The World Needs Women Priests

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Credentials? So some priests are more equal than others? (Channeling George Orwell)

I think it helps to be aware that "priest" in English picks up two very distinct sets of ideas and words.

The first is what we might call sacerdotal priesthood (those who mediate between God and the world, offer sacrifices, and so on); this is what the OT priesthood was, and Pagan priesthood, and this is what the New Testament tells us now belongs to the Church as a whole.

The second is eldership within the Church (the root of the word priest in English is the Greek word presbyteros, elder), and that is a role held by particular people in the Church (of course, how that role functions varies widely in different times, places, and denominations, but the basic statement holds true).

It's priesthood in that second sense, of eldership, that this thread is discussing; not the general sacerdotal function of the Church, in which all the baptised participate.
 
Upvote 0

Love365

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2020
1,435
141
Kentucky
✟93,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Another one of these threads; it's been a while. At least this one started from a positive position.



Well, since God calls some women to priestly ordination, it seems that God thinks the world needs women as priests (or needs a church with women amongst its clergy).

That said, I would question whether the work you identify for us is properly the work of the clergy. To work to mitigate poverty is work that belongs to the whole (priestly) Church, and not just the priests (elders/clergy).

I have - in the six years I've been a priest - often reflected on whether there is any material difference in the priestly ministry of men and women (or whether our gender has any bearing on the priestly work we do). I would observe that the pastoral care (including its sacramental dimensions) of people with particular needs, such as abuse survivors, rape survivors, and so forth, tends to fall disproportionately to women. I find that such survivors seek out myself and other female colleagues in preference to approaching our male colleagues.

That is not, in and of itself, a strong enough argument for the ordination of women, I think, even on the basis of "Here is a work that we need women for, which men can't do, or aren't suited to;" but it is perhaps a reason to be grateful for it.

It is a mystery to me why God calls some people (men and women) to ordination, but not others, even others who are clearly gifted and would have much to bring to the role. But it is very clear to me that God, in God's wisdom, does call both men and women; and for me that overrides all the arguments offered in rejection of the ministry of women. When God calls, our duty is to say yes and obey faithfully and with all the strength and integrity we have to bring to it.



This, though, I would have a problem with. The priesthood is not something to be divided up into discrete tasks, allowing some and forbidding others (notwithstanding that in some exceptional circumstances a bishop may withhold authority for particular functions). If you would not allow a woman to preside at communion, I would argue that that is not really priesthood at all. You seem to be describing more of a diaconal role (except for hearing confessions).



Sure. My church has women as bishops. As for cardinals, I have heard that the only reason being a cardinal is limited to ordained men is custom, not doctrine; and that it would even be possible to appoint a lay woman (perhaps the head of a religious order, or the like) to be a cardinal. So there is no real obstacle there.
Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,923
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Given that this was posted in "General Theology", this is a non issue. Many groups have women as clergy, including as priests. Just go join the Anglicans.

Many Anglican provinces, including all Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, do not have female clergy.
 
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,196
7,287
Tampa
✟767,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Many Anglican provinces, including all Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, do not have female clergy.
Valid point, I am not sure that the member realizes how varied the Anglican communion is. Since the OP is in the USA, however, the Episcopal Church and ELCA Lutheran churches could be options as they both ordain women and allow for female Bishops.

All this said though, I think the OP was really specifically referring to the RCC, not really other denominations. There are a lot of theological differences between the RCC and the Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. other than just ordination of women. I know you know this, it's more for other people in the thread. :)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Valid point, I am not sure that the member realizes how varied the Anglican communion is. Since the OP is in the USA, however, the Episcopal Church and ELCA Lutheran churches could be options as they both ordain women and allow for female Bishops.
But that sounds like you've chosen one from the Lutheran column and one from the Anglican column and made them the representatives of those faiths and the answer to the question.

In reality, there are many Lutheran church bodies and many Anglican ones, and each group includes churches or provinces which ordain women...and also other ones which prohibit doing that.

All this said though, I think the OP was really specifically referring to the RCC, not really other denominations. There are a lot of theological differences between the RCC and the Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. other than just ordination of women. I know you know this, it's more for other people in the thread. :)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,196
7,287
Tampa
✟767,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But that sounds like you've chosen one from the Lutheran column and one from the Anglican column and made them the representatives of those faiths and the answer to the question.
That is exactly what I did, since those two bodies have women priests/pastors. As has been outlined previously in the thread, there are other Anglican and Lutheran bodies that do not accept female priest/pastors. The OP was/is about female priests, so I outlined two bodies in the USA that have them, albeit with very different theology than the RCC.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That is exactly what I did, since those two bodies have women priests/pastors. As has been outlined previously in the thread, there are other Anglican and Lutheran bodies that do not accept female priest/pastors. The OP was/is about female priests, so I outlined two bodies in the USA that have them, albeit with very different theology than the RCC.
Worth pointing that the ELCA is the largest Lutheran body in America. I’m saying this only to point out the it is a significant body of believers.
 
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,196
7,287
Tampa
✟767,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Worth pointing that the ELCA is the largest Lutheran body in America. I’m saying this only to point out the it is a significant body of believers.
That is true, I am a member at an ELCA parish. The current ELCA Presiding Bishop is a woman as well.
 
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

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Did someone say it was not?
No, they didn't. I just want people to understand that it isn't a small denomination with 2000 members. With 3.4 million members it is a significant body.

Why do you have a problem with me pointing that out?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No, they didn't. I just want people to understand that it isn't a small denomination with 2000 members. With 3.4 million members it is a significant body.

And that's true. Following the merger of three smaller Lutheran church bodies a few years ago, the new church (ELCA) replaced the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod as the largest in the USA.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And that's true. Following the merger of three smaller Lutheran church bodies a few years ago, the new church (ELCA) replaced the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod as the largest in the USA.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Still uncertain what your point is.
 
Upvote 0

kdm1984

WELS
Oct 8, 2016
309
365
SW MO, USA
✟38,886.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Lutheran talk! I'm actually in the process of officially becoming a WELS member next week. I used to be with LCMS.

One of the major differences separating WELS and LCMS from ELCA is women's ordination.

With that in mind, I'm reminded of how Galatians 3:28 is about salvation, not church gender roles:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28 is one of the verses most frequently taken out of context in the Bible. I've witnessed this time and again, ad nauseam, in Christian discussion communities. The most common misuse of it is to advance the argument that women can be church leaders. In this and some other instances, it's so easy to quote it out of context and simply try to ignore and bury something like 1 Timothy 2:12 and just pretend it doesn't exist.

Yet continually spamming this Galatians verse out of context, and using it as a red herring to deflect from carefully analyzing the crisp, black-and-white clarity of 1 Timothy 2:12 -- all while making snarky, rude, and disparaging ad hominem attacks on other posters, labeling them sexist and whatnot (which I've seen so many times) -- still doesn't change the obvious meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man"

Whether we like it or not -- and as a woman, I should especially "not" like it for the purposes of my own ego -- this is in the Bible every bit as much as Galatians 3:28. Either they contradict each other, or we need to look more closely at what the surrounding passages are saying, to get the accurate meaning.

A closer look at the context of Galatians 3:28 reveals that Paul is discussing salvation, not church office qualifications:

Gal. 3:28 shows that women can be in ministry as elders and pastors | CARM.org

I know this may not be what we women, and egalitarians of any gender, want to hear. We can shout sexism to the high moon, signal our great and enlightened virtue to the world, praise ourselves and our open-mindedness to the high heavens, and make all the smart-aleck memes and one-liners we want in order to try and morph and manipulate Galatians 3:28 to fit our preconceived notions and preferences about church gender roles (again, I've seen this many times, and have had such things thrown my way).

But reality is reality, no matter how much one tries to twist it. Fact of the matter is, we have to interpret the Galatians verse in light of 1 Timothy 2:12, not to mention certain other NT passages addressing women's roles in the church. And we have to look at the surrounding context of the Galatians verse to see the objective truth that it's addressing salvation rather than church roles.

Better to pursue the truth, than to insist upon falsehood -- even if the falsehood makes us 'feel good' and more modern and open-minded than others.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Lutheran talk! I'm actually in the process of officially becoming a WELS member next week. I used to be with LCMS.

One of the major differences separating WELS and LCMS from ELCA is women's ordination.

With that in mind, I'm reminded of how Galatians 3:28 is about salvation, not church gender roles:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28 is one of the verses most frequently taken out of context in the Bible. I've witnessed this time and again, ad nauseam, in Christian discussion communities. The most common misuse of it is to advance the argument that women can be church leaders. In this and some other instances, it's so easy to quote it out of context and simply try to ignore and bury something like 1 Timothy 2:12 and just pretend it doesn't exist.

Yet continually spamming this Galatians verse out of context, and using it as a red herring to deflect from carefully analyzing the crisp, black-and-white clarity of 1 Timothy 2:12 -- all while making snarky, rude, and disparaging ad hominem attacks on other posters, labeling them sexist and whatnot (which I've seen so many times) -- still doesn't change the obvious meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man"

Whether we like it or not -- and as a woman, I should especially "not" like it for the purposes of my own ego -- this is in the Bible every bit as much as Galatians 3:28. Either they contradict each other, or we need to look more closely at what the surrounding passages are saying, to get the accurate meaning.

A closer look at the context of Galatians 3:28 reveals that Paul is discussing salvation, not church office qualifications:

Gal. 3:28 shows that women can be in ministry as elders and pastors | CARM.org

I know this may not be what we women, and egalitarians of any gender, want to hear. We can shout sexism to the high moon, signal our great and enlightened virtue to the world, praise ourselves and our open-mindedness to the high heavens, and make all the smart-aleck memes and one-liners we want in order to try and morph and manipulate Galatians 3:28 to fit our preconceived notions and preferences about church gender roles (again, I've seen this many times, and have had such things thrown my way).

But reality is reality, no matter how much one tries to twist it. Fact of the matter is, we have to interpret the Galatians verse in light of 1 Timothy 2:12, not to mention certain other NT passages addressing women's roles in the church. And we have to look at the surrounding context of the Galatians verse to see the objective truth that it's addressing salvation rather than church roles.

Better to pursue the truth, than to insist upon falsehood -- even if the falsehood makes us 'feel good' and more modern and open-minded than others.

I often tell people on CF that they are entitled to their interpretation of scripture. I might disagree with their interpretation, but that does not make their interpretation wrong. It simply means that we read something differently.

I happen to believe that women can be ordained to serve as pastors in part because of Galatians, in part because of other parts of scripture. But I have never made "snarky, rude, and disparaging ad hominem attacks on other posters, labeling them sexist and whatnot" just because they disagree with me.
Unlike you, I would never say that you are insisting "upon falsehood" just because we disagree on this this point, nor would I say that you are twisting scripture. We simply have different points of view.

Now if you were to start telling me that bats are birds because the Bible says so, I would probably tell you that you are totally wrong, but only because that matter is so very clear.
 
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

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,767
7,912
NW England
✟1,041,268.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
With that in mind, I'm reminded of how Galatians 3:28 is about salvation, not church gender roles:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28 is one of the verses most frequently taken out of context in the Bible. I've witnessed this time and again, ad nauseam, in Christian discussion communities. The most common misuse of it is to advance the argument that women can be church leaders.

I agree with women's ordination, yet I do agree with you about Galatians 3:28.

Yet continually spamming this Galatians verse out of context, and using it as a red herring to deflect from carefully analyzing the crisp, black-and-white clarity of 1 Timothy 2:12 -- all while making snarky, rude, and disparaging ad hominem attacks on other posters, labeling them sexist and whatnot (which I've seen so many times) -- still doesn't change the obvious meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man"

What is the crisp, black and white, obvious meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12?
Seriously, how do you interpret it?
Literally?
"I do not permit a woman to teach "- a) did he object when Priscilla taught Apollos? Yes, I know she was with her husband, but if a woman can't teach, a woman can't teach. Why would he have said that when women taught men in the OT what God wanted, or was saying - female prophets? Did he know that Jesus allowed a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection, and to go and tell the men?
b) Paul may not have allowed this, but he's not around now. He never said that God forbade it.
"Or to assume authority over a man"
a) When a woman says that she believes she is being called to ordination, she submits that call to her minister/vicar, Superintendent/Bishop, a panel of clergy and lay people and eventually the whole church. She does not assume authority. It is recognised by the church that God has called her to do this, and given her the authority and gifts. It is very likely too that those "above" her will be men; she herself is under authority.
b) How is teaching someone assuming authority over them? And how do you define teaching? Would a woman not be allowed to tell a man that a certain substance was poisonous, because she would be teaching and assuming authority over him?
Is a man not allowed to read a book or poem or sing a hymn written by a woman in case he learns something? The men of Samaria were told by a woman that she had found the Messiah; should Jesus have allowed that? They believed in him because of the testimony of a woman.
What about female evangelists; are they allowed to tell men that they are sinners, and what Scripture says about sin and rejecting God? Or should they leave the men to go to hell in case they "assume authority" over them?
The verse goes onto say, "she must be silent"
a) a literal reading says SHE, singular. Who is she? Paul does not say that women (plural) must never ever teach, for all time. He did not say that God had commanded this, nor that women would never be given the gift of teaching by the Spirit.
b) silent, how; in worship? Then why did Paul teach women about praying and prophesying with their heads covered? Did he, who told Christians to speak with Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, mean that women could not praise God at all; nor read his word or testify to what he had done?

Sounds like this verse is not that "crisp" and "obvious" after all.

I know this may not be what we women, and egalitarians of any gender, want to hear.

Trust me; some women don't want to hear that God may be calling them to preach or be ordained. It's hard work. Certainly as far as this forum is concerned, it would be much easier to find another calling that stick with what you believe to be right and then be insulted and called disobedient feminists because of it.

We can shout sexism to the high moon, signal our great and enlightened virtue to the world, praise ourselves and our open-mindedness to the high heavens, and make all the smart-aleck memes and one-liners we want in order to try and morph and manipulate Galatians 3:28 to fit our preconceived notions and preferences about church gender roles (again, I've seen this many times, and have had such things thrown my way).

I certainly agree with that; reading Scripture in context is vital.

But reality is reality, no matter how much one tries to twist it.

What IS the reality?
Clearly it's not that 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids women from being ordained, or no Christian woman would want to be. Surely all that is needed is for the intelligent, educated men to put women straight and tell us that we are disobeying Scripture? Instead of which, a number of them agree, train the women and commission them to preach/ordain them.

And we have to look at the surrounding context of the Galatians verse to see the objective truth that it's addressing salvation rather than church roles.

We also have to read 1 Tim 2:12 in the context of a man who worked with female co workers and appreciated them, allowed women to prophesy, pray, proclaim God's word and teach, and who served among female deacons and deaconesses.
1 Timothy was one of the last letters that Paul wrote - did he allow women to do all these things for years, and then change his mind?
 
Upvote 0

kdm1984

WELS
Oct 8, 2016
309
365
SW MO, USA
✟38,886.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for a point-by-point, analytic response. I certainly appreciate an actual attempt to engage the arguments. I'll respond to your points below in same fashion.

"I do not permit a woman to teach "- a) did he object when Priscilla taught Apollos? Yes, I know she was with her husband, but if a woman can't teach, a woman can't teach. Why would he have said that when women taught men in the OT what God wanted, or was saying - female prophets? Did he know that Jesus allowed a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection, and to go and tell the men?

Priscilla was with her husband when Apollos was taught, so this isn't an example of a woman by herself teaching a man within the church setting. As for your following argument, "if a woman can't teach, a woman can't teach," I'm afraid this isn't the argument that's being made. Paul's prohibition was against women assuming authority over men specifically and only within the church setting. This doesn't forbid women from teaching men outside of that setting.

b) Paul may not have allowed this, but he's not around now. He never said that God forbade it.
"Or to assume authority over a man"
a) When a woman says that she believes she is being called to ordination, she submits that call to her minister/vicar, Superintendent/Bishop, a panel of clergy and lay people and eventually the whole church. She does not assume authority. It is recognised by the church that God has called her to do this, and given her the authority and gifts. It is very likely too that those "above" her will be men; she herself is under authority.

That particular church may recognize her for doing it, but they aren't submitting their own authority to Scripture first, which doesn't recognize women as church leaders in authority over men.

b) How is teaching someone assuming authority over them? And how do you define teaching? Would a woman not be allowed to tell a man that a certain substance was poisonous, because she would be teaching and assuming authority over him?

Paul's statement in Timothy addresses church leadership only, so a woman would certainly be allowed to teach a man that something is poisonous. And this follows the logic I've outlined above:

Paul's prohibition was against women assuming authority over men specifically and only within the church setting. This doesn't forbid women from teaching men outside of that setting.

a) a literal reading says SHE, singular. Who is she? Paul does not say that women (plural) must never ever teach, for all time. He did not say that God had commanded this, nor that women would never be given the gift of teaching by the Spirit.
b) silent, how; in worship? Then why did Paul teach women about praying and prophesying with their heads covered? Did he, who told Christians to speak with Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, mean that women could not praise God at all; nor read his word or testify to what he had done?

Regarding prayer and prophesying, yes, those are allowed. Here's a good explanation about the "silence" passage:

Do women have to remain silent in church? | GotQuestions.org

In short, Paul did allow women to do many things, and yes, we can teach in other contexts -- just not as leaders over men in church.
 
  • Like
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

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,923
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
So my own view on this is that there are some excellent female clergy, like @Paidiske , in denominations where women are presently ordained, where the membership of those denominations desire women to serve as presbyters or bishops. At the same time, there are other churches, such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Roman Catholics, which have a sacramental priesthood intimately connected with the tradition of their church, where owing to the extreme reverence most of the laity have for tradition, a change in the policies of ordination could cause a massive schism, and I think we can all agree that the last thing we need are more schisms.

However, in the case of Protestant churches which explicitly deny that the priesthood/ministry/pastoral office has a sacramental character, I don’t think there is any basis for these denominations to refuse to ordain women, except to avoid a schism, but at a certain point, one has to admit frankly that in such cases, it at the very least looks sexist.

Whereas in the case of the Catholics and Orthodox, a thorough study of their theology will indicate that the male sacramental priesthood in those churches is not a sexist institution, particularly in the Orthodox Church, where several women such as St. Mary Magdalene, St. Theclas and more recently, St. Nino, an Armenian noblewoman who evangelized the Georgians in the fourth century, resulting in the entire kingdom of Georgia being the fifth country to convert completely to Christianity (the others, in order of conversion, being Edessa, Armenia, the Roman Empire and Ethiopia), as Equal to the Apostles. And the extreme veneration of the Virgin Mary we see in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches positively rules out sexism, since these churches believe that the most important person to be conceived by human parents, the person closest to, and in the most intimate possible relationship with, the incarnate God, was a woman, specifically, the woman who gave birth to Jesus Christ, who is God, as the Nicene Creed makes clear.

There is also another important issue to consider, and that is whether or not the women of a given church desire the priesthood. Several Roman Catholic women have expressed a desire for it, but it is not clear they are in the majority, whereas in the case of the Orthodox, the overwhelming preference among Orthodox women, in my experience, is, as one might expect given the extreme traditionalism of the Orthodox community, is to preserve the status quo.

Conversely, female pastors are strongly desired by a majority of members in several Protestant churches including the Church of England, most of the Anglican archdioceses in Australia, with the exception of the Archdiocese of Sydney, the Anglican churches in Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Canada and New Zealand, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, and, interestingly, conservative denominations which have separated from some of these churches, such as the Anglican Church in North America, the North American Lutheran Church, and the Evangelical Covenant Order.

Furthermore, the history of the church indicates that women have always been ordained to the diaconate. While it is true that the deaconesses of antiquity performed a different liturgical function than the deacons, being ministers of Baptism rather than ministers of Holy Communion, they were nonetheless a part of the sacred diaconate, so those churches which refuse to ordain deaconesses do not posess either theological or ecclesiastical justification for such a practice.

We do have to consider, however, the preferences of the women in those churches. For example, do the women in the Southern Baptist Convention really want the SBC to resume ordaining female pastors? Given that the SBC does not have a sacramental, sacrificial priesthood bound up in sacred tradition like the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, there is not a compelling theological reason for them not to have female pastors, but on the other hand, my experience with Southern Baptist women is that, like Orthodox women, they do not want female pastors in their denomination, albeit for different reasons.

So, my conclusion on the issue is simply this: in the case of Protestant churches which do not consider ordination to be a sacrament, and which do not regard the priesthood as a sacrificial and sacramental office, there being no theological impediment to women in these churches serving as elders, presbyters, ministers, pastors or bishops, it comes down to two factors: the need to preserve unity in the church and avoid schism, and, more importantly in the long term, the desires of women in those denominations concerning whether or not they wish to see female pastors. If the women want it, there js no reason not to accomodate such a desire as soon as the risk of schism has abated, and conversely, if they do not want it, it seems to me that it would in fact be sexist, patronizing and condescending for the men in charge of that denomination to impose a female priesthood against the will of the women. For example, @kdm1984 is a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and in my experience, her views in opposition to female pastors are the prevailing opinion among the women in that church. How could it be anything other than an egregious example of sexist domineering male patriarchy if the men leading WELS decided to ordain women against the wishes of the majority of female members like @kdm1984 ?

Lastly, there are some cases where there exist two denominations which share a common theological basis and a common tradition, but which differ chiefly on the subject of the ordination of women. If, hypothetically, theologically conservative women who are a part of, for example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, and the Presbyterian Church in America, feel called to the priesthood, it seems the best course of action would be for them to join the North American Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church of North America, or the Evangelical Covenant Order (of Presbyterians), as these churches are equally theologically conservative, but also happen to ordain women, and all three of them have a pressing need for more clergy, and what is more, they are continuing to grow, whereas I believe the expansion of at least one of the churches I mentioned with a male-only priesthood is stagnant as far as denominational growth is concerned.

Pious women like @Paidiske have a lot to offer those churches which are willing to accept their gifts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0