WirSindBettler
Hoc Est Verum
Yet scripture makes it clear that only males can be called to the Pastoral ministry.
Upvote
0
Female bishops and deacons
- Thread starter Lik3
- Start date
Yet scripture makes it clear that only males can be called to the Pastoral ministry.
The Thirty Nine Articles are simply , or were, internal pronouncments of the two small provinces of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in Britain! At a time of intense rivalry they were designed by the Church in England to be dividing lines, in the sands of course, beyond which sectarians, Roman or Protestant, should not venture. They do not in anyway compare with, or challenge the Seven Ecumenical Councils. As an Anglican I hold to them.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
'Everyone' says that, and everyone wants to support a person who feels called to give their lives to Christian service, doing the Lord's work, ministering to others, etc. BUT there are many people who THINK, sincerely, that they've been called by God...when they actually have not...or else they've misunderstood the nature of their call. Their say-so can't be the deciding factor.
For that matter, there are people who really think they're prophets, or apostles, or have spoken with some saint from the spirit world. Although we all want to be supportive when someone says that they feel they should make church service their life's work, we don't immediately say "Good for you. Start prophesizing."
Without wanting to burst someone's bubble, we have to remember that no one gets called to anything that's in defiance of God's own standards as given to us in Scripture.
Upvote
0
If you interpret scripture sentence by sentence, word for word, that is what is made clear. As someone who is part of the Church of England, and has experienced years of educated and wise men debating both sides (from those who do point out that scripture is cut and dry, all the way through to those who view the Bible as a whole masterpiece with a strong core and written for/by a different culture) I go by their guidance and interpretation of scripture.
Men of the church discussed it, had years of prayerful thought and debate about it, and the majority came to the conclusion that when there is a gift present in someone their gender should not be an issue. Given how people are selected to join the clergy their passion and gift must be present before they begin their training. Usually. The usually is important in the world of Anglicans. You have to prove to a selection of learned men (and the odd woman) that you have the passion, the knowledge, and the ability to perform in the role. It is not as simple as waking up and saying "I want to be a bishop!". People who truly believe they've been called have been turned away from training, and informed that they must seek another way to put their passion to use. The same happens to women, it is not a free for all of anyone who feels called getting a chance, despite how it may appear. We do not, nor ever have, gone "you feel called to do this? let's do it!". There is a process, and that process can be long and testing. Bubbles are burst, on a fairly regular basis, particularly should someone be convinced only to be informed that a panel has decided that you do not have the priestly core within you.
As far as I am aware the general view point of the Anglican church is not to take scripture and say "these are the words, do not question them". I can only speak from my experience within this particular group of Christians in this particular area and how we (the general we) went about things.
Despite how some may have phrased it during the most heated moments I think there was a legitimate reason for allowing women to take up such roles, and it was not in the name of equality or through sheer ignorance of His word. It was through recognising that there are some who have a gift, and while they could have put that gift to use in other roles it would shine in the positions they've previously not been allowed to take. Some have stated that when looking at how those pieces of scripture have been translated, the words have been shuffled enough to obscure their meaning. One or two Biblical scholars, far more learned than I, have pointed out that a more accurate translation of 1 Timothy 2: 12 would state women were not to teach that they had authority over men, not that they should not teach men at all. The heresy being taught was that women were superior to men, and that was being corrected. There is some contention that the original Greek referred not to the act of teaching within the whole church, but just teaching than women were to dominate men. Which is not the same as women not teaching men or holding certain positions.
BUT I am not a scholar. I read the Bible, and I wonder about the legitimacy of various interpretations. I listen to those I respect, and I take into consideration the views of those I have little knowledge of. It was decided by the Church of England that women would be permitted to become bishops, and as a member of the church at large (and lay employee of it) I will respect that decision. My personal views, as opposed to my interest in discussing such things, are still in formation.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Isn't it amazing how the Holy Spirit decided to override Holy Scripture only now when Woman's Rights are a popular concern in our society...after 2000 years of Christ's church doing its work with an all-male clergy?
Anyone who thinks that the learned men who make these decisions for a declining church in need of keeping up with the times actually took no account of practical, social, demographic, or political considerations but instead just happened to understand God's words, for the first time, right now in at this moment in history, needs to give it another look.
Upvote
0
Oh no. I fully appreciate they took His word in context of our modern society. That is something that has been repeatedly pointed out as being one of the things we, as the Church of England (disjointed as we can be) tend to do.
I do not believe anyone has actually stated that they are understanding scripture in a new, but definitely true, light. More querying the traditional interpretations, revisiting the manner in which various texts were translated, and indeed questioning whether the assumption that it was an all male clergy.
Is it not this stance which has gotten the C of E into trouble before? That we must apply tradition, reason and scripture to any given problem rather than scripture alone? I imagined this is what made it rather unpopular with various Anglicans worldwide.
I do not believe anyone has actually stated that they are understanding scripture in a new, but definitely true, light. More querying the traditional interpretations, revisiting the manner in which various texts were translated, and indeed questioning whether the assumption that it was an all male clergy.
Is it not this stance which has gotten the C of E into trouble before? That we must apply tradition, reason and scripture to any given problem rather than scripture alone? I imagined this is what made it rather unpopular with various Anglicans worldwide.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Yes, and that was also the excuse used when the same debate took place in the American church. I guess I'm just not impressed by the idea that whatever society at the moment wants, that has to be God's will also. In fact, I consider the notion to be ridiculous on its face.
Upvote
0
I cannot possibly comment on that.
I know too little and too shallow of a level to actively do more than discuss topics I find interesting.
I can see the argument for clergy embracing men and women, I can see the logic and I sit through the (ongoing) debates on this particular issue. For myself I guess it is a little different, I have never been to a parish where a female priest was present. Nor am I male, so the times I have found myself being taught my a female member of clergy it has generally been in an all female group with a specific purpose as opposed to general ministry. Slightly different to what this topic is about, and as such not events which have had a great impact on the little cog in my heart God puts into action when something does not feel right.
Theory is one thing, and I do believe the discussions surrounding this are good for the faith if only so individuals such as I (being little more than parrots) can absorb the thoughts of those who are far more capable of discerning His word. I trust He will let me know how to truly feel about this when I attend a service led by a female priest, as I suppose that is when I will genuinely know how to feel about it.
I know too little and too shallow of a level to actively do more than discuss topics I find interesting.
I can see the argument for clergy embracing men and women, I can see the logic and I sit through the (ongoing) debates on this particular issue. For myself I guess it is a little different, I have never been to a parish where a female priest was present. Nor am I male, so the times I have found myself being taught my a female member of clergy it has generally been in an all female group with a specific purpose as opposed to general ministry. Slightly different to what this topic is about, and as such not events which have had a great impact on the little cog in my heart God puts into action when something does not feel right.
Theory is one thing, and I do believe the discussions surrounding this are good for the faith if only so individuals such as I (being little more than parrots) can absorb the thoughts of those who are far more capable of discerning His word. I trust He will let me know how to truly feel about this when I attend a service led by a female priest, as I suppose that is when I will genuinely know how to feel about it.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That's rather interesting.
In contrast I've always been taught that while it is good to look to the past, we must look at the present and future too. The rising doubt over the authenticity of meanings as previously understood, and the increasing isolation from new converts due to holding onto old ways. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are apparently under the impression that the decision was theologically based, and controversially stepping away breaking down a masterpiece into its individual parts.
Not sure I'd agree that it can be classed as a novelty. A disagreement in interpretation, a movement way from the traditional view, but not a novelty.
In contrast I've always been taught that while it is good to look to the past, we must look at the present and future too. The rising doubt over the authenticity of meanings as previously understood, and the increasing isolation from new converts due to holding onto old ways. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are apparently under the impression that the decision was theologically based, and controversially stepping away breaking down a masterpiece into its individual parts.
Not sure I'd agree that it can be classed as a novelty. A disagreement in interpretation, a movement way from the traditional view, but not a novelty.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
Perhaps they did say that...or think that. But even you have had to acknowledge that protecting their sinking ship had something to do with this, along with the hunch that the Holy Ghost had changed his mind now that Mankind has decided it is time for a change (for that's the theory we're dealing with here, regardless of how it's worded).
Upvote
0
Naturally.
I would find it difficult to be quite so blinkered as to state that those voted for the change were not, partially, concerned that voting against it would have a far greater negative impact (in terms of attendees and support) than seeing the minority who disagreed leave for other denominations.
I am not sure the hunch has ever been that the meaning has magical changed in recent times, more than it has been misunderstood and misinterpreted in times gone by.
No argument has stated God changed His mind, at least none in the debates I've had the privilege of listening to/reading. Only ever interpretation and how we apply scripture to the world around us.
Of course that could be because to actually come out in public and state such a thing would cause even more division. At least when it is reliant upon stating that humans, as mortals biased by their own perception of the world, have misinterpreted the meaning of scripture and/or applied without due consideration of context people can comment that the issue is due to interpretation. State that you're saying God has changed His mind, in those words, and you'll perhaps lose even those who support female bishops.
It's just all rather interesting.
I would find it difficult to be quite so blinkered as to state that those voted for the change were not, partially, concerned that voting against it would have a far greater negative impact (in terms of attendees and support) than seeing the minority who disagreed leave for other denominations.
I am not sure the hunch has ever been that the meaning has magical changed in recent times, more than it has been misunderstood and misinterpreted in times gone by.
No argument has stated God changed His mind, at least none in the debates I've had the privilege of listening to/reading. Only ever interpretation and how we apply scripture to the world around us.
Of course that could be because to actually come out in public and state such a thing would cause even more division. At least when it is reliant upon stating that humans, as mortals biased by their own perception of the world, have misinterpreted the meaning of scripture and/or applied without due consideration of context people can comment that the issue is due to interpretation. State that you're saying God has changed His mind, in those words, and you'll perhaps lose even those who support female bishops.
It's just all rather interesting.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is what they were frightened of, Theology and its environs are not the play pen of the laity, it is from this and the idea that everyone was his own theologian that the split occurred.
It stems from a misunderstanding of the origin of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is no more, or less, than the Body of Christ here on Earth. He appointed Apostles, they appointed Godly men to the Episcopate. The matter of Christ was revealed to the fathers and was more or less finished by our acceptance of the Council of Niceae. The whole of the way to heaven was entered in scripture , what Christianity today has to do surely, is follow Christ's Revelations, the New Gospel.
We do not bring truth to the Church, it isn't a bus to pay our fare and then leave when we 've had a good ride, or indeed a book we can close. We are Members of Christ, this is what we become after baptism.We join Him, he doesn't join us.
If Christianity is struggling, it's not as far as I can tell, by looking inward,it's because we reject the idea of being followers of Christ and seek to become equals.
Upvote
0
Of course it's a novelty!! Two thousand year custom & practice in a conservative organisation such as the Body of Christ, here on earth, change is novelty. In the Reformation the Roman Church abandoned custom and practic causing a schism within the Church Catholique, by some of its bishops surrendering their rights and customs as Guardians of the Faith, and descendants of the Apostolic College,on to the shoulders of one of their powerful leaders. They became a Christian Sect badly damaged, but retaining the basic essentials of the faith.
This is what the Bishops in Engnd have done, that long chain from Christ, Paul, Scriptures, Vincent of Lerins, Seven Ecumenical Councils and the fathers of the 16/17 th, Cent, have all been abandoned, not for an alteration in in doctrine, not to Anti-Christ, but to the Zeitguise,,'the Spirit of the Age.'
You mentioned that the Church in England lost membership and that is what the action of the ,'Bishops,' was to rectify, the cause of these losses? It wasn't fresh views that were needed, but a basic understanding of the needs of the Church.In the town where I live with about 90,000, others. I'm told by a newspaper that some 8% of the population go to church. No matter what your leaders think, in my practical experience it is the introduction of NOVELTIES, that has driven people away!"
"Accursed be he that addeth!
Accursed be he that diminisheth,
accursed be he that innovateth.
Bishop of Chalcedon in discussion within the Council of Niceae. (325)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yes, and that was also the excuse used when the same debate took place in the American church. I guess I'm just not impressed by the idea that whatever society at the moment wants, that has to be God's will also. In fact, I consider the notion to be ridiculous on its face.
That's my issue too. I don't want a church that changes with the time or caves in to societal expectations. The Word is the Word. We should strive to understand it in the context it was written, not change the narrative to fit today's wants and needs, especially on a church level; it compromises the integrity of the church.
It's the the main reason, as you'll probably remember, that's holding me back from attending the only local church because it's Church of England.
Upvote
0
I left the C.of E., after a life time's service. I'm still an Anglican and worship regularly at an Anglican Catholic Church in the North.They at least do try!!
Upvote
0
WirSindBettler
Hoc Est Verum
If the Anglican communion remained theologically conservative and continued to use the KJV and 1662 BCP in both liturgy and daily prayer, you would have a very, very hard time keeping me away.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
WirSindBettler
Hoc Est Verum
I feel called to take up the cloth, but the ACNA is sadly far too small and non-relevant for any security therein.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
