Women ministers, an exploration

Sorry, I did not mean to impugn your position or make any personally offensive remarks. If I've made any, I sincerely apologize.

All I meant to say was that it's not possible to be a conservative and pro-WO consistently, that is, taking the Bible at its word. What we see with pro-WO advocates here such as Patrick is that they necessarily have to leave the bounds of Scripture, or call it incomplete, or call it outright doctored (as N.T. Wright claims). It's simply not logically possible to do otherwise, as the weight of the Bible in favor of male spiritual leadership is simply one-sided and overwhelming.

Now, is it possible to be conservative once the doctrine of Scripture has been compromised? You tell me, I say it is highly unlikely. That's all. I hope you can take it without offense, for none was intended.

 

Celtic1, I can apologize, for myself, if I've offended you. Emotions run very high when I think the faith is being crippled by something it doesn't have to be. I just don't think "holiness movement"s of various little denominations and communities add up to a real theological conservatism. If they had really been conservative, in my opinion, they'd have stayed with their legitimate bishops in the first place.

Anyway, having women preach as the Religious Society of Friends allows, is not the same, in context, as having women act as Bishops in the Episcopal model. The Quakers et. al. have no apostolic succession doctrine like the episcopal churches do. The episcopals necessarily place a greater burden on headship, leadership, and laying-of-hands than the 'conservative denominations' do, making ontological validity utterly imperative for the former, but not the latter.

All this endless comparison between little communities and big churches smacks of relativism and subjectivism to me... I guess that's why I get so riled up.

 

Probably, but I imagine anyone would be hard pressed to give a nuanced presentation in just two paragraphs. It is possibly a little more thoughtful than the opinion that has been put forward often enough that the Church divides into those who are pro-women because they're merely bowing to atheist/secular/feminist/liberal/marxist peer pressure and 'real' believing Christians

Feel free to provide a counter argument rather than an empty statement and I'd be happy to explore the issue further with you.

 

Theological Conservatism doesn't necessarily equate with an unscriptural insistence on 'the bible' as a monolithic lump of doctrinal statements. It's not the Catholic, Orthodox or really the Anglican way of reading scripture. And leaving the bounds of scripture? Well, when I see you advocating for all 613 commandments of the Torah, or the Sermon on the Mount, I'll take the claim that you aren't more seriously. And if we're just talking about the NT as being binding...well what exactly did the church do before it was written?

Obsessive biblio-centrism is both idolatory and deeply against the grain of what Scripture actually is.

Not that you've managed to present any of it to me of course, but I'm sure it's on it's way.

 

Sure it is.

I would, since it's the word of God, but Christ had fulfilled the Law so our job now is to follow the New Testament.

That, yes, I do advocate. Thought you would too. If you don't care to follow the OT or the NT, I don't see what there is left to follow.

It followed the teachings of Christ of course, since it was all still within living memory and all of the apostles were still alive.

 

Ah yes, how silly of me to forget Hooker's classic three legged stool of 'Scripture, Scripture, Scripture' And somehow you managed to miss the Deists, the Cambridge Platonists and of course the emrgence of higher criticism in Anglican circles, something that the tractarians themselves were rather against.

The facts of history seem confute your ideological interpretation of it...Not to mention of course that a belief in the importance and necessity of scripture (which no one is disputing) is not the same as insisting on biblical literalism; which is a 19th century product.

Christ, for a start. However your facetious comments aside, I have yet to find anyone who takes the SM seriously...at least since Tolstoy. If you can demonstrate your strict adherence to the teaching there, then allow me to be the second person to gouge my eye out.

And I'd ask you stop trying to portray me as someone against the bible. I disagree with you on a few things, but it's scripturally informed, it's just not your interpretation.

You mean a sort of, living tradition?

Imagine that. Not that you find Paul actually quoting Christ too often, but don't let that put you off. Nor did anyone ask what Christ had said on the admittance of the gentiles into the Church. a very living tradition indeed it seems.

 

None of my statements are ever empty.

You act like you're the only intelligent, informed person on this forum. You're not. You also aren't following the "Catholic" model of biblical interpretation when you favor WO, because Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't ordain women (neither did we until recently) - and because WO is not part of the universal Church. Nor is it part of Tradition. I am fully aware of historical exceptions to the rule.

You have framed this as the educated (who support WO) vs. the ignorant fundies (who oppose WO). There is nothing realistic about that. That is not the scenario that is before us. There are many who support WO for diverse reasons, and there are many who oppose it for diverse reasons. Some reasons on both sides are poor. Others are worthy of respect. If you won't make the effort to show that respect to those who differ, they won't feel much need to dialogue with you.

 

Nice points, Ryu2000. I'm personally sick of being talked down to as if I'm a bigoted yokel - though people here have not played the 'sexism' card yet, thankfully.

Good to have you on board.

 

First of all it was not a three-legged stool but a single-leg pyramid:

http://thehackneyhub.blogspot.com/2012/06/anglican-myths-hookers-three-legged.html?m=1

so, pat yourself on the back for following another recently-manufactured liberal myth, similar to the notion of 'big tent' Anglicanism.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Deism was a europe-wide movement, which flourished in France, but in England was discredited and defeated through monumental apologetic and philosophical exertions of the English church.

The Cambridge Platonists being a major group which helped defeat the Deist arguments.

Oh, I get what you're trying to say, you're trying to say that the existence (and a strong and good one) of philosophical views within Anglicanism somehow displaces the centrality and infallibility of Scripture? Really, we're in comedy territory now?

What are you talking about? Who is talking about literalism? Do you literally have any idea what we're talking about here?

 

OK, so a redneck and a liberal communist post-modernist (you tell me how you can be marxist and post-modernist at the same time) modern theologian go to a bar and...

 

Hello, sorry for not being in here earlier. I do have a book to finish.

Anyway,

I am a relatively new-comer to Anglicanism; my religious upbringing is that of a Moderate to Conservative Roman Catholic, theologically wise, at least. I only completed two years of Theological education and most of that was Philosophy with some Biblical foundation courses; obviously from a Roman Catholic perspective. During that time we never discussed the matter of women ministers in any depth (beyond "it has been settled by the Pope; no it hasn't...")

I would like to be able to give a coherent, systematic answer; but I am still working on that =) So please forgive me if I can only voice my own opinion, through bits of slightly related thoughts, that none of you would like.

1. Generally speaking, I think the Bible is not very explicit about the order of the different congregations and churches. There is no systematic attempt to establish an uniform, universally binding structure meant for all chuches, all nations and all times. The order of deacons, in particular, seems to have been designed to meet a specific need of the young Church.

In fact, at times, it does seem like Paul, for example, is giving specific instructions to specific groups.

2. It was the Tradition of the Church which later, and slowly, defined the triple order of Deacons, Priests and Bishops.

3. Jesus did only choose Jewish men for apostles.

4. Paul could not see that slavery was intrinsically evil, even though, the rules he set up for master and slave relationship would make slavery impossible. In other words, his human shadow was still in the writing the Holy Spirit inspired.

5. It is defensible that the Bible upholds the headship of the men in social matters (without question in the family) as well as in spiritual ones. In fact, I don't think it is very biblical to draw a clear line between the "religious" and the "secular".

6. My experience with women ministers, albeit limited, has been extremely positive.

That is all, I'm afraid. For a better answer, please contact your local theologian.

 

I accept your apology.

I can see scriptural support for both positions. So, for those who see it opposite from me, I wouldn't say for example that they are legalistic pharisees with a fascist political agenda.

 

I know this can be a very emotional issue.

Little denominations? Hmmm... The Church of the Nazarene is a growing, thriving denomination -- something the Episcopal Church is not. These little denominations, as you say, do not see that bishops in apostolic succession are necessary, and they would be offended if someone said they were thus not legitimate.

About "big churches": The Anglican Communion claims to be the third largest Christian faith community; much of that number is due to the extremely bloated and deceptive membership statistics of the Church of England, only a tiny fraction of which even attend church. Were it not for third-world Anglicanism, this would be a dying segment of Christendom. The ECUSA is doing a very nice job of emptying its pews. So, with the holiness and pentecostal denominations growing like wildfire and the ECUSA shrinking up, I'd be careful who I called little denominations and communities if I were you.

BTW, I am becoming very attached to one little Anglican community -- the AMiA, even though I don't completely agree with their ordination practices.

 

And yet the growing and thriving is a totally meaningless measure of a denomination's true worth. The Methodists used to be the biggest denomination in all of Protestant history, an absolute megastar, and now they're on the road to extinction, like mainline Presbyterianism. It is easy to gain short-term popularity, by appealing to emotionalism and people's baser nature of excitement and non-rational attachment. Many churches, especially Pentecostal, have been exploiting this in quite a cynical fashion. And yet, because there's so little substance, history, and no profound theology, they will have no future, just like those before them had no future. I'd argue the same for the Nazarenes, and other such very small denominations, which appeared just 100 years ago, and have no long-term future.

 

Good post kestrel - but just one thing, regarding this point: Jeremy Taylor's work "Episcopacy Asserted", from the 1640s, presents convincing reasons to believe that the threefold order of clerical dignity existed from as near to Day One as is possible. Paul only speaks of appointing three kinds of ministers: deacons, priests, and bishops. They were always men in Scripture, and the Fathers recognised them all to have been men, continuing the practice themselves.

I encourage everyone to read this: http://books.google.ca/books?id=TaEHAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0

 

Indeed, all 3 orders of the Church are found in the New Testament: deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Not to mention that they're all male, wherever it is possible for us to determine the identity.

 

Actually, there are only two orders found in the New Testament, as the words "bishop", "elder', "presbyter", and "pastor" are all synonymous terms for one and the same office.

 

Taylor goes to immense lengths to disprove that theory. Can you give us reasons other than your own personal assertion? Read Taylor, and I'll read whatever you have to give.

 

I'm sorry. Truly I am sorry. None of this was my intention. I won't apologise for generalizing, because (as far as I'm aware) we're all generalists here, and the forum format discourages detailed in-depth posts.

I was not intending to try and portray this as intellect vs. ignorance. What I'm chafing against is this line that keeps saying 'those who support women are worldly, those who oppose it are Godly'. It is that simplification I dislike. By suggesting that conservatives are (like all humans) subject to social pressures and historically-determined thought I was hoping to show is not a clear cut either/or on each side of the question, for I believe that both the progressive and conservative positions can have spiritual integrity, it's just different theological methodologies at work.

I'm sorry if I'm coming over as intellectually superior, but for my sins I am a recent Oxbridge graduate in theology, I've been fortunate enough to be tutored by some of the leading minds in the english-speaking world, and although WO is not a straight-forward smart/stupid distinction (I quite agree with you there) however, I can say though that educated people do seem overwhelmingly sympathetic to WO.
Admittedly, I am also frustrated by the comments here, because I also work as a lay chaplain, and the viewpoints articulated here would be laughed out of the academy and would fall on incomprehending and deaf ears in the school and church and wider community. It's all very well to sit here and talk theology like any other fetishized commodity (guilty as charged) but it's not what people out there are talking about. It is a missional imperative that we are able to make the connections between human life and thought and the lordship of God over all of it and the presence of God within all of it, and that does mean deciding what's essential to the gospel and what is secondary, sometimes it does mean extending the theological language and engaging intelligently with secular thought.

The kids growing up now have almost no exposure to Christianity, but they 'know' well enough about the conservative bigots, the intellectual incoherence and our anti-scientific attitudes. These must be challenged, I'm sure you agree! But it is dispiriting to see brothers in Christ conforming exactly to the negative stereotype the wider culture is painting of us to young people. I keenly feel the need for a new kind of christian cultural discourse, which for some reason is interpreted here as me just being some sort of weak, liberal, sellout. Which hurts a little bit.

Is it possible you're mixing 'method' with 'conclusions' here? Catholics don't agree amongst themselves on a number of issues, and the RC and EO churches don't agree on everything either, yet they (and some of us in the anglican church) share a similar way of regarding scripture. That there's no straightforward universal interpretation is not that surprising since human interpretation often does mean diversity rather than uniformity. Call it sin, or human nature, but that's the way of things.

However, all of my catholic and Orthodox friends, have said to me they don't understand why we don't have women bishops. For all of us, the question is less about gender here, but of ecclisiological coherence. For actually, the RC and EO view of episcopal polity means the idea of having bishops without universal jurisdiction over their diocese, for having a separate churches that don't submit to the bishop is the real 'innovation', the novelty and the real proof of the church's slide into a facile bureaucratism as it tries to accomodate two incompatable theologies at once. And that's an issue that hasn't been raised once here! A pity, because I suspect there might be widespread agreement on that point. I certainly agree with them.

In truth I have a lot of time for the conservative positions, I share in fact their unease about ecumenical dialogue opportunities and to a lesser extent the fact that it appears to be an act of discontinuity. However, on the latter point I see it as part of a wider continuity that comes from the confession of Christ as Lord and God that transcends gender dichotomies, and perhaps one day, the RC and EO churches will agree. (Though I suspect it will take the Orthodox much longer than the Catholics- part of me hopes they will insist on their women wearing fake beards in order to better blend with the general aesthetic).

And if I'm wrong, then I shall trust in our merciful God to forgive me for what I held in good faith.

 

Oh, dear; I have debated this on several different denominational forums and hesitate to do it here.

However, Taylor could not have disproved it because it is true; thus, being true, it is not theory. This is the consensus of Biblical scholarship.

John Wesley became convinced of the truth of this by reading Lord Peter King's history of the early church.

Early church history, as well as theology, has been a passion of mine for nearly 40 years; I have studied this thoroughly. The monarchical episcopate was a historical development that came about after the the first century as the churches expanded and grew. Only then did the office of bishop come to be differentiated as one separate from that of presbyter. It was not until the late second century that the threefold offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon became established as the general rule and form of ministry in most places.