It also works the other way round too. There are parishes, (I know of one), where a small minority of parishioners are doing their best to hound out a retired woman priest parisioner, kind enough to celebrate Eucharists with a Bishop's Permission to Officiate, without any fee, at the unanimous invitation of the PCC and Church Wardens, during their parish's interregnum. Although she may be easily discouraged by being shunned, ignored and blind-sided, she is bravely forgiving and daily turning the other cheek to these individuals. .
That is an interesting admission, coming from an Anglican. I mean, any denomination that wants to pattern itself after the early church would likely latch onto that statement in support of their lack of "priests" (along with absolutions and consecrations) and their choice to have "ministers" (who do neither). 1Ti 2:5-7 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. They would probably say that the word translated "ordained" was simply meant to indicate Paul's understanding that God had made him a preacher, apostle, and teacher, and that God had placed him in those roles (as opposed to the concept of men choosing Paul and laying hands on him in an "ordination" ceremony). Note, I am just making an observation here, not advocating anything.
1 Timothy probably wasn't written by Paul. It's more likely an early 2nd century document, and testifies to a certain church structure that likely didn't exist in the mid-1st century. The NT never refers to ministers of the church as "priest" (hieros). Ordination, as in Judaism, had to do with the authority to teach what was previously mastered under a specific teacher.
The document is not telling a lie; Paul wrote it. 1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. Unlike some people, I don't just give the Bible lip service; I actually believe what it states.
I doubt it. You’re welcome to believe that as a matter of faith, I suppose, but the problem we run into is that linguistic analysis of the epistle has indicated otherwise. We would rightly be skeptical if a document claiming to be from the mid-19th century mentioned jet airplanes and computers. That’s a fairly decent analogy for the issue faced by the NT scholar when reading 1 Timothy (and some of the other NT books): the vocabulary doesn’t align with what we see in the epistles that we’re sure are genuinely Pauline, as any decent commentary will explain. Either position has practical consequences for how one understands early church history. Retreating into fundamentalism isn’t an intellectually satisfying (or intellectually honest) solution, at least not to me. The discrepancies are there and can’t be ignored.
Authority and servanthood are not opposed; they are intertwined in Christ, who has authority from the Father over all people (John 17:2), but yet is One who came not to be served, but to serve (Matt 20:28). Jesus prays for His disciples, "sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth" (John 17:17-19). It is evident from the words which follow that Jesus was not speaking of all believers, for He goes on to pray "not for them alone," but also for "those who will believe in [Jesus] through their word," the word of those He sent (John 17:20). Do not those He sent as ministers have authority from Him, just as He has authority from the Father? Why must this be opposed to the life of service that the ministry is? Consider Paul. While he spoke as a servant of the Corinthians when he said that he does not have dominion over their faith but rather is their helper (2 Cor 1:24), he nevertheless spoke from a place of authority to the same church. "In Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me" (1 Cor 4:15-16). Paul, who made himself a servant to all, nevertheless spoke with authority to those entrusted to his care in the faith, akin to the way a father speaks to his children. In regard to your question about the eucharist, the minister stands between God and believers, representing both to one another. To the minister is given our gift of bread and wine, who offers it up to God, and we with him. In this the minister's work represents that of the church. But after the consecration, he gives it back to us as the Body and Blood of Christ. In this, he represents God, both God as the Son who gave Himself for us, and also God as the Father who gave us His Son. The minister therefore assumes both roles, that of service, and that of authority. Jesus Himself mediated between His disciples and God the Father at the last supper. He is our great High Priest, who is the Mediator between God and man, both a Servant and a King. A woman cannot representatively stand in God's role as Father. God the mother did not give her only daughter. This is why the historic church has always considered women's ordination to be an absurdity (only sectarians such as the montanists accepted it).
I posted: "Paul wrote it" (1 Timothy) If Paul didn't write it, then the fact that 1 Timothy begins by saying, "Paul...to Timothy," is falsified. In other words, your position calls into question the veracity of Holy Scripture. The Bible does not tell lies, nor does it contain mistakes; therefore you are mistaken (and in violation of forum terms of service).
All fundamentalists ascribe Pauline authorship to 1 Timothy; not all who ascribe Pauline authorship to 1 Timothy are fundamentalists. Wright is one of the few living NT scholars to ascribe Pauline authorship to the Pastoral Epistles. The reason he does so has nothing to do with any fundamentalist attitude, and everything to do with his subscribing to a version of NPP that questions what some of the ‘Pauline distinctives’ in the genuine letters actually are. We are not required to endorse the 1978 Chicago Statement in order to participate on this site. You can stop citing the “terms of service” to try to shut down honest discussion. It doesn’t apply to what I’m talking about. I’m simply stating what mainstream modern scholarship has to say on the subject. What matters is what the letter actually teaches, not who wrote it. It’s not relevant to the topic at hand anyway, other than the attempt to reconstruct early church history.
The definition of anthropomorphism is : conception or representation of a god as having the form, personality or attributes of man, ascription of human characteristics to what is not human, (especially an animal). Jesus Christ was fully human and fully God, a man, quite unique among humankind, but to insist that only a MAN, at the Eucharist, can be representative of The Father, who is not a man but is Spirit, is as close to being idolatrous as I think it is possible to get. By even suggesting that any man, other than the Christ of God himself, Jesus, Son of Mary, Son of God, can be representative of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, one indivisible God, the Holy Trinity, is a serious abuse and infringement of God's second commandment to His people, no matter how long some in the church might have entertained this notion, as they gaze upon a mere MAN, lifting the sacraments we offer to God, and therefore express their preference for a MALE idol in which to focus their imagination of what GOD is like and how God must act sacramentally when meeting us in the Eucharist. The President at the Eucharist only needs to be a human being. It makes not the slightest difference what gender, colour, height, girth or age (within reason) or nationality they may be, as long as they are recipients of God's Grace and respectful of The Spirit of God. Both male and female are made in the image of God and are equally 'counted worthy to stand in His presence and serve him'. If it is so essential that a male be representative of the Father then at what age does this male not qualify as a male representative of GOD the Father? Would a six year old boy, say the age of Samuel the prophet be OK to satisfy the desire of some to have a male representative of God The Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, standing at the altar, for them to anthropomorphise? .
Well said. It’s utterly nonsensical to suggest that men are somehow more capable of representing a non-anthropomorphic Infinite Being than women are. To assert otherwise is tantamount to ascribing divinity to ‘maleness’. Surely the most reverend and august Terms of Service have something to say about that.
Straw man alert! No one said this. The issue is whether men are the more appropriate choice in light of the full message of scripture.
But WHO is making this 'choice', MEN, that's who, it's always been MEN. Even your Straw man is a MAN. And you really must admit that was a lame MAN objection. .
Yeah, he did, actually: Cannot = incapable. A non-anthropomorphic, infinite Being is no more capable of being represented by a man than by a woman. God is also not literally a father in the biological sense. Basing ecclesiology on pagan-style anthropomorphism is just plain bad theology.
Gregory of Nazianzus: What he did not assume he did not redeem. One of the issues raised by the WO debate is that theological anthropology is often ignored or half-baked. That is why, although regularly mocked the question 'what is man' or 'what is woman' is and entirely valid proposition for theological reflection. (Psalm 8)
This thread appears to have outlived its usefulness, thanks to the usual fundamentalist polemics. It seems the answer to the OP’s original question is that there seems to be lack of certainty as to whether he believes he should be Anglican or Eastern Orthodox. Once that decision is made, the other elements should fall into place. The important thing is to embrace whatever tradition one chooses to follow wholeheartedly.
That having been said, following a tradition, even wholeheartedly, probably would not deliver an assurance of salvation in the way discipleship and the following of Jesus Christ might, and it seems to me that that is what is actually being sought in this quest for an acceptable worshipping community. .