Women in Authority -- Church of England statement?

CanadianAnglican said:

Perhaps my point wasn't clear, but the argument was that secular Canadian society believed in gender equality, not that it was supported by Christ or by Scriptures, Church tradition, etc. The argument ignored any of the effective Christian arguments noted in the previously cited article by NT Wright.

As PaladinValer said, sometimes these arguments can still hold truth, but in effect we are then saying the ends (that it is a Christian position to arrive at) justify the means (using a secular, non-Christian argument). If these positions can be reached using Christian positions (and barring the catholicity issue, I believe they can be, again see Bishop Wright's article rooted in Scripture and tradition), then why are we not using the Christian arguments rather than the secular arguments? How long will it take before we're simply used to accepting the legitimacy of secular arguments informing Church doctrine?

Click to expand...

I do not see a divide. I am a Christian; any valid argument is a Christian one as long as it is true. The only invalid arguments would be those without truth, because their roots would not be in God but in the evil one; the liar.

Given the debates occurring in Canada right now, many Canadian Anglicans are perfectly comfortable basing their views on what the position of the Anglican Church of Canada should be 100% on secular arguments and values without any reference to God, the Bible, the Church, etc.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that, if it were true. But there can be few matters which are 100% secular and not at all relating to our faith; this one certainly isn't. Perhaps it is your perception of other people's motivation which is somewhat lacking.

If you assume secular values = women's equality and religious values = differentiated gender roles, then perhaps your definition of religious values is not what it could be. This is certainly true of much of the church; it has seriously mistaken this point. But there is much of the church which has changed, which sees true equality as God's purpose from the beginning, and the outworking of that true equality within the church as 100% in line with his will for the future. Nothing secular about that.

I understand the distaste at the issue being seen in terms of equality, as though it were simply an outcome of feminism, but there is a problem here. One of the arguments against women's ordination is the argument from tradition. If one believes that tradition to be in place because of hundreds of years of a culture of male dominance, it's difficult to counter the "tradition" argument without sounding like a sexual egalitarian. In other words it may not be the move for women's ordination that is a product of secular egalitarian culture, but rather the argument from tradition that is based on secular inegalitarian culture.

In determining whether or not women should be ordained, the laws of society cannot create a valid argument. That would be like saying Christians should be free to worship idols because our secular laws promote religious freedom.

Using the argument that the 1960 Bill of Rights and Canadian values promoted equality between the sexes has no merit as an argument towards the ordination of women because the 1960 Bill of Rights and Canadian values do not necessarily reflect God's will.

The idea that the ends justify the means, or in this case that the validity of the argument doesn't matter so long as it comes to the truth, is utterly absurd. How can we know it's the truth unless the argument is valid. I would contend that there are likely sound arguments to be made that even though God holds men and women equal in his eyes and loves men and women equally, he has set aside men for the specific task of the priesthood. If someone offers up such an argument on the basis of Scripture and tradition and only contends with someone arguing that women should be admitted to the Priesthood because, "It's 1976 and women and men are equal under the [secular] law!" I would say there could be no argument that the position against women's ordination were stronger.

The argument may wind up at the truth, but there's no way to judge whether or not it has because the whole point of the argument is to reveal God's truth, and we can't do that by relying on secular arguments. If we want to explain to people what God's will is, we have to, you know, talk about God!

Take the perspective of the author of this thread. His question was, "what is the justification provided by the Church of England for the ordination of women in the Church of England?" If the answer is, "The Church of England looked at the Equal Pay Act of 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 and decided it was time for the Church of England to more accurately reflect British values," surely you can see how that is a deeply dangerous and unsatisfactory answer. They aren't saying, "the priesthood must reflect God's value of sexual equality," they are saying, "the priesthood must reflect secular values of sexual equality." Now what happens when the Church is confronted with a position in which secular values are more clearly at odd's with God's desire for us (for instance in the above, somewhat absurd, example of idolatry v. secular religious freedom).

It is not enough to arrive at the correct conclusions. We must always strive to do so for the right reasons, because otherwise we are simply fumbling around in the dark and occasionally going in the right direction.

Mark 12:17New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
17 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.’

And they were amazed at him.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

I find the discussion interesting. I have no pony in this race, but I'd like to know why Jesus didn't "ordain" any women?

Click to expand...

Who says he didn't? The Gospels don't talk in terms of ordination at all, so where do you get a list of who Jesus ordained from?

The closest thing to ordination I can see in the gospels is at the end of John 20, where it doesn't specify who was present except that Thomas wasn't.

Patrick Bateman said:

Sorry if I'm being slow, but what are you posting that in support of?

Click to expand...

It is in favor of women's ordination, although it has absolutely no theological application to that affect whatsoever.

I'd like to ask again: what is thought of my theological justification on your end?

gurneyhalleck1 said:

I find the discussion interesting. I have no pony in this race, but I'd like to know why Jesus didn't "ordain" any women? Surely Jesus wasn't held captive by social prejudices and the pressures to make chauvinists happy? Surely if the Lord felt women fully called and allowed to be priests, He'd have done so, right?

The Fathers are illumined, so why would the Holy Spirit withhold women's ordination from them and permit them to be encircled my misogyny?

I often hear the "branch" theory. If Anglicanism, along with Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism are three branches of Gods church, why is it only the Anglicans allowing this when the Orthodox and Catholics absolutely forbid it? The Orthodox were cozying up to Anglicans until WO. After that all bets were off. Is Anglicanism to be an example for these other two who just don't get it and are behind in the times or the reverse? Is the Orthodox and Catholic view worth considering as the other two branches?

When Paul was talking about how in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, Scythian, etc. was he talking about authority in the Church and Holy a Orders or was he speaking to the problem of some Jews seeing Gentiles as inferior, the need to show all races and groups could be BAPTIZED and valid members of the same church, etc.? Is the passage about God loving us all equally or God calling everyone to ministry? Can we all be equally loved and worth being saved yet not all called to the same authoritative offices?

Do the patristics matter in their condemnation of gnostic use of women priests?

Precedent, Scripture, Jesus's choices, the Fathers, 2,000 of consistency, the other two branches, all point against it. Only modern culture points in the other direction. I'd it social justice secularism influencing or the patristics and Scripture and precedent? Just wondering....

Click to expand...

I'll state upfront that I'm in favor of women's ordination. However, I have not seen a response to your point about Jesus and women's ordination. I wouldn't put it that way, but it is a crucial question as to why Jesus did not choose any women to be His apostles. Certainly there were capable women available, such as Mary Magdalene.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

I find the discussion interesting. I have no pony in this race, but I'd like to know why Jesus didn't "ordain" any women? Surely Jesus wasn't held captive by social prejudices and the pressures to make chauvinists happy? Surely if the Lord felt women fully called and allowed to be priests, He'd have done so, right?

The Fathers are illumined, so why would the Holy Spirit withhold women's ordination from them and permit them to be encircled my misogyny?

I often hear the "branch" theory. If Anglicanism, along with Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism are three branches of Gods church, why is it only the Anglicans allowing this when the Orthodox and Catholics absolutely forbid it? The Orthodox were cozying up to Anglicans until WO. After that all bets were off. Is Anglicanism to be an example for these other two who just don't get it and are behind in the times or the reverse? Is the Orthodox and Catholic view worth considering as the other two branches?

When Paul was talking about how in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, Scythian, etc. was he talking about authority in the Church and Holy a Orders or was he speaking to the problem of some Jews seeing Gentiles as inferior, the need to show all races and groups could be BAPTIZED and valid members of the same church, etc.? Is the passage about God loving us all equally or God calling everyone to ministry? Can we all be equally loved and worth being saved yet not all called to the same authoritative offices?

Do the patristics matter in their condemnation of gnostic use of women priests?

Precedent, Scripture, Jesus's choices, the Fathers, 2,000 of consistency, the other two branches, all point against it. Only modern culture points in the other direction. I'd it social justice secularism influencing or the patristics and Scripture and precedent? Just wondering....

Click to expand...

First, let me state that I am firmly in favor of women's ordination.

I find it interesting, though, that no one has really addressed your point about Jesus not ordaining women, or I would say more specifically about Jesus not choosing any women to be among His twelve apostles. Certainly there were good women candidates, Mary Magdalene probably foremost. I think this is the most convincing argument against women's ordination.

CelticRebel said:

I'll state upfront that I'm in favor of women's ordination. However, I have not seen a response to your point about Jesus and women's ordination. I wouldn't put it that way, but it is a crucial question as to why Jesus did not choose any women to be His apostles. Certainly there were capable women available, such as Mary Magdalene.


First, let me state that I am firmly in favor of women's ordination.

I find it interesting, though, that no one has really addressed your point about Jesus not ordaining women, or I would say more specifically about Jesus not choosing any women to be among His twelve apostles. Certainly there were good women candidates, Mary Magdalene probably foremost. I think this is the most convincing argument against women's ordination.

Click to expand...

"Apostle" means different things, even in the NT.

None of The Twelve are women, because the function of calling twelve is a symbolic redefinition of Israel around himself. That symbol requires 12 men; change the gender or the number and it can't be heard as what it is.

But the NT doesn't equate the 12 with priesthood or anything similar. If it did, we'd be stuck with only twelve of them. In fact, the Gospels never have any of the twelve functioning in anything that looks like an ordained role, or anything that looks like ordination except at the end of John 20 where it's unclear who is present except that Thomas is not.

Jesus certainly has Mary of Magdala as first witness to report the most important event since creation itself to the world. And affirms Mary of Bethany in the position of his apprentice rabbi

CelticRebel said:

I'll state upfront that I'm in favor of women's ordination. However, I have not seen a response to your point about Jesus and women's ordination. I wouldn't put it that way, but it is a crucial question as to why Jesus did not choose any women to be His apostles. Certainly there were capable women available, such as Mary Magdalene.


First, let me state that I am firmly in favor of women's ordination.

I find it interesting, though, that no one has really addressed your point about Jesus not ordaining women, or I would say more specifically about Jesus not choosing any women to be among His twelve apostles. Certainly there were good women candidates, Mary Magdalene probably foremost. I think this is the most convincing argument against women's ordination.

Click to expand...

Much of what my post wrote preempted his point, so it is null and void.

ebia said:

"Apostle" means different things, even in the NT.

None of The Twelve are women, because the function of calling twelve is a symbolic redefinition of Israel around himself. That symbol requires 12 men; change the gender or the number and it can't be heard as what it is.

But the NT doesn't equate the 12 with priesthood or anything similar. If it did, we'd be stuck with only twelve of them. In fact, the Gospels never have any of the twelve functioning in anything that looks like an ordained role, or anything that looks like ordination except at the end of John 20 where it's unclear who is present except that Thomas is not.

Jesus certainly has Mary of Magdala as first witness to report the most important event since creation itself to the world. And affirms Mary of Bethany in the position of his apprentice rabbi

Click to expand...

Those are good and possibly valid points.

PaladinValer said:

Much of what my post wrote preempted his point, so it is null and void.

Click to expand...

Maybe I missed that post. Could you point me to it?

CelticRebel said:

Maybe I missed that post. Could you point me to it?

Click to expand...

Post 6 in this thread.

Regarding the initial post asking for justification: I assume you've read through the reports we published on our website about such things? I am not sure we have ever provided a justification (at least one single "this is our justification speech" type thing) so much as reports outlining both sides of the debate, then during Synod members acted as they did.

For the interested some of the reports (and other documents) we have made freely available online, which do include reasons for (and against in some cases) women in the positions they now hold in our church are available:
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1254839/gs1685.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/38523/gs1557.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1255849/gs1605.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1574524/transcript york 6 7 12 _2_.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1230127/gs misc 827.pdf
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1230140/gsmisc 826.pdf

I do hope the team over at the records centre has been able to provide you with the sources you need, and that your conversations with the Bishop are fruitful. Are you talking to multiple Bishops or just the one?

Note: I am aware these relate to women as Bishops, rather than women in authority in general. There are reports available on our website regarding that too I believe. Though one can never beat some of the material found in the record centre, some of it is rather fascinating.

PaladinValer said:

Post 6 in this thread.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

What you wrote there is very good, except some would say that there is NT precedence only for ordaining deacons, and that Paul restricts ordination of pastors to men. How would you answer that?

CelticRebel said:

Thanks.

What you wrote there is very good, except some would say that there is NT precedence only for ordaining deacons, and that Paul restricts ordination of pastors to men. How would you answer that?

Click to expand...

Post 6 again. That question is answered there as well.

Furthermore, St. Paul recognizes women apostles, which was the equivalent of bishops at the time.

PaladinValer said:

Post 6 again. That question is answered there as well.

Furthermore, St. Paul recognizes women apostles, which was the equivalent of bishops at the time.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is mention of Junia, or Junias. Many consider that Junia was a woman; some do not. There is also debate about the usage of the word "apostle" in conjunction with Junia, as to what that meant. So, I think the most one can say is that it's possible there was at least one woman apostle.

However, in the ancient Celtic Church, the evidence is much greater and even striking, for ordained women in leadership positions.

CelticRebel said:

Yes, there is mention of Junia, or Junias. Many consider that Junia was a woman; some do not. There is also debate about the usage of the word "apostle" in conjunction with Junia, as to what that meant. So, I think the most one can say is that it's possible there was at least one woman apostle.

However, in the ancient Celtic Church, the evidence is much greater and even striking, for ordained women in leadership positions.

Click to expand...

It is long-proven that it is Junia; Junias was never a name back in the day. Translations of the Holy Scriptures under Vatican Catholic auspices now offer a correct translation.

However, she wasn't the only one: Priscilla is another.

The arguments against women clergy has very little to offer, but at the same time, arguments for women's ordination shouldn't be based on verses that have nothing to do with it, or on a secular idea of "fairness" and "equality".

And yes; there does appear to be a stronger tradition of women's ordination in Britannia, just as there is one among the Oriental Orthodox, which, to this day, still ordains women at least to the Sacred Order of Deacons.

PaladinValer said:

It is long-proven that it is Junia; Junias was never a name back in the day. Translations of the Holy Scriptures under Vatican Catholic auspices now offer a correct translation.

However, she wasn't the only one: Priscilla is another.

The arguments against women clergy has very little to offer, but at the same time, arguments for women's ordination shouldn't be based on verses that have nothing to do with it, or on a secular idea of "fairness" and "equality".

And yes; there does appear to be a stronger tradition of women's ordination in Britannia, just as there is one among the Oriental Orthodox, which, to this day, still ordains women at least to the Sacred Order of Deacons.

Click to expand...

I think it is Junia, too, But there is still some disagreement.

I want to point out again that I personally am in favor of women's ordination, based on my reading of scripture and scholars, and early Celtic practice. I was simply putting forth the positions of those on the other side. I can see their reasoning; I just don't happen to agree with it.