Women Priests.

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But what I am trying to point out - as someone who actually wears a clerical collar, and makes day-by-day decisions about when and how it is appropriate to do so - is that the actual meanings conveyed and reasons for wearing it might have nothing to do with either authority or class distinctions.
Fair enough.



No. What I said in my previous post applies - by secular law - to those who teach adults as well. Anyone who exercises a leadership position, or position of authority or perceived authority in the church, is required to have such checks and clearances.

Now it doesn't have to be ordination - after all, my church has a long-established practice of lay preachers - but it does require authorisation and licensing to that role.
I suppose this is a remnant of when the church and governance were inseperable. We don't have those kinds of restrictions here, with secular checks only being mandated when working with vulnerable populations. Though the existence of legal hurdles doesn't alter the fundamental point, since secular restrictions can't be helped.



But there are practical reasons for having particular tasks assigned to particular roles. Again, we could quibble endlessly about the detail of this or that task, but for the sake of good order and governance it's not just a free-for-all.
Yeah, again I'm not arguing against offices in general or orginizational issues, but restrictions on sacred elements.



So would you then, be happy with a church whose structures remained unchanged except for allowing everyone (without exception?) to hear formal confessions and preside at the Eucharist? Do you really think that would a) work well, and b) solve the problems you raise? Because I don't. I know a good many people who would be a disaster as a confessor.
Everyone in good standing, yes. Though the very idea of formal confession with the church granting absolution is something I rather balk at. Presiding over the Eucharist, though? Yes, anyone in good standing with the church should be eligible.



But this is a straw man. This is not what ordination is. It is not how it is understood. And to attack the idea of orders on this basis is completely misplaced.
Ordination literally comes from achieving a higher rank in the Roman caste system, with Ordo Senatorum being the highest caste and plebian being the lowest. When you achieve a higher ordination, you are being elevated in class/rank and being given access to broader privileges not afforded the general population. It's inherently divisional among the body.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,129
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,536.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I suppose this is a remnant of when the church and governance were inseperable. We don't have those kinds of restrictions here, with secular checks only being mandated when working with vulnerable populations.

Not at all. It's a fairly recent thing, and a reaction to gross failures by the church. That said, every single church includes vulnerable people, so I would think it a good practice whether required by secular government or not.

Everyone in good standing, yes. Though the very idea of formal confession with the church granting absolution is something I rather balk at. Presiding over the Eucharist, though? Yes, anyone in good standing with the church should be eligible.

That is the custom in some churches, but not in mine, and I'm comfortable with the reasons for that. Even so, there are whole cans of worms about things like what being "in good standing" means, and (for example) what a minimum age might be, and so on.

Ordination literally comes from achieving a higher rank in the Roman caste system, with Ordo Senatorum being the highest caste and plebian being the lowest. When you achieve a higher ordination, you are being elevated in class/rank and being given access to broader privileges not afforded the general population. It's inherently divisional among the body.

That is not what ordination is, in the church.
 
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Earlier in this thread I showed a challenge in the 1 Tim 2:12 translation. Could you please comment on that? Post #56.

That was a good one, but there is another translation issue in 1 Tim 2:12 that is also significantly in play.

The word for "woman" in 2:11 and 2:12, and the word for "man" in 2:12, are the same words translated husband and wife in Ephesians 5:23.
Your objection does not deal with the operative phrase, which bars women from teaching or having authority over a man in the church. That means they cannot preach and cannot hold a position of leadership in the church (ie they may not be elders or decons). I might even agree with your statement that the greek word means quiet rather than silence. In fact, we know that women have sung psalms as part of congregational singing from day 1 of the church, so clearly silence doesn't mean silent at all times.


In 1 Timothy 2:12 there is a more significant translation issue in play.

The word for "woman" in 2:11 and 2:12, and the word for "man" in 2:12, are the same words translated husband and wife in Ephesians 5:23,25. Thus several translators and commentators translate that passage as one relating to the demostic issue of a marital relationship and nothing to do with women priests or pastors.

So for instance the Common English Bible translates the passage thusly:

11 A wife should learn quietly with complete submission. 12 I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener. (CEB)

Here is the CEB Study Bible giving an explanation of their translation choice:


Why the CEB prefers wife to women

Although Paul's instructions could refer to women's roles in a church service, the language of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 fits specific practices in the home much better. The Greek term gynë (used throughout this section) could simply refer to "a woman" but it's often used more specifically to refer to "a woman who is married"- that is, "a wife.' The best translation is indicated by the context, usually by the mention of a man, her husband (in Paul, see 1 Cor 5:1;7:2,3, 4, 10, 11, 12,14,16,33; 9:5; Eph 5:23, 28, 31, 33). The context in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 indicates that Paul is referring to "a wife" (and husband).

First, Paul's language refers to an individual woman (singular) and an individual man. In the Greco-Roman world, such language wouldn't be appropriate in references to persons outside of close family members.

Second, this text involves specific directions regarding the instruction of a woman in the faith, which is the responsibility of her husband in the home (see 1 Cor 14:35).

Third, Paul's instruction is supported by a reference to the classic passage concerning marriage, Genesis 2:18-24.

Fourth, this text ends with a focus on childbirth, which is clearly a domestic issue.

Finally, the letter as a whole indicates that false teaching among women was being discussed in the day-to-day activities of the home. Through private storytelling, myths, genealogies, gossip, and slander, false teaching was spreading from house to house (1 Tim 3:11;4:7; 5:13 cf. 1 Tim 1:4). In part, this false teaching attacked marriage and marital relations (1 Tim 4:3; 5:14). Moreover, 2 Timothy 3:6-7 indicates that men who were false teachers in Ephesus were targeting women in their homes. In contrast, women aren’t singled out for violations in public teaching in either 1 Timothy or 2 Timothy.

If instructions for men to "pray everywhere in 1 Timothy 2:8 shouldn't be limited to public worship services, and if the instructions concerning women's dress wouldn't have been limited to worship services, then Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would be best read as the apostle's attempt to deal with false teaching that was being spread (more privately) among women from home to home. As in Corinth (1 Cor 14:35), it was necessary for wives to receive instruction about the Christian faith in the home in order to solve these problems. (1 Corinthians 2:11-15 CEB Study Bible)
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not at all. It's a fairly recent thing, and a reaction to gross failures by the church. That said, every single church includes vulnerable people, so I would think it a good practice whether required by secular government or not.
Yes, but ordination and teaching restrictions within the church go well beyond simply doing criminal background checks and other risk assessments.



That is the custom in some churches, but not in mine, and I'm comfortable with the reasons for that. Even so, there are whole cans of worms about things like what being "in good standing" means, and (for example) what a minimum age might be, and so on.
Sure, the good standing question can certainly become an issue in a church especially with clique formation but it's less open for abuse than enshrined positions with rites that are too sacred for the average member to be allowed.


That is not what ordination is, in the church.
So ordination is not about being allowed the privilege of overseeing the Eucharist and formal confession, with higher rankings in the ordination process like going from parish priest to bishop increasing the sphere of influence and privileges at the higher levels?
 
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The Biblical way is always better.

Well agreed, but the Biblical way is that the pastor/priest not be married at all.


To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:8,32-35

There aren't any Biblical prohibitions against women as pastors, but we have that passage above exalting single life.

So I'm not seeing any merit to your claim that married priests would quell the pedophile problem better than female priests.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,129
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,536.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but ordination and teaching restrictions within the church go well beyond simply doing criminal background checks and other risk assessments.

Sure. But it's all part of a process of ensuring that the person who takes on a role is a fit and suitable person, whom the church can entrust with it.

Sure, the good standing question can certainly become an issue in a church especially with clique formation but it's less open for abuse than enshrined positions with rites that are too sacred for the average member to be allowed.

But it's not "too sacred"! That's just not what it's about. It's not the issue. And having been in some very, very badly done services where some random, untrained, person presided very very badly (I recall an occasion where the person presiding compared the death of Jesus to the recent death of her beloved pet), I don't agree that it's "less open for abuse" that way at all.

So ordination is not about being allowed the privilege of overseeing the Eucharist and formal confession, with higher rankings in the ordination process like going from parish priest to bishop increasing the sphere of influence and privileges at the higher levels?

No. That's not what it's about. Reading the exhortations from ordination services would help make that clear.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure. But it's all part of a process of ensuring that the person who takes on a role is a fit and suitable person, whom the church can entrust with it.
Because it's too sacred to trust with ordinary believers?


But it's not "too sacred"! That's just not what it's about. It's not the issue. And having been in some very, very badly done services where some random, untrained, person presided very very badly (I recall an occasion where the person presiding compared the death of Jesus to the recent death of her beloved pet), I don't agree that it's "less open for abuse" that way at all.
Your mentioning of a lack of decorum demonstrates that the reason it's off limits is the sacredness of the rite, with only the select few who have been ordained being sacred enough to properly conduct it.


No. That's not what it's about. Reading the exhortations from ordination services would help make that clear.
Exhortations aside, the practical implications are that those ordained are of a higher order than the laity. Whether you believe that's the intention or not, the etymology of the words involved speak to class distinction as do the practical functions of the offices given their exclusive accesses.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,129
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,536.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Because it's too sacred to trust with ordinary believers?

That's not the way I see it. It's more about the safety (and the sacredness) of all the believers. The pulpit (or any other place of church authority) is no place for bullies, abusers, narcissists, or the like.

Your mentioning of a lack of decorum demonstrates that the reason it's off limits is the sacredness of the rite, with only the select few who have been ordained being sacred enough to properly conduct it.

No. You are attributing to my words a meaning which is not there. Wanting to ensure that something is done properly is not about the people who do it being "sacred enough."

Exhortations aside, the practical implications are that those ordained are of a higher order than the laity. Whether you believe that's the intention or not, the etymology of the words involved speak to class distinction as do the practical functions of the offices given their exclusive accesses.

To the extent that anyone actually believes this, it is wrong, a distortion of what the offices are about. And in our teaching, our behaviour, our style of leadership, and so on, we need to continuously demonstrate that.

That is not an argument against church offices; it is only an argument that we should inhabit them well.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
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

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's not the way I see it. It's more about the safety (and the sacredness) of all the believers. The pulpit (or any other place of church authority) is no place for bullies, abusers, narcissists, or the like.
Sure, yet ordination doesn't prevent those very things. The whole notion of a pulpit puts the cart before the horse, though, since it assumes a designated teacher in a modern style worship service with the expert holy man expounding on what all can read for themselves. In times when few could read, such a service was necessary. Yet now I wonder if it is in literate countries with easy access to information.



No. You are attributing to my words a meaning which is not there. Wanting to ensure that something is done properly is not about the people who do it being "sacred enough."
And the Holy Spirit alone is not sufficient to ensure it's done properly? It must be done according to human traditions?



To the extent that anyone actually believes this, it is wrong, a distortion of what the offices are about. And in our teaching, our behaviour, our style of leadership, and so on, we need to continuously demonstrate that.
So the etymological history and actual history of how these offices came to be are mistaken, instead the manner you choose to view them is the correct one? The whole notion of church ordination has its roots in monastic orders, which then bled into the episcopacy as the clerics began identifying more with the "holy" life of strict orders.

That is not an argument against church offices; it is only an argument that we should inhabit them well.
Not meant to be against offices in general, but in designating sacred rights to offices. Governmental matters require authority, and there must be some governance. It's when the sacred is withheld from a class that it becomes problematic, because in doing so the message is that some are sacred enough to handle those sacred objects and institutions while others are not. It creates class division based on access to what is sacred.
 
Upvote 0

sparow

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,540
426
85
✟482,162.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Well agreed, but the Biblical way is that the pastor/priest not be married at all.


To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:8,32-35

There aren't any Biblical prohibitions against women as pastors, but we have that passage above exalting single life.

So I'm not seeing any merit to your claim that married priests would quell the pedophile problem better than female priests.


It is your prerogative to call Paul's epistles the Bible.

The new covenant is made with the lost sheep of Israel AND THEIR DESCENDANTS, so women are supposed to have babies.

Matthew 22:30 (NKJV)
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

Paedophile is fornication or adultery, the best deterrent would be pier pressure .
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,129
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,536.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The whole notion of a pulpit puts the cart before the horse, though, since it assumes a designated teacher in a modern style worship service with the expert holy man expounding on what all can read for themselves. In times when few could read, such a service was necessary. Yet now I wonder if it is in literate countries with easy access to information.

One could certainly make an argument that our liturgical forms have not kept pace with the social changes affecting our congregations. That has nothing to do with whether or not there should be church offices, though.

And the Holy Spirit alone is not sufficient to ensure it's done properly?

In my experience, no.

It must be done according to human traditions?

I don't see church traditions as a purely human construct, though, but as something which has developed under God's leading and guidance.

So the etymological history and actual history of how these offices came to be are mistaken, instead the manner you choose to view them is the correct one?

It's not the "manner I choose" to view them. There is a whole systematic theology of ministry behind all of this.

Besides, this is from the online etymology dictionary:

order (n.)

c. 1200, "body of persons living under a religious discipline," from Old French ordre "position, estate; rule, regulation; religious order" (11c.), from earlier ordene, from Latin ordinem (nominative ordo) "row, line, rank; series, pattern, arrangement, routine," originally "a row of threads in a loom," from Proto-Italic *ordn- "row, order" (source also of ordiri "to begin to weave;" compare primordial), which is of uncertain origin. Watkins suggests it is a variant of PIE root *ar- "to fit together," and De Vaan finds this "semantically attractive."

This idea of persons accepting a particular discipline, or indeed of fitting together in community, has nothing to do with gradations of holiness.

It's when the sacred is withheld from a class that it becomes problematic, because in doing so the message is that some are sacred enough to handle those sacred objects and institutions while others are not.

But I would argue that the sacred is not withheld from any "class." It belongs to us all, together, corporately.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One could certainly make an argument that our liturgical forms have not kept pace with the social changes affecting our congregations. That has nothing to do with whether or not there should be church offices, though.
Again, I am not arguing against offices in general but against sacred offices rather than administrative offices.



In my experience, no.
So you have more faith in men than God?



I don't see church traditions as a purely human construct, though, but as something which has developed under God's leading and guidance.
As I'm sure the scribes saw their "oral law" as God's leading and guidance.



It's not the "manner I choose" to view them. There is a whole systematic theology of ministry behind all of this.
Granted. Though most of that theology is post-fact justification and ignores much of the realities of the situations.

Besides, this is from the online etymology dictionary:

order (n.)

c. 1200, "body of persons living under a religious discipline," from Old French ordre "position, estate; rule, regulation; religious order" (11c.), from earlier ordene, from Latin ordinem (nominative ordo) "row, line, rank; series, pattern, arrangement, routine," originally "a row of threads in a loom," from Proto-Italic *ordn- "row, order" (source also of ordiri "to begin to weave;" compare primordial), which is of uncertain origin. Watkins suggests it is a variant of PIE root *ar- "to fit together," and De Vaan finds this "semantically attractive."

This idea of persons accepting a particular discipline, or indeed of fitting together in community, has nothing to do with gradations of holiness.

You conveniently ignored the most significant of the mentions in the etymology with regard to church orders, which is rank(which can be restated as class) since the notion of holy orders comes directly from Roman census ranks. Ordination is about segregating the church into its proper ranking, which can only be assumed to be according to holiness since no other criteria makes sense for such segregation.



But I would argue that the sacred is not withheld from any "class." It belongs to us all, together, corporately.
Except only a given class can administer it. It's like Plecy vs Fergusons separate but equal ruling, such distinctions are inherently unequal.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,129
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,536.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Again, I am not arguing against offices in general but against sacred offices rather than administrative offices.

That seems a pretty meaningless distinction.

So you have more faith in men than God?

I have extremely little faith in people claiming adherence to God while not operating within any system of oversight and accountability.

Though most of that theology is post-fact justification and ignores much of the realities of the situations.

Or rather, reflects the fact that ministry (and the Church in which ministries operate, and the societies within which the Church exists) are constantly developing and changing.

Ordination is about segregating the church into its proper ranking, which can only be assumed to be according to holiness since no other criteria makes sense for such segregation.

No, ordination is not about segregation or ranking. That is a false claim, and repeating it doesn't make it so.

Except only a given class can administer it.

Again, orders (or roles) are not a "class." This reminds me of St. Paul's writing:

If the foot were to say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
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

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That seems a pretty meaningless distinction.
It's quite significant, because it's the difference between having authority to make decisions for the church in secular matters and the other is having authority to make decisions for the church in spiritual matters. The church requires administrative offices to ensure its material resources are used well, it does not need individuals who are final authorities on interpretations or any other sort of magisteria.



I have extremely little faith in people claiming adherence to God while not operating within any system of oversight and accountability.
And God is incapable of providing that accountability without the help of human structures?



Or rather, reflects the fact that ministry (and the Church in which ministries operate, and the societies within which the Church exists) are constantly developing and changing.
That's not what I was getting at. Most of the theology is used to enshrine a tradition and give it the trappings of Biblical authority, when these are institutions that developed over time and were largely because of secular power struggles.


No, ordination is not about segregation or ranking. That is a false claim, and repeating it doesn't make it so.
It's not simply a claim, your own etymology mentioned it indirectly. The nomencloture comes almost directly from Roman census ranks which were designated as orders from Ordo senatorum, ordo equestrian, etc. Notice the other common thread there with the etymology(Latin:Ordo). Late justifications are simply revisionist history, the institution of ordination is pre-medeival innovation to make sense of the pseudo-governmental role the church took on under Constantine and other imperials.



Again, orders (or roles) are not a "class." This reminds me of St. Paul's writing:

If the foot were to say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’
You keep simply insisting that it's a matter of role, when its not a matter of horizontal offices but a vertical structuring where there are at least two classes, one being the provider and the other being the consumer.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,129
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,536.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It's quite significant, because it's the difference between having authority to make decisions for the church in secular matters and the other is having authority to make decisions for the church in spiritual matters.

I would argue that ordination - whether diaconal, priestly, or episcopal - is not primarily about having authority to make decisions, either secular or spiritual. Decision making is shared between clergy and laity at every level in my church. It's why we have parish councils and synods.

The church requires administrative offices to ensure its material resources are used well, it does not need individuals who are final authorities on interpretations or any other sort of magisteria.

Providing final authority on interpretations or the like is simply not a priestly function. I think you are arguing against a form and practice of priesthood which simply is not the reality.

And God is incapable of providing that accountability without the help of human structures?

I have observed that humans are terrible at keeping themselves accountable without such structures. I value the systems of oversight and accountability at every level in my church, and willingly submit to them, as being for the good of the whole body.

That's not what I was getting at. Most of the theology is used to enshrine a tradition and give it the trappings of Biblical authority, when these are institutions that developed over time and were largely because of secular power struggles.

Sure, they developed over time. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Our task is to make sure our current practice is as healthy and safe as possible, though.

The nomencloture comes almost directly from Roman census ranks which were designated as orders from Ordo senatorum, ordo equestrian, etc.

We might have borrowed a term from that system, but that is not what ordination is, in the church.

You keep simply insisting that it's a matter of role, when its not a matter of horizontal offices but a vertical structuring where there are at least two classes, one being the provider and the other being the consumer.

No. It is not a vertical structuring. There are not two classes. There are a multiplicity of people all of whom contribute their gifts and talents and skills and wisdom in different ways. I receive (or "consume," if you want to use that term) as much benefit from the many holy, godly, grace-filled people in my congregation as they do from me, if not more. It is a web of exchange in which each both gives and receives, but which amounts to far more than the sum of its parts (which is ultimately the point).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would argue that ordination - whether diaconal, priestly, or episcopal - is not primarily about having authority to make decisions, either secular or spiritual. Decision making is shared between clergy and laity at every level in my church. It's why we have parish councils and synods.
At some level, the professional is deferred to even in systems where laity have a voice. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing nor is it meant to be a criticism directly, but if the offices in the church are seen as primarily a spiritual office responsible for spiritual care rather than being seen as maintaining the secular interests of the church such authority is implied.



Providing final authority on interpretations or the like is simply not a priestly function. I think you are arguing against a form and practice of priesthood which simply is not the reality.
I'm not fully cognizant of how it works in Anglicanism, but practically within the churches I've been a part of pastor's word is basically final on matters of interpretation. Often this is done under the auspices of maintaining peace and given the justification that it is the pastor who is ultimately responsible for his flock's doctrine.



I have observed that humans are terrible at keeping themselves accountable without such structures. I value the systems of oversight and accountability at every level in my church, and willingly submit to them, as being for the good of the whole body.
Again, that wasn't the question. Do you not trust God to provide the accountability apart from man made institutions?


Sure, they developed over time. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Our task is to make sure our current practice is as healthy and safe as possible, though.
"They teach for doctrine the commandments of men..."


We might have borrowed a term from that system, but that is not what ordination is, in the church.
There's a reason the term was borrowed, because when ordination developed it was for parallel reasons:divying up the new found authority of the church as an official institution.



No. It is not a vertical structuring. There are not two classes. There are a multiplicity of people all of whom contribute their gifts and talents and skills and wisdom in different ways. I receive (or "consume," if you want to use that term) as much benefit from the many holy, godly, grace-filled people in my congregation as they do from me, if not more. It is a web of exchange in which each both gives and receives, but which amounts to far more than the sum of its parts (which is ultimately the point).
When it comes to religious services(which is what the church is seen as the provider of) there are two vertical classes. The laity who comes and absorbs the teaching and has the rites administered to them, and the clergy who do all the religiony stuff. There is an inherent inequality between the two because the clergy is always in a position of authority whether they be teaching, hearing all the juicy secrets of their congregation(which adds another layer to the inequality), or standing in and overseeing the most sacred aspects of the communal life. Very rarely is there any submitting of the clergy to the laity, but there are constant examples of laity submitting to the clergy. And no, ceremonial foot washing doesn't count(I don't know if Anglicans do that).
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,129
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,536.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
At some level, the professional is deferred to even in systems where laity have a voice.

Ha! That is really not the lived reality of my experience.

I'm not fully cognizant of how it works in Anglicanism, but practically within the churches I've been a part of pastor's word is basically final on matters of interpretation.

That is not how it works in Anglicanism, and in fact it sounds spiritually abusive to me.

Again, that wasn't the question. Do you not trust God to provide the accountability apart from man made institutions?

I don't view the Church as "man-made." But it's not a matter of trusting God. Humans are sinful, and will wilfully ignore God, especially in positions of power and authority. I do not believe the Church is meant to operate without oversight and accountability to other church members.

There's a reason the term was borrowed, because when ordination developed it was for parallel reasons:divying up the new found authority of the church as an official institution.

That is not my understanding, either of how ordination developed historically or how it functions in a contemporary sense.

When it comes to religious services(which is what the church is seen as the provider of) there are two vertical classes. The laity who comes and absorbs the teaching and has the rites administered to them, and the clergy who do all the religiony stuff.

No. This is simply not what the Church is or how it functions. First, Church is far more than services; it is community which has a life well beyond its occasions of formal worship. Secondly, even in the liturgy, this is simply not accurate. For example, there is in my church a fortnightly service, taken by a lay person, where I sit in the pew and am ministered to. And for which I am profoundly grateful.

Again, I think you have a very, very distorted view of what we're actually talking about here.
 
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

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ha! That is really not the lived reality of my experience.
It's been my experience, though of course there are always rabble rousers who stir up opposition and other political games.



That is not how it works in Anglicanism, and in fact it sounds spiritually abusive to me.
One of the reasons a lot of people distrust institutional religion is that it often is spiritually abusive at some level. Even among well meaning leaders.



I don't view the Church as "man-made." But it's not a matter of trusting God. Humans are sinful, and will wilfully ignore God, especially in positions of power and authority. I do not believe the Church is meant to operate without oversight and accountability to other church members.
Oversight and accountability, sure. As I've stated multiple times, I'm not against officials but how they often function in the church since often it seems to me the relationships are upside down.



That is not my understanding, either of how ordination developed historically or how it functions in a contemporary sense.
I'm sure it's not, and simply for the history doesn't mean some degree of authorizations aren't wholly appropriate. My contention rests with that often the way ordination practically functions is to enshrine individuals with an external authority and give them an air of extra-holiness rather than the collegiate holiness Jesus endorsed in the church.


No. This is simply not what the Church is or how it functions. First, Church is far more than services; it is community which has a life well beyond its occasions of formal worship. Secondly, even in the liturgy, this is simply not accurate. For example, there is in my church a fortnightly service, taken by a lay person, where I sit in the pew and am ministered to. And for which I am profoundly grateful.

Again, I think you have a very, very distorted view of what we're actually talking about here.
That service sounds along the lines of what I'm getting at is necessary, but something tells me there's more to the story than you're letting on. Who takes your confession? Who administers the Eucharist in those services? Are you in submission to your congregation to the same extent that your parishoners are required to be in submission to you?
 
Upvote 0