Women ministers, an exploration

Forgot to quote this is in response to Stalwart above...

So really what you are saying is that anyone who does not hold to your views about the ordination of women is in your opinion an atheist. Actually I would suggest you didn't like what Celtic had to say and as I have seen with Adam, Anna, and Sean in the past so you will say anything to try and get a reaction them and hope they move on. Brother your style of Christianity is wanting if that is the case, and I pray you and your ilk can find peace within yourself and with others. I believe there are a number of planks that need to be removed.

Blessings, Gordon

 

I have seen many others here like me Gordon, that's why I am happy I found this board. I am interested in orthodox Anglicanism. Those who seek to merge Anglicanism with the world, or with other religions, I'm not too happy about.

And as for planks, it was not me by my master and lord Jesus Christ who overturned the tables of the Pharisees in their faces, and called them spawn of the devil. Not that I am calling Celtic1 that, but you get the idea.

Celtic Why are you playing these games? You oppose that regeneration occurs in the moment of water Baptism; you oppose the order of Bishops; you openly advance yourself as holding Anabaptist views, and have a lot of likeness for the Quakers, the two groups condemned for heresy in the 17th century. In fact the only group you've opposed so far have been orthodox Anglicans.

Give it time. You're so proud of your independence that any position is hypothetically open to you. I'm not proud, I have subjected myself to The Church, and I find shelter in her Pale. If you won't do that, there's no telling where you'll go.

 

I do believe that women's "ordination," not to mention the acceptance of homosexuality, is profoundly incompatible with Christianity and thus a sign of infidelity and heresy.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

 

First answer in red, above.

I base my affirmation of women's ordination on scripture, and I base my opposition to homosexual marriage and ordinations on scripture also. I have held these same views for decades. They will not change because I firmly believe they are in line with scripture.

 

That is a libelous statement.

To equate women's ordination with acceptance of homosexuality is ludicrous and insulting.

By their fruits indeed.

 

Don't get me wrong Stalwart I hear what you are saying I just don't believe one needs to poke someone with a stick if you don't agree with what they say...

I read this Jesse Jackson quote yesterday on my way to the cathedral for the lunch time Eucharist and I think it is quite apt here at the moment:

 

Women's "ordination" is a product of 20th century feminism, not of biblical orthodoxy. Anyone who's not blinded by political correctness can see that.

 

I did some digging around and I found an article which pretty much covers my take on women in the Church. First of all given that women in the western world are no longer uneducated and kept safely locked away doing the housework I believe they are quite capable of holding all those positions in the Church.

As for the article - in my opinion cherry picking scripture and reading it out of context to say what you want it to say to argue a point is sinful and is best to stay clear of those who do.

Quote removed, as derogatory to Holy Scripture.
-Admin

 

Of course it is women were treated as second class citizens and very few were allowed to become educated in anything other then looking the home and children. We live in a different world now where women are educated they have the talents to become anything they like...

I just posted this article in survey on women in the church but I believe it is appropriate here given what said:

Quote removed, as derogatory to Holy Scripture.
-Admin

 

"In the same way, although the New Testament writers passively accepted the oppression of women..."

Whoever wrote this is not Christ's.

 

I've read the article.

It's a piece of liberal garbage.

 

I thank God that we all have a right to our own opinion.

 

Well there you go - you have all the answers...

Rather then push it aside as a piece of liberal garbage why don't put together a response explaining from a Biblical perspective why you believe it is garbage.

 

I don't have all the answers, Gordon, Scripture does.

Don't listen to me, listen to the Holy Ghost speaking through Paul, not to heretics who in the height of their folly even dare to say that the Apostle of Christ passively accepted the oppression of women. The authority of Scripture stands above everything else.

With these words, the Apostle sets out the reasons and causes as to why men rather than women are called to ecclesiastical duties. He says that the man is the head of the woman, just as Christ is the head of the Church, that the woman ought not to rule the man but the man the woman, that the woman was created for the man and not the man for the woman, that the woman was created from the man rather than the reverse, and that the woman was seduced by the serpent and not the man. Therefore, he says, it is a shameful thing for a woman to speak in church. Why is it shameful? Because it is both against the law laid down by Christ and against the condition and nature of the female sex itself. Women, indeed, are distanced from the duty of teaching by their natural modesty, for that duty has a certain element of rulership which is not compatible and consistent with womanly modesty and submission.

One should also consider the constant tradition and practice of the Church. That is to say, from the time that the world was created, no woman ever functioned as a priest among the followers of the true religion, not even Eve or any of her daughters. Men alone were called to this office: in the time of the natural law, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and in the time of the written law only Aaron and his sons and other men descended from the lineage of the Levites. In the New Testament too, Epiphanius says: "If the priesthood was ordained for women or it was permissible to lay down canonical rules to that effect in the Church, the office of priesthood should have been conferred on Mary, who was more suited to it than anyone else and to whom so much honour is given....However, God thought quite differently, and women do not even have the power to administer baptism." Since, then, these priestly duties have been forbidden to women in every age in former history, both under the old law and under the new law, and were not permitted even to the Virgin Mother of God herself, it is very clearly apparent that no woman can ever be permitted to exercise the office of a priest.

Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Augustine and other Fathers regard as heretics the Pepuziani, the Marcosians and the Collyridians, sects who taught that women were capable of being ordained to the priesthood and offering sacrifice. These honourable Fathers count their ideas as heresies. Epiphanius quotes against them the texts of Paul mentioned above. Ambrosiaster explicitly calls the Cataphrygians heretics. Therefore, according to these teachers, these heretics were sinning not only against good order but also against divine law.

A female priesthood has always been considered to be a pagan impiety, as the Apostolic Constitutions already state (3.9): "But if in the preceding provisions we have not permitted women to teach, on what basis would anyone allow them, contrary to nature, to exercise the priesthood? For ordaining priestesses for female deities is an error of pagan impiety."

 

I said scripture not decisions made by the councils in a time when women were not educated and were suppressed in most accounts. If you took the time to read the references you cited above in the context of what issues Paul was addressing they are not hard and fast rules, and they were addressed in the article. Those passages were addressed directly to instances that were happening in those Churches at that time.

You need to apply a little exegesis and hermeneutics to your Biblical studies...

How do you address the references that show that women were active members and leaders in the early Church, including Christs disciples?

 

Gordon, I wonder if you read anything I wrote.

The article you posted accused Paul and the other apostles of Christ of accepting the oppression of women. Do you expect me to take such slanderous vitriol seriously? The passages about women in the church are clear, they pertain to ecclesiastical order and the reasons the apostle adduces are rooted in natural and divine law. The word of God does not speak in vain and the constant tradition of the Church down the ages attests to it. Only heretics have ordained women and this is something you cannot avoid.

Paul did not forbid women from speaking in church because of political correctness towards the conventions of pagan society, he was not a 20th century liberal: the pagans already had priestesses, there was nothing uncommon or shocking about it. Paul would certainly not deprive Christian women of a God-given right just so he could win some pagan converts, that's beyond ridiculous. The word of God is not adapted to the world, the world is the one that must adapt to the word of God.

 

No, they were not.

Old Christendom said it with extreme correctness: pagans had female priestesses already. In that context the behavior of the Apostle and of Christ would be seen as extremely radical, by denying prophetic headship to women, and limiting their range of allowed behavior in the church.

The Apostolic Christian attitude towards women in spiritual leadership was radical in a larger pagan culture of permissiveness towards female priests.

Women were educated, just look at the women poets. Classical history is a bit of a hobby of mine.

Please add further support to your claim. They seem like hard and fast rules, and Paul nowhere specifies exceptions or conditions, ergo making them unconditional. And the behavior of Christ in never allowing women supreme leadership in the church corroborates the Apostle's teaching.

Women disciples are a wonderful thing; we are all called to be followers of Christ, are we not? The question is about positions of episcopacy and priesthood within the Church, not discipleship or generic leadership, for example lay-readers and Bible-study instructors.

 

It is a bit difficult to argue the point now because the article in my opinion has wrongfully removed. That said, the article did not accuse Paul and the other other Apostles of anything it was simply highlighting the cultural norm of the period and trying to bring into context why things were said they way were said. In my opinion you can read that article and glean from it 2 distinct and balancing arguments about the pro's and con's for the ordination of women in todays society.

 

The article plainly accused the inspired writers of the New Testament of passively accepting the oppression of women. In other words, the word of God which is eternal and valid for all times, places and cultures, was accepting of oppression and sin. This is an outrageous claim that no Christian who wishes to be taken seriously can make.

Female priestesses were the cultural norm of the period in pagan society. It was the Church who was countercultural, we've already established that.