This got me thinking on women priests...

Ok this one has actually got me thinking a bit.

This one popped up on my Facebook from the "Jesus. All about Life" page and their question was

Well my innitial thoughts were, what an adsurb proposition, God will work with anyone and everyone to share the Gospel and his teachings.

I was then supprised to see a number of respondents agree with the innitial proposition. Also some of these that do agree are also women.

From my understanding, the Anglican Church ordain women and currently have women in clergy and Priests etc.

So what are your thoughts, Is the Bible written for a certain time, a time when women were not to preach in Church or are we as Christians changing the teachings to adapt with accepted changes in society?

 

I think we're changing our interpretation and implementation of the teachings. The principles laid out for the Church in the NT are timeless. I certainly don't want to offend anyone in saying so... :whistling:

 

I'm actually not going to contribute as as mentioned i am still learning.

I first thought it was a straight forward question / answer, but I find out that there is alot more to it and i should look through the eyes of the Scripture, not through the eyes of Political correctness and expectation.

 

Personally, I think that both Tradition and Scripture are clear. Women are called to teach and preach. God will call each of us to what he will. Spiritual gifts are not limited to men. As Joel said, all men and women will prophesy.

That being said, whether we ordain women deacons, priests and bishops is another matter.
=================================
The Anglican community as a whole has discerned with regard to this issue for almost 50 years. The vast majority has agreed that women should be ordained as prebyters (translated as priest). We may or may not make the same decision/interpretation regarding bishops. It seems, Scripture distinguishes between the offices.

My BOTTOM LINE is that the issue of women prietss is NOT an issue where Scripture demands one position or another. Each position can be seen to be theological opinion. Neither violates the teachings of Scripture. So, for example, for me, it is fine that we have churches within the Anglican fellowship that ordain women and those who do not.

Personally, I have been convinced by Bishop NT Wright that women should be ordained (see below for a shor youtube presentation and an article by the Bishop). However, as I said, we are all entitled to our individual opinions. Also, I do not mean to offend, but I also think it worng for Anglicans to reject other indicidual Anglicans or other Anglican church bodies because of this issue. Again, I stand with Bishop Wright. This should NOT be a church dividing issue. There are many such issues. There ae many things taught in the name of Anlgicanism that are rubbish and worse. Women's ordination is not one of those issue. Finally, I find the views of political folks and media irrelevant to the issue. The views of outsiders should not relevant to whether something is right or wrong for the Church. In the US, the approach on many issues seems to be to see what the politcal liberals and conservatives say, to be better discern our views. IMHO, the mixing of politics and religion in the US is not at all a good thing for either politics or for the faith communities.
===================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaVVXleoAdU

The bibiical bases are laid out
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Wome ... Church.htm

 

I believe that women should be allowed to preach and/or teach other women and children and they should do a lot as lay people but they should not be allowed to be Vicars and Bishops. Sorry if that offends anyone.

However, I do think that as a church even if you don't agree with women in the clergy you should be respectful towards them, I have known people who have walked out of a church as soon as they found out it was a women vicar taking the service, this I think is not right.

 

Why is it not right? I agree that we should treat all people with respect, but why should we condone practices we believe to be wrong? Is it disrespectful to slip out discreetly, without causing a disruption?

 

That's certainly what I plan on doing while the real rector of our church is away during this summer. It'll be hard and sad, but truth is more important than even fellowship with those who are brothers by baptism...

I won't be attending services of Holy Communion during this summer because the rector will be on sabbatical and a woman will be in his place.

 

That is really sad brother, but if that is what you must do then do it.

 

Why should the word of God be diminished because of the mouth it is spoken through, the message is what is important, not the voice. Should the Holy Communion be any less Holy, because it was blessed by a women and not a Man , This has no impact on my thanks to Christ for what he gave up for all of us.

 

Perhaps you should pay better attention to the whole of the message.

Paul prohibits women from speaking in church and having spiritual authority over men. The consensus of the Apostolic and Patristic church is that men alone are to be admitted to the holy orders. This urge about ordaining women is a 20th century fad fueled by feminism, not by God whose will is unchangeable.

 

That is untrue, historically and scripturally.

Oh, and btw, does your church require women to wear a head covering, as per Paul's orders?

 

Scripture and history are against your heretical position on female ordination, Celtic. This has been proven time and again here.

No, but it should.

 

See my response above, in red.

 

The EOC, that you seem so keen to follow and admire, won't look as kindly as I do to your proclivity towards women's ordination.

I used the term heretical because that's what it is: a denial of apostolic doctrine. I do it for your sake, not mine.

 

I appreciated you view and i do concede it IS supported by scripture but i must ask , do you not look at the society of the time when trying to understand something that is written? Women then had very little ( if any ) rights and schooling , women were valued for breeding and treated as property so of course you wouldn't expect many to be capable of teaching men as generally speaking , that would be ridicules. However some exceptions ARE in Paul's letter ,eg: in Romans 16 to Phoebe
"


16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon[a] of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well."
New Revised Standard Version

Paul also appears to support slavery , does that mean it is acceptable today ?
Colossians 3:22-24


What a job Paul would of had in what he believed to be the "End Days", if he had to not only spread the word of Jesus but also had to right every social issue that existed within a reasonable time frame ( before Christ second coming or his death). I think he picked his most important job ( converting the Gentiles) and chose not to ruffle to many feather on the other topics as there would of been to controversial.

 

We cannot attribute a "go with the flow" attitude of early Christians. If they were just following societal norms, they would have refused to believe in the Resurrection in the first place! They would not have loved those who hated them, prayed for those who persecuted them, nor done any other shocking things that they did. Their faith was not of this world. To say that the early Christians were just mindlessly, subconsciously influenced by the Society in every thing is almost a slander to their memory.

I myself accept Women Deacons on the basis of passages like this. Deacons are generally silent and do their work humbly to the Lord. They have no sacramental duty. Women deacons were common for centuries in the early Church - Chrysostom as archbishop of Constantinople, had hundreds of women deacons in his diocese. The ordination of women deacons only died out as the adult catechumenate died out. Women Deacons had primarily become ministers of baptism & chrism to adult female converts, out of decency - naturally this came to an end because girls were being baptized as infants.

Simply because the Apostle exhorts those who are in a state of servitude to be obedient, loving, and kind does not mean he was condoning the slavery. He never writes a corresponding passage telling Slave-Owners to continue enslaving, nor to be cruel to their servants, etc.

Dear sir, you must read the book of Acts from chapter 9 until the end. Paul suffered spectacularly for ruffling feathers on controversial topics. If he did it for the Resurrection against the Sadducees, and for the Law against the Pharisees, we can't expect that he just kept his mouth shut on other crucial issues. Our Faith is all-encompassing, not merely "religious" piety.

 

The Word is not diminished by a woman automatically; for there were certainly women apostles - not of the Twelve, which is important, but still apostles: witnesses to the Resurrection, sent to tell the world.

Of course if you believe Holy Communion is just a memorial, remembrance, and symbol of an ancient event and not a sacramental participation in the event, anyone can celebrate the Lord's Supper. To forbid a woman to do so, in that theological mindset, would be very silly. Unfortunately for that theory, the entire early Church simply did not believe such things.

There's no actual proof of women-bishops or women-presbyters from early times. Whenever we see a fresco, mural, or mosaic indicating that a woman is "presbytera" or "episcopa", we must not assume that which fits our wishes, however noble, but rather than that which is most likely: that they were wives of presbyters and bishops.

 

Some of the comments in this thread (and others) are strangely reminiscent of Peter arguing with God on the rooftop.

Jeff

 

That isn't fair, Jeff. Whether we may eat ritualistically unclean animals is not equal to whether we may ordain women as clergy. God explicitly told Peter that He had cleansed the animals on the sheet which descended from Heaven. Where in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament does God tell us that the created order has been overturned as to the roles of men & women in life itself? The Law has been fulfilled in Christ, and there "is no more male nor female" in that respect - but that's not the same as the Gospel.

 

I appreciate your opinion and zeal, but the perception of a created order is interesting. I see Jesus saying that there is no longer the divisions of old that separated the faithful, I see women in leadership roles in numerous cities, and I see God choosing Mary Magdalene as the first person to carry the Gospel to the Apostles/Disciples. I also understand the strong middle eastern bias against women that carried through in theology and literature. It's sad to see a mentality that says "I'll take communion from a thief, polygamist, pedophile, or alcoholic, but I won't take it from a woman." (I'm speaking in general terms here, not personal)

Jeff