Yes it is unfortunate that the forum has these rules. If I was in charge of this forum then I would allow discussion of WO. If I was against WO (which I'm not) I could then use this forum to point out the errors of your ways, with apt arguements and perhaps get you to change your ways. I would have thought this is how things should work. I don't feel you are unwelcomed, you have a lot of likes per post. I would urge you to stay.
My wife is on FB and she has to be careful what she says politically or it will be deleted. Sure, you can say what you wish about WO on FB, but I was merely saying that FB and Twitter are not places where "all points of view are allowed". But frankly, you are still freely discussing the issue right now, and no one has censured you; there's simply been one member who appointed himself to express his opinion of what he thinks might happen. No reason to get in a huff or anything. As for slavery and racism being things practiced in the past that were wrong, those were not church practices or church beliefs. Can you appreciate the difference between common but erroneous practices among the general (unredeemed) population, and church practices established upon the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles and maintained for almost two millennia since? Yes, but only in modern times. I know of no denomination that ordained women prior to the 1800s; most started doing so in the mid-1900s. So, if all those churches and Christians were wrong about WO for 1800-1900 years, wouldn't we need to see some good, solid reasoning from the Bible to show us that they were wrong?
I suspect the reason churches and Christians didn't promote WO for 1800 -1900 years is the exact same reason they didn't promote women, doctors lawyers, accountants, soldiers, computer programmers, etc. I assume there are no good bible reasons to support these prejudices either.
Why is it that you have to denigrate me with a personal comment rather than just stating your view? I don't get in "huff's", I never have before and I am nearly 70 yo now, with no plans to do so in the future. I am not even quite sure what a huff would look like online. I accept that you believe you are right according to your interpretation of things, but that doesn't mean that you are right. It simply means that you have a point of view and feel very strongly about it. Passion can be very inspiring but it can also be intolerant of others. Unfortunately, or not, I am no theologian to debate these kinds of issues using church history and other academic arguments. I am doing postgraduate study in theology now but am new to it, and my undergraduate degrees were not in theology. So I simply have been stating my own opinion based on my own understanding of Jesus. I do not think female ordination is an error but I have no theological arguments to offer. I do realise that the Anglican Church is divided on the issue, and that is something I love about the Anglicans, the fact that they can have differing opinions. There are many people in the Anglican church, including my bishop and priest who do support WO, so they must have some academic reasons for their stance. But I am not the person to provide that kind of discussion. I believe Jesus would be perfectly comfortable with WO today, even if he didn't support it in the past, given the times, but that is just my opinion and YMMV. I am perfectly able to accept that many people disagree with me. And the poster who made the cautionary comment in the first place turns out not to be a moderator or forum owner, so yes, you are right in saying that I have not been censured here - that was my mistake. This still does not feel like a particularly welcoming place for a woman, but as you say, people have experienced feeling unwelcome on a number of online forums. I no longer visit the RC forums I used to because after deciding to become an Anglican, I no longer felt welcome in those places. That is not a problem since I no longer care to post on them anyway. When I joined here, I did realise it was a conservative forum, but hoped that the diversity of the Anglican church would make differences of opinion more acceptable here than on the RC forums. And as you have pointed out, so far you have allowed me to express myself. There has just been a misunderstanding because of one poster's comments. I hope we can just move past this little hiccup now. I know where you stand and you know where I stand and we can agree to disagree.
Indeed, and it was me. And the purpose of raising it was to save getting into a discussion which the forum rules preclude. I understand the rule, and I don't intend to debate it, save I would want to see some greater room for discussion. The difficulty with the two issues mentioned in the rules, is that they tend to be all consuming, and the purpose of the forum is not simply to debate the two issues which seem to divide us in the current era. I have said, several times, that there is more that unites us than tears us apart. I suspect the Anglican world has been strained and fractured over a focus on that which divides, rather than a focus on that which unites. It is not my intent to censure anyone, and I am deeply sorry taht was the inference taken. I few years back I thought this was the kindest. most generous and helpful site on the internet. Time has marched on, and we have a little harder and less kind, and I have often felt some of my views might be unwelcome. None the less I persevere. I think that rules do not require us to hold a particular view, but rather that they topics are off the table for discussion here.
I didn't mention your name because I know that your intention was to avoid exactly what ended up happening. If I were not so new here, I would have known that was your intention and probably wouldn't have posted anything. I was wondering what I had written to incur censure, but it turned out it wasn't meant that way after all. So, in that case, I did overreact, due to ignorance of who is who here. I am perfectly happy not to debate the whole WO issue, but I am not going to accept when someone tells me that of course I have to see that it is an error, when I don't. I say we take the topic off the table so it can die a natural death. And we can all continue with out own views and beliefs on the matter.
There are many discussions of WO that have taken place. As you probably have noticed, the mods take an extremely laissez faire approach to the topic. I can’t remember the last time there was a moderation action on this issue; must’ve been 4-5 years ago. If memory serves, that rule was added years ago primarily to avoid strong proselytizing in favor of this topic. Most of the Anglicans in the world are not in favor of the practice, but that was being overshadowed by a small clique of Anglicans in the West, who coming from developed countries with fast internet etc, and fueled by the culture wars, dominated every conversation. Back when this forum was opened up like 10 years ago, there were a lot more pro-WO activists than now. To be an Anglican forum in those days was to nearly guarantee an heavy influx of committed ideological posting, which interfered with the organic gelling of the nascent community. Today there is a sizable non-WO constituency among western Anglicans, and the ideological activism from the other side has diminished substantially. By and large all of those conversations proceed civilly and police themselves without it ever reaching the moderators.
No offense intended. My understanding of the phrase, "get in a huff," encompasses taking offense and going away, and it did seem that you felt offended and said you were leaving the forum. Perhaps the phrase means something more dramatic to you, and if so, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Well, the reason I think I am right about the issue is because, as far as I can see, I believe what the early church believed. This is what it means to be 'conservative' in a theological or religious sense: to hold to the 'faith of our fathers' which was handed down from the Apostles and was held by the early Christians, before things started to get mucked up a bit (which didn't take long). The behemoth institution that had its roots in Rome started out well enough at first, but gradually it began making substantive changes to that faith, and over the centuries the changes got them more and more off-track, right? And Anglicanism is based on getting back to that true faith which the early church taught. So, yes, at its roots Anglicanism is 'conservative.' In more modern times, there have been forces at work in all the denominations, voices that advocate for changes. These voices generally admit that the early church taught against homosexual behavior and female priests, yet they state rationalizations for changing the long-held beliefs and practices in these areas. In TEC and the Church of England itself, these voices have succeeded in working change; some other provinces have resisted the changes and have held more closely to the 'faith of our fathers'. To my mind, branches of Anglicanism that embrace such changes are making a mistake very similar to that of the RCC. Discarding the teachings and practices of the early Christians in favor of new ones seems dangerous and erroneous. While the more 'liberal' branches are still far from distorting the faith as much as the Romans have, getting just a few steps off the path tends to lead to more and more such steps. That's why the moderators try to help keep everyone in between the 'fence lines' of that true faith learned from the Apostles, by setting guidelines (rules) so we know where the boundaries lie. As for ordination of women as deacons, let me clarify my position by saying that I think the matter can be seen either way. A deacon is not the head of a parish but is a helper to the rector. I can see enough N.T. references to women serving (i.e., ministering) the early church and being taken note of by the Apostles to make me think they were not excluded from roles which could be construed as deaconship. To have hands laid upon one, to make a vow, and to consecrate one's life to that of serving the church (the essence of ordination) is a calling from God that could fall upon a woman as well as a man, with the distinction that these are "ministry of helps" roles and not leadership (headship) roles. A deacon is at the 'beck and call' of both the parish priest and the bishop; although duties may include taking (already-consecrated) communion to the sick, praying with them, and so on, and although they receive greater respect for the responsibilities and submission to authorities they've undertaken (as we are reminded by their manner of dress), deacons are not "in charge." They are not the figurehead, the voice of the parish, the one who guides and steers the local church. No, they are helpers (albeit special helpers) to the leader of the local church. And that is the distinction that makes all the difference, because we have no record or indications whatsoever of women being ordained to a priesthood (leadership) position for centuries upon centuries in the church. Female priests was not taught by the Apostles, nor by the early fathers, nor by anyone until (AFAIK) just a couple hundred years ago; it is a modern, 'liberal' change to the true faith. As such, it is something the church needs to guard against.
@Rexlion I am not interested in debating this any further with you because you are free to say what you want without offending the rules of this forum and I am not. My part in the whole WO debate is over. I have my views and you have yours. I am not going to change yours and you certainly are not going to change mine. Cheers.
Yes, I understand, and I expected no different. I hope you wind up having some really good, orthodox instructors in theology. Happy trails.
Personally, I don't think I would make a good priest. I've noticed that priests must have a very thick skin and be highly resistant to taking offense (or at least to showing it). I would struggle with that.
The priesthood is not like another job. One does not say to the careers officer at school I want to be a priest, train driver or rocket scientist, I am not sure which yet. To become a priest one has to have a vocation: a calling from God. The Church is supposed to ensure you have such a vocation prior to accepting you as a candidate.
Yes, indeed. The question in my mind is, if God didn't call any women to be priests for 18+ centuries, why would anyone think He's now started calling women to the priesthood?
I suspect God did call women to be priests but; the Pope, Calvin, Puritans and Rexlion like people, forbade it to happen. God doesn't seem to have called women to be; plumbers, doctors, surgeons,US Presidents etc in the same time period.