Women ministers, an exploration

Actually you have not and I won't bother to engage in any further discussion, you obviously cannot see the point beyond your own views on the subject so I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

 

First answer in red, inside quoted post above.

I wonder why reactionaries always point out what Paul said about women keeping silent in the church but do not require their women to wear a head covering -- selective interpretation?

Also, this passage could not mean what reactionaries assume it to mean because there were women prophets in the churches, their were women deacons, and at least one woman apostle.

Sorry, fellas; I know you would like to keep the church as a "good ol' boys club", but God disagrees with you.

 

These are not my own views, these are the views of Scripture and the tradition of all orthodox Christians down the centuries.

 

Those who have done it, have sadly fallen into heresy.

Actually, I believe that women are required to wear head coverings in church. And so did all Christendom until very recently.

No, we want to keep the church faithful to the gospel. You can have your church of politically correct causes, I'll rather have the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.

 

I don't think people realize that rules in the bible are true for all times and places, and yes that includes head covering too.

They aren't called the Ten Suggestions.

 

I would be interested in how you interpret the direction by Paul in relation to head covering, and what you believe that head covering to be.

 

As he intends it -- literally. Women are to cover their head in the church at all times.

This rule doesn't affect apostolic succession and the nature of the church in the way women minsters do, so people are a little less intense about it, but it's still no less true.

 

But what does it mean to cover her head, with what does she cover it (1 Cor 11:2-16)? This is not a trick question it is a fairly simple exercise in how to read and take into context the Epistles. I am talking now about the analysis of the passage not how it should be viewed today.

Rather then read just one or two verses read the entire passage or paragraph as they say in NT studies...

 

Why can't reactionaries recognize and admit that those who favor women's ordination, like myself, do so out of a belief that it is scriptural rather than throwing out accusations that we hold to it because of feminist influence, atheist influence, and political correctness? I can recognize that those who oppose it do so out of conviction that they are being true to scripture.

I can't respect those who don't respect that I am also trying to be true to scripture in my belief.

 

I have yet to see anyone reconcile the supposed prohibition by Paul of women not ever speaking in church with the fact that there were women prophets in the church.

 

Arius also thought he was being true to Scripture. He still fell into heresy, nonetheless. It is evident to anyone with eyes to see that the push for female ordination in the past few decades came about because of feminism which is, in itself, a product of liberalism.

 

Since a favorite tactic around here is to throw the word "heretic" at faithful Christians who disagree with a particular viewpoint here, let me try it: You who want to keep the church as an exclusive "good ol' boys club"

Edited for language.
-Admin

 

The holiness and Pentecostal churches would take issue with that, being not only conservative but fundamentalist. But then they are not afraid of God calling women.

 

You confuse being socially conservative with being theologically conservative. Under no circumstances can the Pentcostals be called theologically conservative, and they have already destroyed their church, not that they had much to begin with. In any case this thread isn't about others, but Anglicanism only, it's adherence to Scripture and the apostolic views of the Church Fathers.

For the simple reason that views like yours appeared within Anglicanism in the 60s. And the arguments you have used were not merely quotes from the Bible, but also arguments where your opponents hate women, want to subject women, oppress women, etc. These are not Christian arguments, these are atheistic and feminist ones.

When you traced our motivations down to tying to maintain an 'old boys club', you automatically revealed that the source of your antipathy has all along been feministic, and cultural, rather than spiritual and Biblical.

 

In the passage I quoted above 1 Cor 11:2-16 in verse 5 Pauls talks about a woman prophesying in the Church.

 

The holiness and pentecostal churches are sects.

 

Perhaps Barnes' insightful commentary might help you:

 

And here's Cornelius à Lapide's commentary on that passage:

 

First response in red above.

And that's where you fail to see that the reason I responded that way is because it was you who first made those erroneous charges against me,and then you were joined by others. That's why I responded as I did.

I had already shown that my reasons for supporting women's ordination were scripturally based.

 

They are Christian churches, regardless of your efforts to slander and insult them.

Might I also remind you that there is holiness and charismatic thought and practice within the Anglican Communion.