Truth to lead us into all Truth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, then we cannot entertain the concept of doctrine by popular opinion. It would mean that for the past 2000 years, the Holy Spirit has been leading the Church into error.
No, because the church on earth is made up of sinful men and women and they may well resist the leading of the Holy Spirit.
I agree that the Church is made up of sinful men and women and I agree that those indivuals or groups of them may resist the leading of the Holy Spirit. However, all this means is that people are able to separate themselves from the bond of the Church. It doesn't mean that the Church itself departs from Truth.
quote:
You are Orthodox I think. For some years most of the church prefered Arius to Athanasius. But it was fixed later.
I agree. A dispute arose over many years at a time when the revelation of what was the Truth of that matter had not yet been fully revealed, and that was resolved by an Oecumenical Council. With rgard to the Ordination of women, there is no uch division within the Church.* There is no part of Orthodoxy that ordains women to the priesthood.
* I am, of course, as you correctly noted, speaking as an Orthodox Christian who holds an Orthodox ecclesiology.
quote:
Anyway, most Christians who have ever lived have been members of the Roman Catholic Church since it broke off from the east. So your argument would equally well apply to the Papacy. How could the Holy Spirit lead the church into such an error?
My answer would be that it didn't. With respect to you, ken, this question only makes sense from the perspective of somebody who holds to an ecclesiology different from the Orthodox one, which I understand that you do, but I don't. I can't answer the question because it's based on an understanding of the nature of the Church that I, as an Orthodox Christian, do not accept.
I'm sorry I deleted the "That they all may be one" thread from last year, and which I had saved for a while. It went on for a couple of pages and was specifically about ecclesiology.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sinisterial:
50% In favour
44% Against
06% Abstained
...wait, how does that pan out? Do they need a specific majority?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Ok, nevermind, just re-read the 2/3rd majority thing. DAMN!!!! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Still, inch by inch...that's a pretty close vote.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
ACNS has First Anglican women priests ordained in Church of Ceylon.
(Apparently, the church in Sri Lanka is "of Ceylon", still, and "The Church of Ceylon is extra-provincial and falls under the metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.")
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I was particularly impressed with the "slippery slope" argument to the effect that OoW will inevitably lead to the acceptance of - gasp!- homosexuals in the ordained ministry!
But I also enjoyed the bit about how women priests inevitably lead to fewer bums in the pews and seminary classrooms.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by liturgyqueen:
But I also enjoyed the bit about how women priests inevitably lead to fewer bums in the pews and seminary classrooms.
I wonder how Dean Jensen would explain the fact that we are having to build our second new building in 5 years to acommodate all the new parishioners? (We've had the same female priest for over 12 years now...)
[edited to fix the gentleman's title..]
[ 10. October 2006, 18:35: Message edited by: Paige ]
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I've never thought it would personally lead to less 'bums on pews' and the comments about Dean Jensen give me some satisfaction ! I do think it leads ultimately to less Christians though which is more of a worry for me !
I should clarify that by stating that it isn't that I don't think those in favour of Women Priests aren't Christian (of course they are let me say so here and now !) but if it does lead down 'the slippery slope' then there will be nothing left to believe bar some secular ethics which are quite worthless.
[ 12. October 2006, 18:36: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I've never thought it would personally lead to less 'bums on pews' and the comments about Dean Jensen give me some satisfaction ! I do think it leads ultimately to less Christians though which is more of a worry for me !
You know, I came into the Episcopal Church BECAUSE it ordains women (and because I believed it to be inclusive of gays and lesbians...but that's a different thread). I can guarantee you that I would have never returned to the church if I couldn't see a woman up on the altar.
Now I am an N of one, so I recognize that my anecdotal evidence means nothing. So can you please explain to me why you think that female priests lead to [fewer] Christians? And then provide some evidence to support that contention?
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I should clarify that by stating that it isn't that I don't think those in favour of Women Priests aren't Christian (of course they are let me say so here and now !) but if it does lead down 'the slippery slope' then there will be nothing left to believe bar some secular ethics which are quite worthless.
Well thanks for acknowledging that I might have *some* claim to the Good News. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And let me share with you the ethics that I've learned from the 3 female priests who have been my shepherds in the faith:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
[QB...[fewer] Christians?[/QB]
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
You and I are coming from opposite perspectives with regard to the issue discussed on this thread, but I'm rather relieved that I wasn't the only one to flich a little when I read less Christians.
(I'm sorry, VPG, but you know how we pedants can be at times. Se the current Heaven thread about pedantry. I still think you're fab, though. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
You and I are coming from opposite perspectives with regard to the issue discussed on this thread, but I'm rather relieved that I wasn't the only one to flich a little when I read less Christians.
I'll take whatever common ground we can find, Saint Bertolin...
But I will ask you...what do you say to someone like me, who could only come back to faith if I could do so under the leadership of a woman?
I recognize this is a weakness on my part, in some ways---but my experience of male-dominated Christianity has been so damaging that I'd give it up entirely before I'd go back to a faith community that denied women are called by God as priests.
And I don't *think* I'm doing it as a stiff-necked, in-your-face challenge to God, either. I have honestly experienced some very powerful moments when I have knelt at the altar and received the Host from women. I can't explain those moments without sounding as if I've lost my marbles, but I can say this...if that wasn't the presence of the Holy Spirit, I can't imagine what else it could have been.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
[QB...[fewer] Christians?
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
...I'm rather relieved that I wasn't the only one to flich a little when I read less Christians.
[/QB]
Colour me relieved (and pedantic) also. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
I write for a living. Correcting other people's grammar (if not their theology ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) is an occupational hazard...
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Please do pardon my typo. I did, of course, mean flinch.
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertolin:
You and I are coming from opposite perspectives with regard to the issue discussed on this thread, but I'm rather relieved that I wasn't the only one to flich a little when I read less Christians.
I'll take whatever common ground we can find, Saint Bertolin...
But I will ask you...what do you say to someone like me, who could only come back to faith if I could do so under the leadership of a woman?
I recognize this is a weakness on my part, in some ways---but my experience of male-dominated Christianity has been so damaging that I'd give it up entirely before I'd go back to a faith community that denied women are called by God as priests.
And I don't *think* I'm doing it as a stiff-necked, in-your-face challenge to God, either. I have honestly experienced some very powerful moments when I have knelt at the altar and received the Host from women. I can't explain those moments without sounding as if I've lost my marbles, but I can say this...if that wasn't the presence of the Holy Spirit, I can't imagine what else it could have been.
I can read the emotion in what you're saying here, Paige. Please don't thinkg me unsympathetic. I was once a fully paid-up member of Affirming Catholicism, and so I have been where you are.
As a gay man, I don't see myself as a gay Orthodox Christian: rather, I see myself as an Orthodox Christian who just happens to be gay. I think and study and pray about the issues but I don't place my own personal conclusions above those of the Church because of what I believe about the Church and my place within it. As it happens, over the past few months, I have very happily come to genuine acceptance of Orthodoxy's teaching on the matter of sexuality, largely through the very pastorally-sensitive help of Fr Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St Vladimir's Seminary and author of Christian faith and Same-Sex Attraction: Eastern Orthodox Reflections, with whom I have been in e-mail contact.
I'm not saying this to paint any sort of "holier-than-thou" image of myself, but rather to illustrate that it is possible to move beyond the concept of "my own thinking as the height of authority" to "I submit my thinking to the will of the Church". I find this truly liberating. I am no longer subject to my own limited understanding of things, but accept that there is an objective Truth beyond this, and I find that to be truly liberating.
The ordination of women is another such issue, where, while I have no personal involvement in the matter, I submit my will to that of the Church because of what the Church is.
I would have to ask somebody who places his/her own beliefs above those of the Church why (s)he has chosen to do this. This may boil down to drastically different ecclesiologies (as it often does), and that would be understandable, but for somebody like me, who believes Orthodox ecclesiology to be an article of Faith, I cannot comprehend the concept of "my will be done", while, at the same time, acknowledging that other may hold this view, not accepting Orthodox ecclesiology.
[ 13. October 2006, 01:14: Message edited by: Saint Bertolin ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I'm not speaking for her, but I'd guess her point is that the way the church expresses its teaching is so imperfect (to be as kind as possible) that it discredits the parent doctrine (because if the doctrine causes such pain and damage to the innocent, it cannot be valid) and makes it of no worth or authority.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
My grammatical error was in need of correction and for that I thank people !
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Bertolin:
I would have to ask somebody who places his/her own beliefs above those of the Church why (s)he has chosen to do this. This may boil down to drastically different ecclesiologies (as it often does), and that would be understandable, but for somebody like me, who believes Orthodox ecclesiology to be an article of Faith, I cannot comprehend the concept of "my will be done", while, at the same time, acknowledging that other may hold this view, not accepting Orthodox ecclesiology.
I truly wish that I could in good conscience submit to the teachings of our Holy Mother, the Church, but, poor little Protestant that I am (I don't often use those words! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ) I find myself unable to accept her teaching when it seems to contradict so clearly the teachings of the Gospel on points such as this.
Of course, what I mean by this is that is contradicts my understanding of the teaching of the Gospel. And who knows, I might be wrong in this, as in so many other things. Nevertheless, to acquiesce in what seems to every one of my faculties (God-given, I believe) to be a dangerous error simply isn't something I'm willing to do. Regrettable though it might seem, rebellion it is
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cranmer's baggage
Ship's Opinionated Dame
# 1662
|
Posted
Vesture Posture Gesture,
Having dealt with the grammatical infelicities, would you now turn your attention to the substantive issue: Why do you believe that the presence of women in the presbyterate has led or will lead to a decline in the number of Christians (or do you mean the percentage of Real Christians&trade) in the Church? Do you perceive this as an issue for the Church at large, for denominations which ordain women, or only for congregations in which the ministry of women priests is received?
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 1537 | From: the apple isle | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
My standpoint broadly goes like this. Having studied the history of the ordination of women movement, for the most part, I see it as appearing straight out of feminism rather than as something organic.
I see these concessions such as the OoW as attempts to engage more with a falling away society rather than having any theological purpose. This particular form of engagement I believe, is bound to fail as people end up saying 'you should have done this before' as opposed to actually participate it.
If you want my theology, its pretty much that of the book 'Consecrated Women' or that of Rome. I'm largely talking about churches which claim to ordain women to holy orders. Anything else for me is lay ministry, which I have no objection to women doing.
[ 14. October 2006, 13:41: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I see it as appearing straight out of feminism rather than as something organic.
That is completely untrue, and there are twenty pages of posts on this very thead showing exactly why it is untrue. So I won't bother to repeat them....
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
They hardly show that at all. They show reasons developed after the idea had been circulated. For me that is inorganic.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Vesture, Posture, Gesture: quote:
Anything else for me is lay ministry, which I have no objection to women doing.
Very big of you. I'm sure we all appreciate your vote of confidence.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
My standpoint broadly goes like this. Having studied the history of the ordination of women movement, for the most part, I see it as appearing straight out of feminism rather than as something organic.
I see these concessions such as the OoW as attempts to engage more with a falling away society rather than having any theological purpose. This particular form of engagement I believe, is bound to fail as people end up saying 'you should have done this before' as opposed to actually participate it.
If you want my theology, its pretty much that of the book 'Consecrated Women' or that of Rome. I'm largely talking about churches which claim to ordain women to holy orders. Anything else for me is lay ministry, which I have no objection to women doing.
So can't the Holy Spirit work through the insights of feminism then?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
No.
Social equality good. Feminism bad.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
This is feminism from Merriam-Webster: quote:
: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
What's your problem with it?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I think 'The Female Eunuch' pretty much sums up my distaste
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Well, VPG, I have to say...I'm VERY disappointed. I had hoped you would give me something to sink my feminist teeth into. But your assertion seems to be basically "I believe it to be so, so therefore it must be."
Again, I will note that, in my ten years as an Episcopalian---all of them in parishes headed by female priests---I have seen my own churches growing in leaps and bounds. So which one of us has evidence? My N is small, but at least I've got data...
Saint Bertolin---John Holding and dj pretty much sum it up for me. I guess at the end of the day, it all DOES boil down to ecclesiology. I don't trust The Church to always get it right, because it is a demonstrably false notion. From the Inquisition to indulgences to racism, yada, yada, yada....
I believe that the Holy Spirit is always attempting to lead us into all truth---and that we are blind and deaf to her call far too often. Jesus himself said that there were things he could not say to us because we were not ready to hear them...and I believe strongly that one of those things was that God expected us to include women (and other marginalized groups) fully in the life of the church.
I also believe my ability to think for myself is a gift from God. I simply cannot believe that God would have given us reason if we were not expected to use it. To me (and I hope you will understand that I am making a comment about myself, not about you), handing over my will and reason to The Church would be an abdication of my God-given responsibility to test all things to see if they bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
I understand the relief of being able to lean on tradition and not be responsible for figuring it all out on your own. But, in my case, while the responsibility may be a heavy one---and I may get it wrong---I believe I am required to try. And I trust that God, whose property is always to have mercy, will forgive me if I screw up.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"and I believe strongly that one of those things was that God expected us to include women (and other marginalized groups) fully in the life of the church."
Of course. Who would disagree ?
If you want me to give you a big essay on what it is about 'The Female Eunuch' that makes me believe it to be distasteful I will be happy to do so upon request.
You speak of reason and reasonableness. Could I ask for your definition of rationality ? The inquisition and racism were not matters of dogma - indulgences when understood correctly, are (On Friday I had a two hour seminar on indulgences).
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
My reason for believing in the ordination of women is that I believe that God is calling women to the priesthood and giving them fruitful ministries. Yes femininism was part of the process that helped churches consider whether God was calling women, but it is the calling which is important.
To me, it's not about ecclesiology, but about anthropology. St Bertolin mentioned the discussion we had on Star to the Sea about whether there was something inherently masculine about the priesthood. That's something which is incomprehensible to me especially when it was linked to an article about God being masculine but not male. In my understanding God is beyond gender, and there is no `inherent masculinity' (or feminity). There are people made in God's image. Again that view is partly the result of being born after feminism had had an effect (and let me be educated to a high level) but I believe that it is also an outworking of the idea expressed by St Paul in Galations 3:28 that in Christ there is no male, no female.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
dj, I can read the emotion in what you posted and thank you for sharing it.
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
Saint Bertolin---John Holding and dj pretty much sum it up for me. I guess at the end of the day, it all DOES boil down to ecclesiology. I don't trust The Church to always get it right, because it is a demonstrably false notion. From the Inquisition to indulgences to racism, yada, yada, yada....
I'm sorry, Paige. As I said when Amy the Undecided said something similar recently on this very same page of the thread, the fact that some people (however influential), who have been part of the Church have done evil things does not in any way demonstrate that the Church errs on matters of faith and doctrine. You would have to show that Christ's promise of the Spirit of Truth to lead the Church into all Truth, with the gates of hell never prevailing against it, was untrue, and that the Church has been led into error by the Holy Spirit. You would have to show that the teachings of the Church can exist separately from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If your instinctive response to what I have just typed is that the Church has failed to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but that in spite of this you still believe it to be the Church, then I would affirm your agreement that this is a basic ecclesiological difference and that it isn't going to be overcome this side of the parousia, because by nature of what the Church is, it cannot exist apart from the will of God under the guidance of the Spirit.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
I'm sorry. That came across a bit nastily. It wasn't intended to and even I can detect unintended hostility now I'm re-reading it. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I do hear what you're saying. I agree with you that it would be folly not to use our God-given faculties. As I said earlier in the thread, I accept what Orthodox teaches because of what I believe about Orthodoxy. I didn't leave my brain in the font when I was baptised and I still read and study and discuss to deepen my understanding of why the Church teaches what She does but I just think there is definitely a line which it is possible to cross and it is precisely this that I'm wary of, having been on the other side of the fence where the fruits of just that were all-too-apparent.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
