homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 34)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I forgot to post the answer to the question that a few people have asked about my claim that the numbers of the Desert Mothers were greater than those of the Fathers.

I've read this in several places, including in this conversation on Amazon.com with the author of the book The Desert Mothers: Spiritual Practices from the Women of the Wilderness. The author, Mary Earle, writes, in answer to the question "What do we know about these women?" that:

quote:
For one thing, we know there were a lot of them. One historian of the times tells us that there were twice as many women as men in the deserts. Another scholar said that there were so many Christians who sought to live this life in the desert that "the desert became a city." There were even accounts of "tourists" going out to the deserts to observe the ammas and abbas.

We know the names of four of these women whose sayings have been preserved: Amma Matrona, Amma Sarah, Amma Syncletica and Amma Theodora. And we know a little about their lives. We know, for example, that Amma Theodora was what we might call a spiritual director to bishops and other men in pubic position. We know that she was clear in her teaching and strong in her rebukes. We know that Amma Syncletica and her sister sought the life in the desert after their parents died.

Yet surrounding what we know is a vast silence. We have very little record of the thousands of women who lived this life of simplicity, silence and stillness. We have stories of others, such as Mary of Egypt (one good reference for that is Harlots of the Desert by Benedicta Ward).

I assume this to be true, although she doesn't give the name of the historian referenced here. As I said, I've read this kind of thing in several places.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
...And why if now is the time for that to change, ...

For much of the Christian church, the change happened over a century ago; most of the Anglicans were late to the party in the 1970's.
I know you didn't say 'most' but 'much'? Really? Not 'a significant, but tiny, minority'?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A minority, but not a tiny one. Maybe a quarter of churchgoers worldwide attend chruches that allow women to be ministers.

Most Pentecostal churches have women ministers. They are probably the largest group of churches that do. Round here the Baptists have women minsiters. And almost all the mainstream Protestants do now.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Ministers' are not the same as what most Christians believe 'priests' to be.

--------------------
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
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Ministers' are not the same as what most Christians believe 'priests' to be.

Except that "ordination" is the term used in all cases.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What's that got to do with it?

A Baptist minister is 'ordained'; a Catholic bishop is 'ordained'. Are they the same thing? Do they do the same things? Are they for the same thing?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
What's that got to do with it?

A Baptist minister is 'ordained'; a Catholic bishop is 'ordained'. Are they the same thing? Do they do the same things? Are they for the same thing?

Thurible

Good grief. Are we going to have this discussion again? We just went through this.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed we did. So why bother with this?

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Ministers' are not the same as what most Christians believe 'priests' to be.

Except that "ordination" is the term used in all cases.
Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Indeed we did. So why bother with this?

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Ministers' are not the same as what most Christians believe 'priests' to be.

Except that "ordination" is the term used in all cases.
Thurible
[Snore]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, splendid! The other week, I got bored with the discussion (and said that I'd be back when I could be bothered to engage); this week, it's you. See you in a few weeks.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does it matter? Most churches agree that those with a certain degree of authority are appointed to a special role in accordance with an historical precedent, hopefully with some reference to the practices of the Church as revealed in Scripture. Can't we all agree that we can debate whether such posts should be open to women regardless of what, exactly, we mean by them? It would at least make the current debate simpler (wouldn't it???)

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem with that is that those who oppose the admission of women to the priesthood are not, necessarily, opposing the admission of women to teaching, preaching or leading roles. It is priesthood, and episcopacy, (or sacred order, in some instances) which opponents of this recent development are arguing should be reserved to men.

So, yes it does matter.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Does it matter? Most churches agree that those with a certain degree of authority are appointed to a special role in accordance with an historical precedent, hopefully with some reference to the practices of the Church as revealed in Scripture. Can't we all agree that we can debate whether such posts should be open to women regardless of what, exactly, we mean by them? It would at least make the current debate simpler (wouldn't it???)

I'm not so certain, dj-o. I think that it's quite possible that the (roughly) three understandings are sufficiently different that we would have to have three (or maybe two, depending where we put Lutherans and Presbyterians) debates anyway. The fact that this thread is on p.34 would suggest that there's little clarity achieved so far.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As you know, I do think that a Protestant minister and a Roman Catholic parish priest are fundamentally the same kind of role. Elders in the church of God appointed to be the chief pastor of a church. There are plenty of differences but the role is basically that of presbyter.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is the nub of the whole issue.

Protestants see ministry as a 'role' - a job, something you do.

Catholics see ordained ministry as something you ARE, not something you do - an ontological change occurs within the man (or, I believe woman) at the moment of ordination that can never be undone.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leo, I think's simplifying things a bit too much. I'd suggest some protestants believe such, but what does God believe? I would think most protestant ministers do believe they are changed to some degree or other by ordination, otherwise why would they "be called" to a presbyterial role?
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That doesn't make sense from a Catholic perspective (nor from a Protestant one, as far as I can see). God could, and I imagine he does, call people to be social workers, teachers, cleaners or accountants. None of those change one ontologically.

Thurible

[ 01. August 2007, 18:57: Message edited by: Thurible ]

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose if God calls to social work or medicine, but I don't think it's the same thing, thank you.

Have it your way.

Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
I suppose if God calls to social work or medicine, but I don't think it's the same thing, thank you.

What do you mean you don't think it's the same thing?

You don't think that all people are called? You think God only calls a select group to a particular role, and the rest can do what they like with their lives?

Could you explain?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cottontail

Shipmate
# 12234

 - Posted      Profile for Cottontail   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leo, that is so not true. A minister is what I am. I am never not a minister. I could work at another job altogether, and I would still be a minister - albeit it is in doing ministry that I 'become what I am'. I really object to you reducing it to the level of a 'role'.

Aren't doing and being closely linked in the Catholic tradition also? Would you be able to say that in performing the Eucharist the priest also 'does' what (s)he 'is'? (genuine question!)

[ 01. August 2007, 21:09: Message edited by: Cottontail ]

--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."

Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No Thurible, I don't think God calls everyone to a particular professional way of life, like law or medicine or dishwashing, necessarily. I see the call to a life devoted to religion as different. Not better, but different.

But that's just me.

Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But we are all called to devote our lives to religion. Some of us are called to exercise that call in the priesthood, some in the monastery, some in the school, some in the hospital, some in the factory, &c. Surely?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But I think that it the point I'm (half-arsedly) trying to get at - what makes the difference is that we are all called into a Christian life by virtue of our baptism. Ordination into the ministry of priesthood may represent an ontological change, but (a) I don't think it's a significant one compared with that engendered just by being part of Holy Church; and (b) I'm not convinced that ordination is ontological in a way that wholeheartedly entering into another lifestyle to which God has called one is - at the very least, no more than the ontological chances inherent within the other Sacraments, such as being married or shriven.

Given that, surely it is not foolish to talk about ordination to leadership/ministry of sacraments/teaching as having significant points in common between many different Christian traditions? Is the Headship DH really so different from the Priestly Genitalia DH?

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Leo, that is so not true. A minister is what I am. I am never not a minister. I could work at another job altogether, and I would still be a minister - albeit it is in doing ministry that I 'become what I am'. I really object to you reducing it to the level of a 'role'.

Aren't doing and being closely linked in the Catholic tradition also? Would you be able to say that in performing the Eucharist the priest also 'does' what (s)he 'is'? (genuine question!)

I wasn't meaning to reduce it to a role so much as responding to someone who HAD so reduced it.

--------------------
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
Cottontail

Shipmate
# 12234

 - Posted      Profile for Cottontail   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Leo, that is so not true. A minister is what I am. I am never not a minister. I could work at another job altogether, and I would still be a minister - albeit it is in doing ministry that I 'become what I am'. I really object to you reducing it to the level of a 'role'.

Aren't doing and being closely linked in the Catholic tradition also? Would you be able to say that in performing the Eucharist the priest also 'does' what (s)he 'is'? (genuine question!)

I wasn't meaning to reduce it to a role so much as responding to someone who HAD so reduced it.
Fair enough, and thanks for explaining. I've just looked again at the previous post and see how that happened. It was certainly Ken who introduced the word 'role', but as I read it he was simply comparing like with like. Ken can look after himself, but I doubt he meant it in quite the reductive sense you gave it - 'a job, something you do.'

I know there are major differences between the idea of a minister and a priest, but I don't think your distinction above pinpoints where those differences lie. Protestant ministry is far more than simply a teaching/pastoring role (there's that word again!). It is also sacramental and ordination is likewise something which can never be undone.

--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."

Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought that some denominations ordained people to a specific parish or for a specific period of time - rather like an induction in Anglican circles. Hands are laid on with each new job.

I didn't know that protestants saw orders as indelible.

I'd like to hear from other protestants in this thread because I would be delighted to learn than yet another piece of my internalised anglo-catholic indoctrination is about to leave me.

--------------------
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
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I prefer not to sit Methodism in classical protestantism, but we certainly see ordination as permanent. From the introduction to the ordination services in the Methodist Worship Book:
quote:
For both presbyters and deacons, ordination is to a permanent lifelong office of ministry.
If someone leaves the ministry and then returns, they are not (and cannot be) ordained again. They do need to be received back into "full connexion" (in other words, the Conference has to recognise them as once more being people within its jurisdiction). Methodist presbyters and deacons then just have a service of welcome when arriving in a new post.

--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley

Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
It was certainly Ken who introduced the word 'role', but as I read it he was simply comparing like with like. Ken can look after himself, but I doubt he meant it in quite the reductive sense you gave it - 'a job, something you do.'

I was trying to be concise and didn't realise the word would be controversial!

If I had been being verbose as usual I might have come up with something more like this:

We could distinguish between function,. role, status and order.

I'd call a transient & personal ministry a "function". A job that someone does because they are capable of doing it, or in a position to do it. (this seems to be what some people understood me to mean by "role")

By "role" I'd mean a ministry that in a sense exists separatly from those who do it, and individuals can take it up or put it down. It is defined in relation to the community. At a passover seder someone must be the child who asks questions, someone else the elder who answers them, It is imaginable that the same person might be the elder one year, and in different company the child the next. There is a role in a church that might be describned as "chief local pastor" to a congregation. In Catholic churches, and in Anglican and Lutheran churches, its usually filled by the parish priest. In most (not all) Protestant denominations there is someone who would be thought of as "The Minister" who fills this role. Even if there are other ordained ministers in the church.

Status might describe a permanent role. Something someone "is". Paul came to the new churches of Asia and Europe as an apostle, claiming authority from the Lord, not from the churches. (Actually that is not a very good example because he was also sent out by the church at Antioch, but it is the obvious NT example)

A permanent & corporate ministry could be called an "order". A class or group which of people are permanent or long-term members, perhaps set aside for some duty, perhaps marked by some experience.

It seems to me that ordination (whether the ordained call themselves "priests" or not) has aspects of all four of these. The ordained are being equipped to carry out a function, they are being chosen for particular roles in the church, they are being confered with a new status, and they are being made members of an order.

What I don't agree with is the idea that there is some special magic that the Romans and the Orthodox have got that the others don't. To whatever extent ordination to the priesthoood confers permanent status, an indelible change on the ordinand, I think Protestant ministers have it as much as Catholics. It might be that the Catholics put too much stress on change of status, being a little bit over-enthusastic (or even self-deluded) about the special nature of being a priest. It might be that some of the Protestants are too keen to de-emphasise it in order to separate themselves from the Catholics. But if the special magic exists, it is confered by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, not by the Pope or any other bishop. And its not limited to Catholics.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On a slightly different tack: at the time of Jesus, men and women were regarded as different species (see below). Now we know better, that might perhaps lead to a different understanding of the possibility of women being capable of receiving ordination.

From 'Render to God by J. Neyrey (Fortress 2004) It is axiomatic that the ancient world was fundamentally gender divided. This means that as part of the way males and females understood their specific gender, they perceived that human beings were two different species of human….The ancients, of course, would claim that such a point of view is rooted in nature and ordained by God. When Aristotle compares males with rulers and females with slaves, he reflects the gender stereotype of his cultural world that they were two entirely different species of human being. This citation comes from his discussion of the origins of the political institution in antiquity, which is based on simpler forms of social organization, especially the family: ‘In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue and…of natural ruler and subject. that both may be preserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind i.e., male is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight i.e., female is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest.

Since male and female ate two different species of human, maleness and femaleness must likewise be completely distinct. As such, males were thought to belong to the public world and females to the private world, This means that most things in the world could be conceptualized as either male or female, that is, as appropriate to the stereotype of maleness and femaleness, such as space, roles, tasks, and objects. Furthermore, the two genders should be separate and not mix or overlap. Hence, to be a male meant not being a female, not keeping to female space private or household world , not assuming female roles such as mother or recipient sexual partner, not performing female tasks clothing production. food preparation, and child rearing. and not using female tools spindle, pots.

--------------------
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
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doulos:
I did say that these are the qualities most often ascribed to women, in the same way that leadership and physical strength are most often ascribed to men. Of course it's a stereotype, and of course it's a pretty crude one at that.

The point I was trying to make is that when women become priests, they are not trying to become like men (by encroaching upon a traditionally male arena) - women bring a different set of skills, abilities and backgrounds to the priesthood and thereby (IMHO, of course) enlarge the scope of what it means to be a priest, and by representing God women add a new facet of who God is. (I'm sure that's all been said already on this thread. Sorry to repeat.)


What are these gifts that women bring, then?

A look at the (sadly closed) 'for I am MAN/WOMAN' threads shows us that gifts transcend gender roles. I agree that allowing a wider group of people to be ordained is better for the Priesthood, but fall short of saying that there are any specific 'female' or 'male' traits.

This is one of the cruxes of my argument, namely, that differences between men and women are very small (other than biological ones), and therefore arguments denying the ordained Priesthood fall apart, for me, if one starts saying that one sex has a fundamental difference to the other.

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Awhile back, there was a brief discussion of Junia (mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:7) on this thread. I've just come across the below, in Garry Wills' book "What Paul Meant":

quote:
For Junia to be included not only among the emissaries but among the outstanding (episemoi) ones was a high honor, as John Chrysostom recognized in his commentary on Romans: "How great this woman's love of wisdom (philosophia) must have been, to merit her inclusion among the apostles." She and her husband had a liturgy devoted to them as married saints and apostles in the Byzantine church. Most early commentators and fathers of the church, including Origen and Rufinus, celebrated her extraordinary eminence.

But sometime in the Middle Ages, apparently before the ninth century, it was decided that a woman apostle was unthinkable. This offended the male monopoly of church offices and honors that had grown up by that time, so Junia had to be erased from history. It took only a little smudging to do this. Paul uses her Greek name, Iounia, in the accusative case, Iounian. A mere change in accent markings (a circumflex over the last vowel), would make it the accusative form of a hypothetical male name, Iounias. But there is one problem here. "Junias" is only a hypothetical name - it never occurs in all the ancient literature and inscriptions - whereas Iounia is a common name, occurring hundreds of times. Besides, the other teams Paul mentions in Romans 16 are male-female ones - Aquila and Priscia, Philologus and Julia, Nereus and Olympas - with the exception of a female-female one (Tryphaena and Tryphosa, probably sister Sisters). We know from Paul's reference to Peter and the Lord's brothers, who traveled with their wives, that male-female evangelical teams were common (1 Cor 9:5). Only the most Soviet-style rewriting of history could declare Junia a nonperson and invent a new team, Andronicus and the philologically implausible Junias. Paul was generous to his female coworkers, a title he proudly gave them.

Wills goes on to describe some of these coworkers, which is where I am in the book now.

And apparently this is not really "controversial" at all (as was claimed in the previous discussion), given the historical information in the first paragraph quoted above.

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
badman
Shipmate
# 9634

 - Posted      Profile for badman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An astonishingly hesitant and unconvincing attempt to explain the case against women bishops by Archbishop Jensen of Sydney, who is usually much more formidable than this, can be found in a transcript of his recent interview by Monica Attard on ABC Radio here.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
An astonishingly hesitant and unconvincing attempt to explain the case against women bishops by Archbishop Jensen of Sydney, who is usually much more formidable than this, can be found in a transcript of his recent interview by Monica Attard on ABC Radio here.

That's a really fun interview. You are right, he doesn't seem to be talking as if he agrees with his own policy. I wonder if its because he was having to associate himself with Forward in Faith types with whom he disagrees on just abouu over other issue that could have been brought up within the Anglican church?

Oddly, he does rather better on homosexuality (much more briefly mentioned). The most interesting part of the interview is his opinions on the Australian general elections!

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's actually a pretty good interview once gets off of the topic of Female Bishops.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614

 - Posted      Profile for Vesture, Posture, Gesture     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Members of this thread might be interested to read this interview from The Independent of Fr Michael Seed SA - he speaks of anglican clergy converting to the Catholic Faith because of how badly they were treated by their own communion. I pass no judgment on its merits - Fr Seed's observation was what struck me.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3339032.ece

Apologies (to both hosts and readers) I keep forgetting how to shrink the link to something shorter - this is a continuous error on my part.

--------------------
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
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't have the time to read through that entire article to find what you mean. I tried to skim read it, but didn't come across the words 'badly treated'. Are they his words, or yours?

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
I don't have the time to read through that entire article to find what you mean. I tried to skim read it, but didn't come across the words 'badly treated'. Are they his words, or yours?

They are VPG's less forceful words. I have read the article and Fr Michael's exact words were "treated like dirt".

--------------------
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
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Have I misread this? I believe he spoke of Anglican woman vicars who had converted because they had been treated like dirt.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175

 - Posted      Profile for Shadowhund   Author's homepage   Email Shadowhund   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know of a woman who was declined ECUSA ordination in circumstances she felt to be unfair and left for Orthodoxy. These things happen, as strange as it may seem.

--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"

A.N. Wilson

Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The words 'treated like dirt' are, of course, an opinion.

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Members of this thread might be interested to read this interview from The Independent of Fr Michael Seed SA - he speaks of anglican clergy converting to the Catholic Faith because of how badly they were treated by their own communion. I pass no judgment on its merits - Fr Seed's observation was what struck me.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3339032.ece

Apologies (to both hosts and readers) I keep forgetting how to shrink the link to something shorter - this is a continuous error on my part.

I have just re-read that article - but yesterday I was speaking to a former RC priest who moved the other way. He told me that former Anglican priests are sometimes treated with disdain - including one parish priest (Irish, seminary educated) prefacing a sermon by a former Anglican PhD on the lines of 'Now Fr. Clever-Cloggs is going to preach to you today.'

--------------------
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
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Have I misread this? I believe he spoke of Anglican woman vicars who had converted because they had been treated like dirt.

Yes, I thought he said that as well... I've no doubt that there are female priests who are treating very badly, but the fact that any have responded by becoming Roman Catholic laity is news to me [Confused]

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'were treated', you mean, presumably.

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The question of course is who was doing the treating?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
'were treated', you mean, presumably.

Erm... yes, I seem to have lost the ability to type cogently this week... [Confused]

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rosa Winkel

Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424

 - Posted      Profile for Rosa Winkel   Author's homepage   Email Rosa Winkel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No worries mate.

--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project

Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Son of Dearmer
Apprentice
# 13652

 - Posted      Profile for Son of Dearmer   Email Son of Dearmer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed Scripture supports it to the extent that women who 'presided' were condemned as heretics.

The mosaic in San Prassede is of a Bishop's wife or Mother, in the same way that in Greece nowadays a priest's wife is a presbutera. And deaconesses were there to prepare Female candidates for their naked baptism by immersion.

So Ken let's see what you've got...

Posts: 40 | From: U.K. | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting that someone who memorializes Dearmer in their name should be against OoW...
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Son of Dearmer on the thead about women bishops in England, following from BroJames mention of conservative evangelicals who hold that Scripture allows us to ordain women:
Indeed Scripture supports it to the extent that women who 'presided' were condemned as heretics.

In Scripture? Where?

quote:

The mosaic in San Prassede is of a Bishop's wife or Mother, in the same way that in Greece nowadays a priest's wife is a presbutera. And deaconesses were there to prepare Female candidates for their naked baptism by immersion.

True, but irrelevant to Scripture, which was the argument we were having. The Church may have stopped allowing ordaining women very early in its history, for good or bad reasons, but that alone does not mean that we cannot revive the practice if Scripture allows it, and if it is not obviously sinful or basphemous, and if it seems neccessary for building up the churches in our situation.

And Scripture does seem to allow it. There is a wide variety of Scriptural practice and a lot of room to manouvre in. Bishops and priests are just one (or two) of many ministries in the early churches. Also, there seem in the New Testament to be different church structures in different places. Even as early as the Acts of the Apostles we are not in a one-size-fits-all situation.

In our local western European tradition (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) we've tended to reserve certain roles and functions to ordained clergy - different roles in different places at different times. For example, presiding at the Eucharist, preaching, and in the CofE at any rate a sort of general leadership function. The vicar is usually the only full-time paid worker in a local church and basically tends to end up doing everything. The exact equivalent of "The Minister" in many non-epsicopal Protestant churches or the parish priest in Roman Catholic churches (and arguably closer to the sentimental idea of the bishop as the focus of unity of the local church than are the more distant, monarchical bishops we have tended to have over the past 1500 years). But it doesn't have to be that way for all time. It isn't that way in all churches nowadays. There are many gifts of the Spirit for building the church and we don't have to expect God to give them all to only one man (or women) in every parish.

We know that some church ministries were done by women in New Testament times - for example there are (clearly) women prophets and (almost certainly, it can be wiggled out of) women deacons. "Prophet" in the New Testament is more like what we would call a preacher than it is someone who tells the future. "Deacon" seems to cover a whole lot of kinds of service - some of which some churches nowadays reserve to the ordained ministries, others which aren't.

Even if leadership in the earliest Church was almost entirely male, it is clear from Scripture that there were at least some women in some of the roles we now reserve for the ordained. So if we are being true to Scripture ahead of our own local traditions the question we need to ask is not:

"can women be ordained ministers?

but:

"is this specific person (man or woman) called to this specific ministry?

And if they are, we need to ordain them appropriately.

A couple of red herrings:

First, there is no hint in the New Testament of a Christian sacrificial priesthood. Christian priests are elders of the congregation, presbyters. They are not stand-ins for Jesus Christ. They are not sacrifical priests such as the old temple had. By contrast the office of a presbyter is one of eldership. Arguments based on the Old Covenant Priesthood are simply beside the point. Christian priests are not the equivalent of Jewish temple priests, but of rabbis and the elders of the synagogue. And I think that is very clear from the words used to describe them in the New Testament. If we were appointing women to sacrifice bulls and goats on the altar, there might be an argument from the OT analogy. But we aren't. For Christians that "royal priesthood" is one in which we all participate in, as we all participate in Jesus Christ. There are no individual Christian kohanim.

Secondly, the same goes for the argument that women cannot be ordained because the Twelve were all men (certainly) or that the Apostles were all men (arguably - the Orthodox Church, that hotbed of liberalism, is happy to call Mary Magdalene an Apostle). Priests and bishops as we have them now apostles in the sense that Peter and John and the rest were, although they are in some sense the descendents of the apostles (as are the rest of us). We are not calling our ministers to be Apostles (not this side of NFI anyway) but to be preachers and pastors and worship leaders and to preside at Holy Communion. The Apostles may have done all those things but that does not mean that everyone
who does them is an Apostle.

A pale pink herring:

As far as I can see the only Scriptures directly relevant to this point - does Scripture permit the ordination of women as Christian ministers - are Paul saying he refuses to allow women to lead in church. Now, either that's a purely local rule for the churches Paul had oversight for or was writing to, or else it is a general one for all churches everywhere.

If purely local, then of course women can be ordained in churches where, pragmatically, that rule does not apply. I think Paul must mean this, because he seemed quit happy to work with and acknowledge women ministers in other circumstances, and he recognised that both men and women might bring prophecy or other gifts to the church meeting. It would be rather odd for him to ban women speaking in church at all times and in all places in one paragraph, and tell them who to behave when speaking in church in another paragraph of the same letter! Paul obviously recognised and supported the preaching and teaching ministry of (at least some) women who had leading positions in churches, and who performed a full range of roles within those churches, roles which might include teaching or prophesying to men, including their own husbands or fathers so he cannot have meant to ban it. I think that what Paul meant by prophecy included much of what we now think of as preaching, and was not limited to supposedly ecstatic utterances (in fact might even be contrasted with them – they could include tongues and those mysterious apocalypses of 1 Cor 14.26.) And Paul at least tolerated what seems to me to be the leadership of women such as Lydia, Nympha, and Prisca within churches, and also their authority over men in their own households, if only over their own slaves or sons. It would be incredible to imagine that the households of rich independent women included no males.

If, on the other hand Paul really does generally prohibit women in leadership in the church, then still need not rule out ordained women in other roles in church. I know there is a strand of evangelicalism that would have women assistant priests but not in local leadership, or women as parish priests but not bishops. We know there were women in other positions of public ministry in the New Testament times. In which case we're back to the previous question - we can't say "you cannot be ordained because you are a woman" we have to ask "is this particular job one which involves a type of leadership which Paul rules out of order for women?"

A third red herring - "covering" and "headship" and the notion that women are banned from being leaders over men. This is a red herring because Christian priests are not, or ought not to be, quite the same as political leaders. And ultimate leadership in the church is Christ's anyway, not ours. And we know God isn't totally against women in political leadership anyway, because of Deborah. (Not that I suggest priests ought to go around slaughtering their enemies).

Lastly, I've got positive theological reasons for being happy to see ordained women in the CofE and in other churches. It is a cliche that our liturgies and our church order are themselves signifiers, they are messages, they encode statements about God and how we worship God. An all-male priesthood risks being misinterpreted as a statement that God is male, or that God is gendered. Which would be heresy.

(if all that looks familiar to some of you it is because it is cobbled together from two previous postings on this very thread and from an essay I wrote a couple of years ago some of which also appeared online)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't find a link at present, but there was an interesting story about the Church in Wales last week (a few weeks after a vote for allowing purple women was lost).

The flying bishop - Dai the PEV - has retired. The presiding bishop - Dai the Morgan - has told the inmates of the CinW that there won't be a replacement; basically, if they take their ecclesiology seriously, they have to get on with the fact that they are in communion with their diocesan, and that their diocesan will provide appropriate pastoral care.

The person in charge of providing coloured liturgical clothing - Dai the Vestments - was unavailable for comment.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools