Women ministers, an exploration

I appreciate strong convictions backed up by scripture too. And as I read Consular's argument that another spirit was calling women to the orders, a couple passages came to mind: " But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you....Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (St Matthew 12:24-28, 31)

To speak so presumptuously and authoritatively about the work of the Holy Ghost throughout the entirety of church history, especially when there is no definitive scriptural prohibition on the practice smacks of the sin of hubris and maybe even blasphemy. And, is itself, unscriptural, for Our Lord reveals the limits of our knowledge of the ministry of the Holy Ghost: " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth" (St John 3:8). The Lord has done new things before, I would not constrain Him if he is doing it again. I know the revealed word of god in the scriptures. I know what the church has taught through the ages. I know what the light of my conscience and reason witness to me. But to say I know the mind of God the Holy Spirit fully on this or any subject is a step I would not dare tread. Would you?

 

In Church history, it is not unusual for folks to call those with whom they disagree "devil worshippers". In past times, those who disagreed were also burned at the stake. After all, a women led by the devil would have been subject to killing is scriptural times.

Should we call all Old Catholics devil worshippers "devil worshippers" because they accept women priests?

Either side may be right or wrong in their theological opinion, but this name-calling seems out of place.

However, I am not surprised. I believe that Quakers were called non-Christians on this board just a couple of days ago.

 

I find this an interesting parallel. However, the same could arguments for women ordinations could be used for gay marriage. They could say that this was like the past when some Christians in the US said that "races shouldn't mix" during a short epoch in time. Then, they say we should let gays marry in church and stop discriminating them.

Again, similar to gay marriage argument. If we are wrong and deprive them of their right to marry, then we are harming them

Note: I'm not saying that the above posters are advocating gay marriage in any way. I just find the parallels fascinating. Nevertheless, I do think their is a difference between race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality.

 

Great point Jeff. To me, it is especially anachronistic for Anglicans to argue that women cannot hold leadership positions in the church when, from almost the beginning, the Church of England has allowed women to be the titular head of the church. Queen Elizabeth I, whom we owe so much of the character of our faith to, was both the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the Defender of the Faith, to whom the Archbishop of Canterbury was answerable and by whom he was (and is) formally appointed. Both the Preface to the articles and Article 37 acknowledge this office and authority is given to the English monarch, who is chief governor of the realm over all things both "Ecclesiastical and Civil". And Elizabeth I was in no way unique, this leadership role in the church was given to several women throughout the C of E's history, including Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and, for the last 61 years, Elizabeth II. While it is true that the office these women held was not a ministerial one according the Art. 37; it puts the final nail in the coffin on the argument that true Anglicans must believe that women must remain silent and be subject to men within the confines of the church. For large portions of time, the whole of the C of E (including its male members and clergy) was subject to women, and they spoke for the church. The argument over women in the ordained ministry remains open, but the argument over women in leadership roles was closed in 1559.

 

Here's an interesting article on women's ordination from a woman's perspective: http://www.39articles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/womenordination.pdf

 

In the parish were i work, we wouldn't accept women deacons,priests or bishop. Yet these women parishioners of ours run a great deal of the Church! For myself, I would not accept women in orders because for two thousand years there have not been women in that role and at the moment the idea is splitting the Church. It goes against tradition and the need is for catholic Bishops ,Anglican, Roman or Orthodox to get together in Council and sort the matter out.

 

highchurchman, I don't expect even all the Orthodox bishops to get together in Council

Where did Jesus Christ ordain anybody?

 

Didn't he ordain the Apostles?

 

As what? Bishops? A very serious question

 

No. As apostles. The Apostles then ordained Bishops to take their place (See starting with the consecration of Matthias in the Acts of the Apostles)...at least that's how I heard it.

 

Well that would add another order to the usual three. And anyway, nobody is ordaining apostles in that sense any more

 

"Apostle" was not an Order, but one of the (originally twelve) people chosen by the LORD Jesus to see Him risen & glorified. All of these people were representatives of the tribes of Israel. The Apostleship ended with the death of those who had physically seen the LORD, and obviously Gentiles cannot be sacramental placeholders for the tribes of Benjamin, et. al.

That's right! Paul was an Apostle, but he never baptized anyone - which is one of the utterly essential tasks of the Clergy. Bishops are the representatives & placeholders of Christ from the Apostles, with all their power except infallible preaching & writing.

 

"Bishops" in the New Testament being pastors, not a third order of ministry.

 

You know, the discussion of whether there was a three-fold ministry is somewhat irrelevant to whether women can be ministers... this seems like a side-track or distraction...

Though of course, the doctrine of a special ordained clergy does safeguard against pluralism like an absolute presbyterate of all believers.

 

That is true, but sometimes these discussions can branch off in different directions -- you know, kind of like Anglicanism itself.

Yes, we wouldn't want a scriptural doctrine to get in the way of a "special" ordained clergy.

 

Yesterday I was forced to go to bed, the stress of meeting my editors deadline demanding a belated toll.

Anyway, my main point is that the tri-fold ministry is not an institution ordained by Jesus during His life on Earth; and was but at an embryonic state through the churches of the New-Testament. At the very least the definitions of the orders seem blurred, some of the orders have faded away (prophets, where are you?) .

So if the orders have been instituted by the Church --and seemingly by consensus--, it is up to the Church to regulate them.

 

You know, Pope Bennedict made that very same point in his book in "Called to Communion", i believe. If even the pope is willing to concede that , there must be something to it.

 

I think it's a fairly accepted truth that the episcopal order later developped from the original presbyterate. That doesn't make episcopacy wrong in and of itself, though.

 

I think it would be interesting to know how many ladies know they called to be priests and bishops from all their hearts...

 

Not for traditional Anglicans . We traditionally accept as a Church that the three orders Bishop, Priest & deacon are of Divine Providence, stemming from Christ and through the apostles. See Laud in his confrontation with Lord Saye.