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 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right, I forgot those other distinctly male things like having a superb sense of direction, being good at maths and science, speaking in monosyllables, fanatical devotion to football and being from Mars.

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dyfrig -- of course we have armed priests. If they were priests without arms upon what would they hang their maniples.

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


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At the risk of weirding people here out even more, I don't care if they're skyclad at Ascension; it's the theology and love which matters more to me, though I certainly loved the Cathedral in DC on my brief visit a few months back. (Ah, memories of the one in Durham and my chat with Cuthbert...)

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

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

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
CM said: It's not only doctrine, even; it's love also. Attitude. And if I have to choose between one and the other, God help me, love has to win.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------
"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
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, I do wonder what to do with the passage on hair length; though as I've said, the guide I use here is "what the Anglican, Eastern and Roman churches have agreed on is the most central."

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

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

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

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

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(And what does "long" mean here? 8 feet? 2 millimetres?)

Size isn't important my friend

--------------------
"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
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A personal plea for understanding:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
David,
I was very moved by your plea. I know exactly where you're coming - that's one of the reasons I started this thread: to actually hear what the substance of the "Catholic" arguments against W.O. were. Now, you know that I am unconvinced by those arguments and have wasted much time and bandwidth pontificating on the issue.

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

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

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

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

--------------------
"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
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This kind of arguement has been going on for at least 400 years, certainly since people in the west started questioning the pope's authority.

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

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)


Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
David, I hear you -- and believe me, I, who like Dyfrig support WO, also reject a lot of what I regard as foundationless nonsense that comes out of the mouths of many of the Church's liberal stalwarts. Especially the former Bishop Spong, who as you accurately note, cannot really be called a Christian at all in the strictest sense, much less and Episcopalian, in that he doesn't believe the Resurrection (I mean, there aren't very many really basic beliefs, but, people, really!).

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

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

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

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm


Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well said, Laura! Well said indeed!

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

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

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And all God's people said...

AMEN!

-Rdr Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...


Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91

 - Posted      Profile for HoosierNan   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Laura, Mousethief, all--

You folks are probably going to tell me to go away, but I still think that making a distinction between what males and females are eligible to do is an abusive behavior.

Do you know what a bonsai tree is? This is a tree that, if left in the wild, would grow to be 12 or 18 feet tall. But it is put in a little ceramic pot, its tap root (the main root) is cut, and it is fed and watered and given light only enough to survive, not to grow. Also, the limbs are pruned severely to limit photosynthesis, and are usually wired into a shape that pleases the gardener, but may not serve the interests of the plant.

Many, many women in the church feel like bonsai trees.


Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138

 - Posted      Profile for ptarmigan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wasn't going to restart this thread but since Nancy has ... thanks for the excuse.

Wouldn't it be good if we could find a huge loaf and a never ending wine bottle which St Peter had consecrated himself, then the catholics and orthodox who feel the need for something consecrated by a male in apostolic succession could use this and we wouldn't need any priests in that sense, and the church could have an equal opportunities policy for all its employees and keep the liberals happy.

In fact why don't we have a factory somewhere where a handful of priests with Catholic approvals do some consecrating in bulk and then it could get shipped out and all the parish ministers could serve it up when required with no-one worrying about their sex.

Of course it would subvert the powerbase of the priests so it might not be very popular!!!

Pt

--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)


Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judith
Apprentice
# 1010

 - Posted      Profile for Judith   Email Judith   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear All,

I appreciate the respect shown in these posts...and thanks to Nancy am joining in myself. I also applaud Dyfrig's recent long remarks.
A point on "tradition". "Tradition" can uphold a lot of quite nasty things. So can the Bible. the obvious example being slavery, which the Scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian, make no apologies for and indeed support. Folks who want to use women being quiet in church and woman obeying their husbands as head of household should be equally willing to use, "Slaves obey your masters."
I do believe it is true that everyone, myself included, tend to take literally in the bible the parts they want to.
A bit on research. Biblical study and archeology in recent years, especially that done by feminist scholars have shown that women were evangelists along with Paul, women no doubt headed house churches....and women perhaps presided at early Eucharists.
Enough said. I find that tradition is not a necessary and sufficient argument. I imagine that when we face God we will all be quite surprised at the breadth of God's inclusivity in everything. Personal confession: I am an Episcopal priest. I know many women who will not set foot in a church of any denomination because of the ongoing abusive treat ment of women.


Posts: 26 | From: Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judith
Apprentice
# 1010

 - Posted      Profile for Judith   Email Judith   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh yes, I do have to say this in response to the person who used Jack Spong and Barbara Harris as negative examples and heretics. Jack Spong annoys the "h***" out of me, mainlyn because he rips off other people's ideas rather than because he is so much of a heretic or so radical. He likes to be the center of attention any way he can.
The Rt. Rev. Barbara Harris is another matter. Unless the writers have met her and come to know her, I do not think you have good cause to repeat remarks about her that are untrue. Not that she needs me to defend her, but she is the sort of Christian of whom Jesus would be proud, and one of the few bishops, male or female, that I deeply respect.

Posts: 26 | From: Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Judith! Yes, I also am acquainted with Bishop Harris, and she is a fine, orthodox/conservative, credal Episcopalian (much to the annoyance of some of the dingbats at EDS). Wish she wouldn't go on autopilot when preaching, but that's a mere quibble.
Are we to assume that your pronouncements on Bishop Spong are also the product of personal acquaintance? Amos

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
KNRRRRgh!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*She's really gone off this time*

*In Gill's dreams she sees endless words scrolling down a page, tiring her eyes so much that she can't read what they say.*

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
die damn thread DIE

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.

Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Look, Gill, Pyx_e, if you don't like the thread, just ignore it. There's a lot to say on this subject. If people have been arguing about it for yonks, I hardly think nine pages on our humble BB is excessive!



--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm


Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
O, bitter irony! O cruel fate!

Amusingly, posting more just keeps it going and in the public eye.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judith
Apprentice
# 1010

 - Posted      Profile for Judith   Email Judith   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Amos said: Are we also to assume your pronouncements on Spong are from personal acquaintance. Yes, Amos. I stress the word "acquaintance." I would not presume anything more. Plus, whether you agree with the hard work of modern biblical scholars, I think you should give them more specific credit than he does.
Just another thought that occurred to me. We are discussing whether "women's ordination is valid"....and hello, folks, we are here. Sometimes a sense of humor helps. Must be the only way God puts up with us.
PS to Amos: EDS is my seminary, and I think it is a great seminary with a lot of excellent and even brilliant professors. Even the ones who are "out there" with their theology make me think and stretch my mind, and I do believe that's why God gave us brains. Does your pronouncement come from personal acquaintance? Chuckle.

Posts: 26 | From: Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But Judith, you surely aren't saying that we cannot judge whether someone's professed doctrine is orthodox or heretical based on public statements unless we've met them in person, are you? I mean, when someone like Spong writes books about what he does or does not believe, tries to encourages others to believe that way as well, etc., he's being very public about it, isn't he? It's not like he's saying, "No, no, I never said that," is it?

I think I was the one who referred to Harris as possibly heretical, and having tried to do a Net search on her doctrines and coming up largely empty-handed -- though I did specifically note one time when she said that she was often quoted out of context -- I retract, for now at least, my comment on her as an example. She does seem to focus more on social issues than on theology from the bits I found -- but on the other hand that's what people will quote the most, isn't it? -- and I wanted to avoid any of the invective-spewing sites which listed her without explaining why as "one of those people we don't like." If someone claims that a person's theology is off-base I like to see more evidence than that.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Judith-- Thought you might be an EDS product.Yes ma'am, I have years of very close personal acquaintance with the place, I can assure you
Chastmastr: Speaking as a female cleric--anglo-catholic too--I want to say how much I appreciate the honesty of your struggle with the issue of women's ordination. For me, it is of the greatest importance that the question be framed, not in terms of women's rights, or of justice, but in terms of Christology. Who do we say that Christ is? What is meant by "the form of God"--which is not to be grasped? What is meant by "the form of a slave, being born in human likeness"? (All this is from the kenotic hymn in Philippians 2) One of the things that has concerned me over the years is that when the argument takes a feminist form, ordination is seen in terms of power. Ladies complain that they want to be priests and not just iron purificators, and the whole issue of "taking the form of a slave" is forgotten. You wind up with (women) priests who espouse a really rigid clericalism; a notion of leadership by way of power and obedience--obedience of the laity to the clergy. If you have identified yourself as "disempowered" or "a victim", how do you empty yourself of power? A kenotic model of priesthood is costly, and it requires proper self love and self knowledge to begin with.
I don't myself believe that either sex is endowed with unique or mystical virtues. The way for ordained women to behave is as themselves; as priests; as if it has always been the case, because of who Christ is.

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What's a "yonk"?

Rdr Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...


Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"For yonks" means for a long time. I grew up hearing the expression, but I think it's more common in the UK.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511

 - Posted      Profile for Alaric the Goth     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On the issue of women in ministry, we (my wife & I) have attended our Baptist church for nearly three years now, and NEVER has a woman preached. Nor was there one preaching at the other two Baptist churches (in Scarborough and Sunderland) that I have regularly attended. So I had assumed that Baptists in the UK were against women even preaching (never mind being actual Ministers). Until this weekend, when I asked one of the Elders about it and was surprised to find that not only could women preach, they could be Ministers; indeed a former member of our church had gone to train as one.

As I am just about fully persuaded that women can be priests/ministers (having once been very hostile to the whole idea), I think it's about time some women appeared on our preaching rotas!

--------------------
'Angels and demons dancing in my head,
Lunatics and monsters underneath my bed' ('Totem', Rush)


Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of my friends who was having a lot of grief because his Anglican church would not accept women priests and he would, discovered that his local Baptist church had a women minister. Showing me some details from their church magazine it seemed that she trained at Spurgeons College which I had thought was the last bastion of men only ministry left in the Baptist World, so presumably there is no Baptist Theological college in England that will not train women for the ministry.

I don't know the ratio in Baptist theological colleges but a couple of years back it was revealed to the Methodists that the Average ministry candidate in the (English) Methodist church was a 42 year old woman with 2 children.

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)


Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Judith
Apprentice
# 1010

 - Posted      Profile for Judith   Email Judith   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
CM, I mentioned "acquaintance" with Spong because Amos asked me if my comments came from knowing him...he is more nuanced than his persona; my annoyance comes from reading some of his books.
Amos my colleague, I am not sure your suspicion of my EDS was altogether a compliment? chuckle. so share back, what's yours? I also did a semester at CDSP and got an MDiv. from Duke Divinity School but I claim EDS from my Anglican year and love for the place.
I appreciate your comments, Amos, on the nature of priesthood. I don't think being male or female makes a difference in the qualities you listed
Alaric, the Southern Baptists in the US voted a year or so ago in their national convention that women could no longer become ministers in the church, and then that wives should be "submissive" to their husbands as contained in scripture. A lot of uproar has followed. Former President Jimmy Carter has renounced his association with the Southern Baptist Convention.
We Americans are a rowdy bunch religiously.

Posts: 26 | From: Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Judith, my sibling in Christ, "I've shown you mine, now you show me yours" is an invitation I regret to have to decline--especially on a thread with this particular title!

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marinaki

Varangian Guard
# 343

 - Posted      Profile for Marinaki   Author's homepage   Email Marinaki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yonks = combination of three words Y[ears], [M]on[ths], [Wee]ks = Yonks

--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."

Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polly

Shipmate
# 1107

 - Posted      Profile for Polly   Email Polly   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tubbs

Where are you?

This is your kind of debate!!!


Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laxton's Superba
Shipmate
# 228

 - Posted      Profile for Laxton's Superba   Email Laxton's Superba   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"Forward in Faith" should be renamed. My old theology lecturer used to substitute "Backward in Fear" which I have to say suits rather well.
Posts: 187 | From: I wish I knew | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Um, say, that's kind of rude, isn't it?

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
St Rumwald
Apprentice
# 964

 - Posted      Profile for St Rumwald   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a subscriber to FiF's magazine, if not a fully paid up member, it is both rude and true. New Directions (their magazine) is a mixture of quite thought-provoking Anglo-Catholic thought and knee-jerk conservatism (small 'c').

That said, I will back up the view that often supporters of WO come across as 'shrill' in their arguments. Both sides do. The BIG problem from the point of view of FiF (and with this I agree) is that the 'ordination' of women in the CoE is still, in theory, 'optional' for a congregation or indeed for a priest. But this is still the case only in theory. 'Doubters' of the validity of WO are mocked or harassed: 'persecution' is a regular term in New Directions. I refuse to accept, incidentally, the equation of opposition with WO to support for slavery.

It's nonsensical as noted earlier to assume that all doubters or opponents of WO are mad conservatives: I'm a dyed in the wool liberal that finds myself horrified to be agnostic on the issue. I don't think it serves anyone any good to mock doubters or to assume we're feeble minded, 19th century, scared of change, scared of losing their position or whatever.

In the end, the arguments for WO are as flimsy or strong as the arguments against are. Opposition to women's ordination is indefensible in terms of 'natural' (i.e. mankind's) justice: but then there are no good arguments for WO based on scripture or tradition, merely arguments against opposing arguments based on tradition or scripture.

Incidentally, an earlier posting tried to refute the idea that there is a link between WO and declining church attendance. I don't think there is a link between the two. I also don't think women's ordination has made a blindest bit of difference to the decline: which has continued apace. The Methodist church (in the UK) was one of the first to embrace inclusivity, yet it is now in danger of collapse- the two are not related (one could of course argue that such moves are reactions to decline if not causative)- WO has neither saved nor damned it. WO may have released the pent-up frustration of a number of women in the CoE but it hasn't helped stem the decline. Sorry.


Posts: 31 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The Methodist church (in the UK) was one of the first to embrace inclusivity, yet it is now in danger of collapse- the two are not related

I don't think women's ordination has any effect on demonination growth bothg the Cogregationalists (now United Reform Church) and Baptists began ordaining women in the 1920's, and yes sometimes the United Reform Church seems in danger of colapse but the Baptists are the only mainstream denomination to being showing numerical growth at present.

Having said that the first woman minister I heard preach was in the URC and she was dire
I later heard a woman Baptist minister and she was really good, since then I have heard many women in many demoninations preach and some good some bad, similarly I expect some are good pastors and some bad,
last week I experienced an Anglican woman priest who was somewhere in the middle. I don't think genitalia is in any way relavent.

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)


Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baldrick's Acolyte
Apprentice
# 1127

 - Posted      Profile for Baldrick's Acolyte   Email Baldrick's Acolyte   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Please be gentle with me, this is my first posting ever.

I have recently taken serious flack for stopping the practice of reserving consecrated bread/wine in the church. The practical reason is that it doesn't get used as I take what I need for home visits after the Sunday service. The objection I have met is that some people have a different spiritual experience in church if they know the reserved sacrements are present.

I am interested to know what range of opinion exists between 'its just bread' to 'Jesus lives in the box in the wall'.

Anyone care to comment?

--------------------
Relax - God has a cunning plan!


Posts: 11 | From: Canterbury, UK | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baldrick's Acolyte
Apprentice
# 1127

 - Posted      Profile for Baldrick's Acolyte   Email Baldrick's Acolyte   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops!

This was meant to be in the 'what happens in holy communion' thread. I'll just go ver there now and try again.

Sorry.

--------------------
Relax - God has a cunning plan!


Posts: 11 | From: Canterbury, UK | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Welcome, Baldrick's Acolyte! See you again soon, either here or on another thread.

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well! [Sunny] Here we all are again.

... okay, as I've suggested on Another Thread ("When is it OK to leave a church"), yes, my own church, after a year of debate, is indeed calling a woman to be its new rector. (Just found out yesterday.) I'm seeking another now; after seeing all the arguments here I still remain unconvinced. But I did want to see if any new people who hadn't seen it before had any thoughts, as it was last posted to over a year ago.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ChastMastr, if your sticking point about women's ordination is the tradition thing, then there's probably no more to be said that could convince you. My problems with this issue were always theological and scriptural - but never traditional, as I've always viewed tradition as being the servant of the church, rather than its master, so it's quite hard for me to really get inside of your objection, much as I might try to respect it. To me, the issue has always been centred on anatomy - as in, whose got the right one? A ridiculous argument and one that predates all tradition. So in my mind, it has always been wrong - outside of God's will - to exclude women from participating in the full ministry of priesthood, and no amount of saying 'but we've been excluding them for thousands of years (in other words, it's tradition)' will ever make it right.

I hope you find a good church to worship in, where you will be able to receive God's grace without worrying whether it's the 'real' thing or not! [Wink]

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have found one! Hurray! It does have a female assistant priest (she becomes rector of another church soon), but if she was staying, it'd still be OK. If I come to the conclusion that women can indeed become priests, I don't think it would be wise to try to do so while truly in doubt about my rector's ordination, definite validity of Communion, etc., etc. every service, every week. But as I've posted elsewhere, I'm looking for more in a church now than just What The Priest Is Like -- I think this whole thing has made me realise just how little connexion I've had with most churches I've been in, and the need to find one I can actually be a real part of instead of nipping by, snarfing down Communion, and dashing off again. I think that right now, if I was suddenly OK with female priests, I would still leave and go to the new church I've been looking into.

David
glad he is finding other things than litmus tests

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
CM --

When the Anglican CHurch of Canada debated allowing the ordination of women 20? years ago, one important strand of opposition was from the theologically conservative, anglo-catholic wing (not a very large part of the church). Their main speaker was a certain archdeacon from Montreal, who I expect rehearsed all the arguments that are important to you (and with which I have some sympathy).

When ordination of women was approved, he did not leave, but said the test would have to be whether or not the fruits of the ordination of women were positive -- meaning, that he would pray, and others would pray, and ask God to honour what Jesus is quoted as saying about good fruit from bad trees.

A couple of years ago I ran into him at the funeral of a friend's mother, and he is very firmly in the pro-ordination of women camp, because he has concluded that God has indeed blessed their priestly ministry.

As this is no longer an urgent issue for you, why not consider this -- both as a strategy for you, and as an example of what has happened to someone with an opinion I think is like yours.

John Holding

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi! Still here, just not on the Ship as much right now -- as far as "all the arguments that are important to you," I am not thinking of arguments against it, which I haven't seen as much (and some of which may be pretty specious), apart from the one from 2000 years of (catholic/orthodox/sacramental) tradition as taught by the great saints -- but of finding any convincing arguments for it. I still haven't; most of them seem to be predicated on the notion that all the great saints, from the very beginning, were (all of them) just wrong. And that, I find untenable. If people argued that it were along the same lines as, say, God's revelation to St. Peter that the Gentiles could be part of the Church, or that previously forbidden foods were now acceptable -- or if people argued that it was never as solid a rule as people since then have made out to be, that it was meant to be a culturally specific thing rather than a timeless one -- or if there were indeed female priests in the early orthodox Church and then something changed in 500 AD or such, and we are merely restoring things to their original way (which I have heard vague rumours of but not seen any proof) -- that would be different. (I've even pondered whether I could come up with arguments no-one has mentioned myself, and then see if they hold water! I've thought of a few, and may post them here when I think more about them.)

But, alas, I cannot -- unless I am convinced it is possible for a woman to be a genuine priest and not just a good or even saintly minister -- simply say, "are they bearing good fruit." Because, well, all sorts of Christians, or even non-Christians, do great and good things, even holy things, but that does not mean they are indeed genuine sacramentally-ordained priests in the sense I mean here. If I met a man who seemed to me to be a living saint yet was definitely not ordained in Apostolic Succession, while I might believe he would end up in a much higher place in Heaven than many great priests, bishops, etc., it would not therefore make him ordained to the priesthood. There are laymen like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton whose lives and works have borne great fruit; there are even bishops (Spong, for one) who have openly denied Christian theology; there are non-Christians who have lived lives of what we may even call sanctity; and there are certainly high-ranking clergy down through history whose lives of self-indulgence, cruelty, greed, etc. were quite horrible. So I don't see how someone's life bearing fruit would prove that they are or aren't ordained in Apostolic Succession or not, alas.

Hugs to all -- still pondering this, and will post as I have time, but I am not on the Ship as much right now... have been realising just how Net-addicted I've been... [Embarrassed]

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951

 - Posted      Profile for Panda   Email Panda   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
When the Anglican CHurch of Canada debated allowing the ordination of women 20? years ago
Actually, they're celebrating the 25th anniversary this year. It wasn't until I moved to the UK from Canada that I found it was something people got all excited about. I guess hanging around in Anglo-Catholic churches and colleges doesn't help.

quote:
That said, I will back up the view that often supporters of WO come across as 'shrill' in their arguments. Both sides do. ...'Doubters' of the validity of WO are mocked or harassed: 'persecution' is a regular term in New Directions.
All depends on where you go. For the last few years I have been in a minority with my opinions (pro-WO), and have found that the opponents are vociferous to the point of rudeness. I guess they're just practicing for when they grow up and join Synod, but it doesn't seem all that Christian to me.

Now when people ask me (with anti-WO's, usually within 5 minutes of meeting me [Frown] ) where I stand, I just say, 'As far away as possible.'

Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Now when people ask me (with anti-WO's, usually within 5 minutes of meeting me [Frown] ) where I stand, I just say, 'As far away as possible.'

Alas, I'm ironically with you on that. Most of the anti-WO people I've personally known have been painfully shrill, rude, etc. If I were to decide the matter not on theology, but on attitudes and actions, I'd've been in favour of WO long ago. [Frown] I always feel like I have to hasten to say that I'm not like the others, and it's frustrating to know that people will assume I'm like that. I even let go of one of my best friends not too long ago because, in my estimation, apart from his views (we agree on much theologically and little politically, but it's not his beliefs which are at issue), he'd become one of the most self-righteous, arrogant prigs I'd known, and I couldn't deal with it anymore. [Frown] (He maintains that it's really because of his politics rather than his attitude, yet people I disagree with more on the Ship don't strike me that way at all...)

Really we're not all like that, really we're not... [Frown] Indeed, the fact that I get on better with pro-WO rather than anti-WO people means I must take extra special care that I am not changing my beliefs to fit with "getting along better with a group of people I like more."

David
would rather hang out with the Vicar of Dibley than with Forward in Faith, he suspects

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
CM -- sorry if I was not clear -- his original objections were precisely the same as yours, and his focus is very AC, sacramentalist. Anything other than "priestly" fruit -- as objectively discerned as one is able to do -- would not qualify. He certainly did not confuse "ministry", about which there is no argument, with "priestly".

Just for clarification.

John Holding

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Anything other than "priestly" fruit -- as objectively discerned as one is able to do -- would not qualify.

But then how does one discern that, short of direct supernatural revelation? I mean -- we don't have a Communion detector (I imagine something like a Geiger counter)... As far as feelings and perceptions go, Lord knows mine vary enough that I don't regard them as reliable in matters of actual doctrine, though they can be very helpful at times. Sometimes I take Communion and feel different; sometimes I don't; and I don't know how much in either case is rooted more in my own state of mind (not of grace) or even my body. I would think that looking to my own experience and perceptions for whether or not a woman can, or cannot, be a genuine priest would be pretty much the same thing.

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Pulls out his binoculars and looks Purgatory-ward to see if a Certain Person's on his way yet... hoping...)

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
HERE I AM!!!

TRA-LA-LA-LALALALA!

[Sunny] [Sunny] [Sunny] [Sunny]

What?

"Father Gregory"... what about him?

Oh.

[Waterworks]

Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  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