The World Needs Women Priests

[Archivist]

We are talking about women as clergy. See the thread's title?

Who is this directed at?

 

[Albion]

Who is this directed at?

any reader who wanders off-topic.

 

[Archivist]

any reader who wanders off-topic.

I don't know of anyone who is off topic except you since you brought up POWs (which stands for prisoners of war).

 

[kdm1984]

I think it's clear from the context that the POW from that poster was a typo; he meant POV=point of view.

Everything does get debated, but some positions hold more water than others with careful examination. This is true for any contentious topic in life, including this one.

Paul did admittedly write some difficult things; even Peter acknowledged this in 2 Peter 3:16. Nonetheless, Peter also acknowledged in that passage that it's the people distorting what Paul says who are the problem, not that Paul is incorrect.

Peter walked alongside both Jesus and Paul, and didn't dispute anything Paul said, other than circumcision, which Paul corrected Peter for. Peter also agreed on that pesky topic of gender authority that we've been debating in this thread (1 Peter 3).

And since Peter agreed with Paul on that very same topic, and Peter actually walked alongside Jesus, that should give the male leadership position even more authority. As others have pointed out, if Jesus were so big on including women as leaders of the church, there would have been a woman among twelve (count 'em, twelve) disciples. But all twelve of his disciples were male. (And the women who followed Him, saw Him after the resurrection, did not become leaders over men.)

But there are some who remain convinced that, even though Jesus said Peter would be the rock of the church, that Peter and Paul were somehow wrong to include these submission things in the Bible, and that such things are merely the ideas of men, and shouldn't be there.

If such is the case, then God has allowed the church to be deceived about this for two thousand years, then Jesus shouldn't have given Peter so much authority, etc etc.

And all of that would just make God out to be incompetent, and would make Christianity a religion of no authority. It would be just another attempt of man to conceptualize the world around them, and not something worth being a part of. This is why liberal Christian branches have trouble retaining members; the Bible isn't considered a firm foundation, so what's the point of following only some of it? We can do that with any religion. Why hold onto Christianity if you think its sacred Scriptures are in error? I think this is why so many liberal Christians, once they really tackle all these issues, eventually leave the church and become atheists. It's at least more internally consistent than "sort of" following a faith whose writings you think were only "sort of" inspired.

 

[Archivist]

I think it's clear from the context that the POW from that poster was a typo; he meant POV=point of view.

Yes, and I was trying to be humorous in my reply to that post (my post 379) but instead I got attacked for it.

Everything does get debated, but some positions hold more water than others with careful examination. This is true for any contentious topic in life, including this one.

Paul did admittedly write some difficult things; even Peter acknowledged this in 2 Peter 3:16. Nonetheless, Peter also acknowledged in that passage that it's the people distorting what Paul says who are the problem, not that Paul is incorrect.

Peter walked alongside both Jesus and Paul, and didn't dispute anything Paul said, other than circumcision, which Paul corrected Peter for. Peter also agreed on that pesky topic of gender authority that we've been debating in this thread (1 Peter 3).

And since Peter agreed with Paul on that very same topic, and Peter actually walked alongside Jesus, that should give the male leadership position even more authority. As others have pointed out, if Jesus were so big on including women as leaders of the church, there would have been a woman among twelve (count 'em, twelve) disciples. But all twelve of his disciples were male. (And the women who followed Him, saw Him after the resurrection, did not become leaders over men.)

But there are some who remain convinced that, even though Jesus said Peter would be the rock of the church, that Peter and Paul were somehow wrong to include these submission things in the Bible, and that such things are merely the ideas of men, and shouldn't be there.

If such is the case, then God has allowed the church to be deceived about this for two thousand years, then Jesus shouldn't have given Peter so much authority, etc etc.

And all of that would just make God out to be incompetent, and would make Christianity a religion of no authority. It would be just another attempt of man to conceptualize the world around them, and not something worth being a part of. This is why liberal Christian branches have trouble retaining members; the Bible isn't considered a firm foundation, so what's the point of following only some of it? We can do that with any religion. Why hold onto Christianity if you think its sacred Scriptures are in error? I think this is why so many liberal Christians, once they really tackle all these issues, eventually leave the church and become atheists. It's at least more internally consistent than "sort of" following a faith whose writings you think were only "sort of" inspired.

Except there wouldn't have necessarily been women among the 12. Jesus had reasons for picking His 12 disciples that might have outweighed any reason for picking a female among them. We don't know, and to say that the lack of a female among the 12 is proof that He didn't want women in leadership positions is presupposing His reasoning.

Why hold on to Christianity if we "think sacred Scriptures are in error?" Well, those same scriptures tell us that in Christ there is neither male nor female. They tell us that Junia was an Apostle. They tell us that Phoebe was a deacon (not a deaconess). They tell us that the first person to preach the Good News of the Risen Christ was Mary. They tell us that Priscilla taught Apollos.

As I have said before, if you do not believe that women should serve as ministers/pastors/priests then by all means do not join a church that ordains women. Ordination of women isn't anything new, the Society of Friends has had female ministers for centuries. But don't say that those of us who believe that women should be ordained are only "sort of" following the faith.

 

[Hmm]

But don't say that those of us who believe that women should be ordained are only "sort of" following the faith.

Agreed. That was a very arrogant remark and it makes me think the more women the better!

I think this is why so many liberal Christians, once they really tackle all these issues, eventually leave the church and become atheists.

Do you have any figures to support your assertion or is it made up?

You obviously think the word "liberal" is a negative thing. Do you equate being liberal with being pro-sexual equality or what is your definition?

 

[Paidiske]

And all of that would just make God out to be incompetent, and would make Christianity a religion of no authority. It would be just another attempt of man to conceptualize the world around them, and not something worth being a part of. This is why liberal Christian branches have trouble retaining members; the Bible isn't considered a firm foundation, so what's the point of following only some of it? We can do that with any religion. Why hold onto Christianity if you think its sacred Scriptures are in error? I think this is why so many liberal Christians, once they really tackle all these issues, eventually leave the church and become atheists. It's at least more internally consistent than "sort of" following a faith whose writings you think were only "sort of" inspired.

I think the flaw with this is that it assumes that "authority" is the only thing that makes Christianity (or the Church) worth being part of. For me, and I suspect for many people, authority is not why we are part of the Church, and not why we're Christian. We've had a transformative encounter with God, one which has brought us into new relationship both with God and with others in relationship with God. Scripture resources that relationship, as a living text which is inspired and always open to life-giving meaning in the lives of those who read it.

But it must be interpreted and applied. We don't laud infanticide despite one of the psalms rejoicing in the violent death of the children of Israel's enemies; we don't keep slaves despite the New Testament being uncritical of that social institution; and we see that Scripture points us towards always deeper affirmation of the worth and dignity of every human being made in God's image, including the women. Scripture is a firm foundation in its witness to salvation, and in its invitation to ever-deeper personal encounter with the God who offers that salvation. Living out that salvation in all its dimensions is not "sort of" being Christian; it is being radically Christian.

I'm not sure I find the comments about "liberal" Christians helpful (nor do I consider myself a liberal, theologically), but if "liberal" is a word used to describe Christians who are open to things like women's ordination, what I see is not that we have trouble retaining members, but that we have a steady stream of people coming, wounded, from other strands of Christianity, seeking wholeness and more authentic relationship with God.

This morning I was comforted to read these words from Psalm 138: The Lord will fulfil his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O Lord, endures for ever. It is God's purposes which matter, and they are established. Our arguing here cannot change that.

 

[The Liturgist]

We don't laud infanticide despite one of the psalms rejoicing in the violent death of the children of Israel's enemies

I really love the rejection of the prevailing and unfortunate trend towards an extreme literalist eisegesis vs. proper, thorough exegesis in your post.

On that note, as something of an aside or an expatiation, I believe a pure psuedo-Antiochene-literalist-historicist interpretation of Super Flumina (Psalms 137:1-9 / Psalm 136 LXX) and other imprecatory Psalms is in error (and indeed, for this reason alone I find the otherwise very good 1962 Canadian edition of the Book of Common Prayer to be slightly suboptimal), and that we must read them at least partially, if not entirely, in an Alexandrian typological-metaphorical-prophetic sense. So in the case of Psalm 137:9 , read from an Alexandrian perspective, the “little ones” are not literal children of the Chaldean Empire, but rather, the offspring of the metaphorical Babylon, which symbolizes our corrupt, fallen nature which oppresses us, which is to say, temptations, vices and sins, and the Rock in turn is Jesus Christ.

It is still very violent imagery and it made some Western theologians who I like, who were less accustomed than, for example, Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, to the Alexandrian exegetical tradition and tended to read in an Antiochene-literal manner, for example, John Wesley, who I greatly admire and consider venerable, highly uncomfortable. But I think the Orthodox have the right idea, and they even sing this Psalm during Communion (I believe during the Presanctified Liturgy; @prodromos or another Orthodox member might correct me if I am in error).

There is a very good article here written by a convert to the Eastern Orthodox church about her struggle with that particular imprecatory Psalm, and a resolution, which is not only from an Alexandrian perspective but also from an Antiochene-literalist perspective delivered by St. Chrysostom. So there are even ways of looking at Psalm 137:9 with Antiochene exegesis wherein it can be understood. Where the imagery becomes a stumbling block is when contemporary Radical Reformation/Restorationist/Fundamentalist-literalist eisegesis occurs, and in turn the reaction to that eisegesis from concerned Christians on the other side of the theological spectrum who, nonetheless, due to the pervasive use of single-verse eisegesis in our current society, find themselves understandably troubled.

 

[Paidiske]

You could see some of these questions as a matter of literalism vs. metaphorical readings, but I'm not sure that really works for the question at hand.

I was very struck today, reading a commentary on Job by Janzen, (of all things!), by his description of choosing between possible meanings of a text (or texts) as a matter of "morally active engagement," of bringing the text into dialogue with all of life, with our own relationship with God (and capacity to listen to/hear from God), and with all of that in the picture, meaning-making as a moral act, an active choosing of the good.

That resonates very strongly with my sense of how we handle the texts which are seen as problematic for women's ordination, because it requires us to make a moral assessment as well as a textual one.

 

[The Liturgist]

You could see some of these questions as a matter of literalism vs. metaphorical readings, but I'm not sure that really works for the question at hand.

I was very struck today, reading a commentary on Job by Janzen, (of all things!), by his description of choosing between possible meanings of a text (or texts) as a matter of "morally active engagement," of bringing the text into dialogue with all of life, with our own relationship with God (and capacity to listen to/hear from God), and with all of that in the picture, meaning-making as a moral act, an active choosing of the good.

That resonates very strongly with my sense of how we handle the texts which are seen as problematic for women's ordination, because it requires us to make a moral assessment as well as a textual one.

Just to be very clear, my comment specifically was a protracted aside on the imprecatory Psalms in general and Super Flumina in particular.

However, Janzen is of great interest to me; i have to confess I have not yet to my satisfaction fully grasped his concept of morally active engagement because I am confused by the potentiality of external moral definitions. I would love to discuss Janzen with you in this or another thread, as this is something I am trying to get a handle on; in the case of communicatio idiomatum which is a Christological concept I now find very natural, in seminary I had quite a bit of trouble with that, and I have to confess I never fully grasped in a manner that was, shall we say, pastorally useful, situational ethics.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure I've fully grasped it either! But it was interesting that I was reading it today after thinking about this thread.

I'd be very happy to continue the discussion, but perhaps it belongs in a thread of its own?

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm not sure I've fully grasped it either! But it was interesting that I was reading it today after thinking about this thread.

I'd be very happy to continue the discussion, but perhaps it belongs in a thread of its own?

I think so. Perhaps you might post a thread on it and @ tag me?

 

[Love365]

Some churches have women priests and women bishops.
Movies and TV shows rarely show them.
Is this a form of censorship?

 

[tampasteve]

Some churches have women priests and women bishops.
Movies and TV shows rarely show them.
Is this a form of censorship?

I don't think so. The majority of "church" in TV and movies is the Catholic Church, which does not have female ordination. There have been representations of female priests as a main character. The "Vicar of Dibley" comes to mind as a popular British show.

Of course there are also TV and movie representations of just general "Christians", but generally those churches being represented would not have bishops anyways.

The current running TV show/book series "The Expanse" has a frequently recurring character that is a Methodist minister at a mega church.

 

[Albion]

I don't think so. The majority of "church" in TV and movies is the Catholic Church, which does not have female ordination. There have been representations of female priests as a main character. The "Vicar of Dibley" comes to mind as a popular British show.

Of course there are also TV and movie representations of just general "Christians", but generally those churches being represented would not have bishops anyways.

The current running TV show/book series "The Expanse" has a frequently recurring character that is a Methodist minister at a mega church.

I've noticed that quite a few of the ministers shown performing weddings on TV shows are women.

 

[tampasteve]

I've noticed that quite a few of the ministers shown performing weddings on TV shows are women.

That's true, now that you mention it. I have also seen female rabbi's in TV weddings.

 

[pescador]

Can anyone give me one single, legitimate reason why women should not be "priests" (pastors, priests, deacons, elders, etc.)?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Does the world need women priests?

Nah.

Can anyone give me one single, legitimate reason why women should not be "priests" (pastors, priests, deacons, elders, etc.)?

What criteria do you find acceptable?

 

[dzheremi]

The criteria for what is acceptable can never be "On what basis should we not innovate in matters", as that assumes that an absence of discussion of matter X is in some way tacit approval of it.

Rather, the evidence of the roles women have had in Christianity (i.e., what historically-rooted churches have actually done throughout their histories) shows it has been given to some women to act in official capacities in the liturgy or various sacramental services (witness, for instance, the continuation or restoration of the deaconess in the Russian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Syriac Orthodox traditions, or the historical witness of women's participation in the baptism of other women). That has never, before modern times (and even then only in those churches which see fit to 'modernize' this way, which constitute a distinct minority of the world's Christians, and which often end up in splinters from the modernist putsch/push in the direction of such modernization in the name of 'fairness' or something else that is not consistent with the historical witness), included ordination into the sacerdotal priesthood.

It just hasn't. You can read into the mention of Phoebe any which way you like. (St. Paul called her a diakonos, hence there is support for deaconesses, and you may find them in traditional churches.) What matters is what the Church has actually done.

 

[Paidiske]

What matters is what the Church has actually done.

Under this view, what mechanism would there be to address a growing conviction that what the Church has actually done, has been in some way in error?