Women ministers, an exploration

Yours is an excellent post.

All this talk about the "Catholic" church never ordaining women -- well, there are more "Catholic" churches than just the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholic; there are the Old Catholics, and they have been ordaining women for years.

 

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the ACNA study on female priests, whether they came about by weighing the Word of God with 1900+ years of Church tradition, or was it by secular intrusion and radical feminism?

 

Again, those conservative denominations which have been ordaining women for a century would be highly insulted if you told them they did so because of "secular intrusion and radical feminism".

 

Choristers / Choir Leaders
Yes

Church Wardens and church council members
Yes

Teachers (Sunday school and the like)
Yes

Lay Readers
Yes

Deaconess
Yes

Deacons
No

Priests
No

Bishops
No

 

If we are members of the Church Universal, as I believe we are through our membership of The Anglican Church, we should be thinking on what the Church thinks on this matter. In spite of the glossing that occurs on this board, we have to admit, there has never been any length of time when Women's Orders have been legitimate in the life of the Church. There hasn't even been any real discussion within the Church of England, just a vote in Convocation! At the very least we should be studying what the Orthodox and Roman Communions of the church have to say about the subject!

 

It is not just a question of numbers, it is a question of custom and practice and most of all belief, that is faith!? Where is scripture or Holy Tradition is the matter even mentioned?Why, if it was so important enough to split the Church did neither Christ or the Apostles make any suggestion or reference to it? Why did not the early fathers, or indeed the Fathers of the reformation mention it, either for or against it ! By the way, what Catholic Churches are you referring to as Old Catholic? The Only one I have heard of is the Polish National Old Catholic, or some such. There are two with that name and I refer to the one that broke away from Rome about 100 years ago!

 

There are many Old Catholic churches, but the main one and most recognized in the Old Catholic Church, Union of Utrecht. However, the churches of the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Switzerland offer the blessing of same-sex unions, which makes them apostate in my opinion.

As far as tradition as the basis to establish doctrine and practice, I wouldn't go by that so much, especially when it was "Catholic Tradition" for centuries to murder other Christians in the name of Christ. And just so you know that I am not "Catholic bashing", that was also the "tradition" of the Magisterial Reformers.

 

I never gave much thought about women's ordination until we had a woman priest fill in when the old priest passed away. My parish at the time was a small one, and we had a long interregnum. I must say that, while it felt odd at first, I have never met a more caring, passionate, or orthodox priest in my life, body parts accepted. Her message was sound, her sermons powerful, and her grasp of Anglican doctrines of faith impeccable. When things began to really fall apart within TEC, I tried attending an APA parish. It was wonderful. But one day, when my 4-year-old daughter asked me why my 7-year-old son could be an accolyte but she couldn't, I was at a loss as to why. When I approached the rector for guidance, he mumbled something about it being "just our way" and "it's tradition". It's very hard to explain to a 4-year-old why the right reproductive organs are so essential to the ordained ministry when all you have is "tradition" to back it up. This got me to thinking, if tradition is the sole argument for telling women that they are unfit for the priesthood, without more, perhaps then it simply isn't enough. Certainly, the bible does not record Christ choosing women as apostles. But then, he didn't pick seminarians either, nor gentiles, nor Brits. Saint Paul seemed to be against the idea of women having any speaking parts in the church, but he sees it more as an issue of scandal avoidance rather than a real doctrinal problem (though I could be wrong). In any case, the same fellow who forbade women to speak in his letter to Timothy, also said to the Galatians "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." How can we truly be one and still see distinction in something, imo, so petty as gender. The only body part I think is essential for the ministry is the heart. The heart that is filled with concern for parishioners, for the lost, for the glory of God, and with a calling to God's ministry is the only requisite body part for ordination...at least to my mind.

Having said that, I do have a symantic problem with women priests. A woman in an ecclsiastical office on par with that of "priest" is supposed to be called a "priestess". You don't call female sovereigns "kings"; you call them "queens". Let's at least be accurate with our titles.

 

Lowly Layman, many of those opposed to female ministers would not base their opposition on the carnal body-parts or reproductive organs. They would argue that God created males and females to be spiritually, ontologically different in their very being. There's a huge difference between Brit/non-Brit, Jew/Gentile, Layman/Seminarian, vs. Male/Female. Brits are just as much humans as non-Brits, jews as gentiles, and laymen as seminarians. Men are not just as feminine as females, however, nor are females just as masculine as males, if you take the meaning.

I believe the Galatians reference is in the wider context of Justification, the Law, Purity, and legalism. It isn't necessarily an abrogation of the Image-Helper distinction made in Genesis 2.

 

Fine points Consular. And I recognize that Eve was created, at least initially, as a companion and helpmeet to Adam. But am I understanding you to say that it follows that a woman's role and meaning can only be found as companions and helpers to men and that it precludes admission into any ordained office in the Church? Adam was created as a garden tender, is that the only proper role for men? I am sure you and I can agree that women have a worth and a standing personally, without regard to the assistance and companionship they provide to a man. Even if that were the case, didn't Our Lord declare that ministers be "servants of all"? Sounds like the perfect position for helpmeets. I only ask these questions because, from what little (very little) I have read on the issue, there is more of St. Ignatius of Antioch's formularies in the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon (as we currently understand them) than those of the original one established by the New Testament church, including the demand that all office holders be male. What is the rationale behind male only clergy? I will need to look more into the issue.

 

I don't say that the human female substance, created by God, can be "only" expressed as companion, or helper; that language debases the actual glory of what it means to be a helper or companion of the image of God. There is great nobility in being a consecrated virgin, widow, mother, wife, and grandmother. Bearing children is the continuance of Eve's essence on Earth, at least in the Bible.

Beyond the patriarchal Jewish and New Testament history, none of the Church Fathers or the Church herself considered there to be a strong case for attempting to ordain women as clergy for 1900+ years. It just seems odd to me that this "enlightened" idea would suddenly appear only in the past two generations, and never have been considered before. When it was considered long ago, then, it must've been rejected. There are no Church Mothers, but the Church Fathers. This has always struck me.

The Lord Jesus calls God Father, and the Holy Spirit with masculine pronouns. God is entirely masculine. That fascinates me as well - but there are moments when "ruach" is used for breath or spirit, being in the feminine gender. Adam did not just tend the garden, but ruled it for God, and named all the creatures with God looking on. All of history is under Adam, or Abraham, or Moses, or Noah - always counting the patriarch as the head of the family. Why should this change just for the Church Family? I grant that the Resurrection and Ascension are truly amazing and world-changing, but what has the Lord said that indicates a fundamental change in the nature which He has created human beings to share?

Be careful about negatively comparing Ignatius against the Bible. Apart from "prophet", Paul only uses three words for ministers in his letters: Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. A huge connection was made by classical Anglican Divines (16th-18th centuries) between the N.T. and the early threefold Office, calling the latter an Apostolic institution, and thus Biblical.

There is much to consider, esp. with regard to servants and ministers. Thank you for your neutrality.

 

We must be on high alert about bouncing from a subjection of women to thinking there's no difference between them and men. How is that dichotomy logical?!

We cannot be made to look like the Bible wishes to silence women when it makes them made in the image of Man. I personally have never wished to silence any women. We need to firmly show how we are antithetical to that, even if we defend the Biblical doctrine of spiritual leadership by men.

Also, Mr. Lowly Layman, one of the ways in which the atheist world tries to besmirch this doctrine is precisely as you mentioned: drawing attention to genitals, raising all sorts of sarcastic and incredulous remarks, as if our physical characteristics are the essential feature. Now the atheist world embraces LGBT and sees no difference between men and women, other than what the eye can see. Change the physical, and bam, you have a different person, a different nature.

That's such a wicked belief, in my view. The human nature is deep inside. My male characteristics can never be bestowed upon a woman, regardless of her physicality. And similarly, I could never acquire the peak of femininity, deep within my soul, regardless of my physicality. We must look beneath the surface. We must never judge a book by its cover. Your nature is powerful and deep within you, the core of your very being. We cannot accept the doctrine of mutability of gender. So you should teach your daughter to be the most wonderful girl she can be, with beautiful grace, poise and beauty. And our sons must be taught the most wonderful sons they can be. We are not raising androgens or robots. We're raising wonderful human beings.

 

I appreciate your points. First off, I concede the fact that female clergy is an impediment to the full restoration of Christendom. Which is, of course, tragic. But then the same could also be said of married (and divorced) clergy, or gay clergy for that matter.

That said, I fully agree with you, Stalwart, about it being what is on the inside that counts. But if we are all one in Christ Jesus, what is the inner distinction that precludes women from the priesthood? The old testament calls for an all-male priesthood. I also believe it calls for an all-Levite priesthood from lineage of Aaron. The Epistle to the Hebrews teaches us that the change in the law also created a change in the priesthood, from an Aaronic one to one on the order of Melchizedek. Could this mean that the all-male requirement is also changed? If not, why not?

There is an interesting couple of passages in the Gospel according to St. Luke that might ("might" being the operative word, it's kind of a stretch) have bearing on this discussion. They are:

Luke 11:23
And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven. But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

And also, Luke 9:49-50
And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

I'll confess these were stumbling blocks for me when I lost my faith. I would read these passages and think "this guy is contradicting himself, he's not making any sense, what a bunch of bunk". My how time turns wisdom to foolishness. Now I see the contexts involved here. In the first passage, Jesus is rebuking the pharisees, the pedigreed religious leaders of his day. They had all the external trappings of those who are supposed to be religious leaders. But because they opposed Christ and His Gospel, they were unfit for the office.

In the second passage, the man in question had no pedigree, no special apostolic annointing, and yet he was doing their work. Jesus said to hinder him not, regardless of the perceived irregularity of his commission. He was doing Christ's work and Jesus commended it.

Here's why I think it might be applicable here. Jesus is making the point that it is not pedigree or other external requirements that determines one's fitness as a minister, it is one's faith in and obedience to Christ. If so, how can one's membership in the female side of humanity make her deficient? Do you see the connection? or is my interpretation way off base? It's very possible, I'm only a lowly layman, and as I've said before, not very informed on this particular subject. I read the bible but I can't say I should be a trusted source when it comes to exegesis.

 

The business of women in orders today is simplified if we go with the system that has saved the church throughout its long life!As they do say in football, i believe, if the team works don't change it! Certainly not piecemeal as the Canterbury crowds have done.
There is a problem within the Church Catholic, so then, a Council should be called of those bishops who hold to the Catholic Faith and tradition and the whole matter should be attended to. Instead of millions of separate discussions going on. If it is a catholic Matter, then it is up to the Bishops, not individuals. Though it is proper that people have their say!

 

This is one of the best posts I have ever read -- here or any other forum that I've participated in over the years.

 

I'd like to point out that the Quakers gave women spiritual equality with men from the beginning -- more than 360 years ago. They also defied other "traditions" of state churches whether Catholic or Protestant -- by standing for religious liberty and loving your neighbor as yourself, among other things.

 

They also abolished the ancient apostolic threefold-order. Also, you mention religious liberty and loving-your-neighbour as if the Quakers somehow had a monopoly on those things. Do you connect that to their doctrines and (lack of) hierarchy? The Religious Society of Friends was never, by any means, normative of Christianity as a whole - just another protestant branch-off, yet again.

There hasn't been a truly Ecumenical Council since A.D. 787, by some estimates - and not since A.D. 451, by others. Apart from grace, I don't believe it's possible for the bishops of Christendom to meet together in solemn assembly ever again, until the dreadful day upon which they will all be judged together.

Good principle about not changing what already works, however.

 

See my answer in red, within your quoted post.

 

The point you make is quite true, but the Anglican Church is split on this matter (W/O )and on the question of Gay marriage and Bishops. Certainly the other two Communions are less than unanimous, we are corroding around the edges whilst we drift on! What is your suggestion?

 

Celtic1, The low-church puritans murdered more people than the magisterial Anglicans ever did. Not that cutting off ears and branding peoples' foreheads was particularly Christian, either, on their part. Anyway, perceived holiness of life does not necessarily indicate orthodox belief.

I only appeal to tradition of the Fathers, written and specific, because they are so often logical, rational, holy, and have an illuminated opinion on Scripture to pass down to us, that we may consider. They are not to be dismissed; at least, certainly not in favour of a group of anti-hierarchy charismatics.

My suggestion is that we drop the pretense that Christianity can be united - except through spiritual warfare, and eroding heresy by preaching against it. To take part in an ecumenical council with the Greeks and the Romans, now, would be to lend legitimacy to everything they've made up over the past millennium.

Anglicans didn't imagine that there was need for an ecumenical council to decide that women-ministers are superfluous, or that homosexual activity is sinful, until the meltdown of self-confidence began in the 1950s. This is not a failure of Catholicity, but simply a failure to assert it. Go back to 400+ years of Reformed Catholicism, and what need is there for these solemn assemblies?