Women Priests.

Philip_B said:

This is not the subject of this thread. You raise it to deflect, as if for some reason the acceptance of women being ordained to the ancient of sacramental order of Priest is some how connected and has the logical outcome of affirming gay lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Bishop Gene Robinson, Bishop Mary Glasspool, Bishop Cherry Vann

1 Corinthians 11.14:
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him,​

This is still not the subject of this thread, however honestly, who cares how long anyone else's hair is?!

Click to expand...

The word should not be translated as "long hair" but something more along the lines of "hairdo".

nolidad said:

Pretty hard if you are a female pastor to shut up!

Click to expand...

I would remind you that this is about women priests, not women pastors, and the evidence of scripture and the historic tradition of the Church is that Preaching is but one part of ministry.

None the less last Sunday in our Parish Church, a Woman who is a Priest conducted the liturgy including the Sermon and Reading of the Holy Gospel and the anaphora, a Man read the first reading, a Woman read the 2nd Reading, a woman led the intercession. I am wondering how many of these roles you believe should be open to women and men, and how many should be open to men only (provided of course that they do not have long hair, don't set off the gaydar alarm, and have had only one wife) ?

Paidiske said:

We know that Paul allowed women to speak in churches, so this passage cannot be taken as an absolute, but as only pertaining to a particular situation.

Click to expand...

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

Doesn't seem like a particular situation to mee! Just like 1 Cor. 11:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

See verse 16? Paul had no such teaching about letting women be uncovered in church nor the churches of God. Do you have a head covering when you enter church? All the churches were teaching this!

Paidiske said:

But it is off topic to this thread. This thread is about ordaining women, not about sexual ethics.

Click to expand...

Well you and gregorikios need to prove this is an idiom that doesn't mean what its words say! That is what an idiom is.

Then explain this:

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Deacons husband of one wife- which you allege is an idiom that does not mean male and female but simply marital faithfulness. So explain why their wives (which mean deacons) must meet those requirements? Is that an idiom too?

Gregorikios at least showed that when aner is used in the plural to describe an undfined group it can be males and females, but onlyu in the plural, but I have yet to see gyne which is feminine and not the default gender be used as an idiom for a simple spouse!

nolidad said:

Deacons husband of one wife- which you allege is an idiom that does not mean male and female but simply marital faithfulness. So explain why their wives (which mean deacons) must meet those requirements? Is that an idiom too?

Click to expand...

To this day, we don't ordain people whose spouses are going to cripple their ministry. Even when I went through the selection process, my husband was interviewed alongside me. It's not strange that a clergy spouse must be grave, sober, etc. But since we know that there were women deacons in the very earliest church, again, this is not about gender but about character.

Philip_B said:

I would remind you that this is about women priests, not women pastors, and the evidence of scripture and the historic tradition of the Church is that Preaching is but one part of ministry.

None the less last Sunday in our Parish Church, a Woman who is a Priest conducted the liturgy including the Sermon and Reading of the Holy Gospel and the anaphora, a Man read the first reading, a Woman read the 2nd Reading, a woman led the intercession. I am wondering how many of these roles you believe should be open to women and men, and how many should be open to men only (provided of course that they do not have long hair, don't set off the gaydar alarm, and have had only one wife) ?

Click to expand...

Well Paul commanded women to be silent in the churches, so they can't preach! He said a Bishop can only have one wife, and that women should not usurp authority over the man! That is n the context of listing church rules for orderly conduct!

Well either the bible is the Word of God and it says Women should not speak in the churches. IN context we know that means to take part in services, not talk to anyone about anything.

And how long is too long? Can't say for sure, but we know women should not have short hair. My most repsected teacher says that a sound rule is that a married women should not have have shorter than her husband! I can live with that!

As for chruch services, if we wish to hold biblical services, it should be men only! In a home setting where people may meet for bible study- I don't see a problem, but they should not lead the study if men are there!

As Paul said because Adam was first formed then Eve. And Eve was deceived.

Paidiske said:

To this day, we don't ordain people whose spouses are going to cripple their ministry. Even when I went through the selection process, my husband was interviewed alongside me. It's not strange that a clergy spouse must be grave, sober, etc. But since we know that there were women deacons in the very earliest church, again, this is not about gender but about character.

Click to expand...

No we do not know! But if there were deaconesses, once again the office of deacon had no authority in the early church. Their function was strictly to serve the Pastors in meeting the physical needs of the church!

Acts 6:1-4
King James Version

6 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word

5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

All men just like the apostles said in verse three!

Even to this day, The orthodox churches which you and Gregoriokos championed as being teh closest on these points do not ordain female deacons! HMMMM?

nolidad said:

Well Paul commanded women to be silent in the churches, so they can't preach! He said a Bishop can only have one wife, and that women should not usurp authority over the man! That is n the context of listing church rules for orderly conduct!

Well either the bible is the Word of God and it says Women should not speak in the churches. IN context we know that means to take part in services, not talk to anyone about anything.

And how long is too long? Can't say for sure, but we know women should not have short hair. My most repsected teacher says that a sound rule is that a married women should not have have shorter than her husband! I can live with that!

As for chruch services, if we wish to hold biblical services, it should be men only! In a home setting where people may meet for bible study- I don't see a problem, but they should not lead the study if men are there!

As Paul said because Adam was first formed then Eve. And Eve was deceived.

Click to expand...

I do have trouble with your argument for it discounts the cultural context as a contributing factor of what was understood and determines it as a divine imperative. Now, as I observe it we do have a differing view of scripture, in that I believe it is inspired and that in the words of scripture we encounter the life giving Word of God; and it would seem that you take is that every word is as if spoken by God himself to be the eternal truth for ever. I realise that in this position neither of us will convince the other.

My Church - Anglican - does hold biblical services and on the first day of the week we gather for the breaking of the bread. (Acts 20:7) We hold the view that in Christ their is neither Male nor Female (Galatians 3:38). We also take the point the Jesus said Come unto me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28).

Now I have little expectation that you will give any credence to what I say or why I say it. I have however found this link from the Baptist Church of South Australia Women in Ministry | Baptist Churches of South Australia which you may find interesting.

Also there is an essay from the Baptist Tradition addressing Paul's writing in 1 and 2 Timothy, that you may also find helpful. https://sabaptist.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Women-preaching-and-the-Bible-Cousins.pdf

pax vobiscum

Paidiske said:

Hi, I'm a woman who's a priest. (Just so that's really clear up front).

.

Click to expand...

And you’re a good one. If my library shelves collapse and I am crushed under the weight of my rare and obscure liturgical texts, I want you to do my funeral! Just be sure to use one of the more rare and exotic BCP editions; the 1928 Deposited Book or the 1929 Scottish book would do nicely.

And have at least one thurible in use at all times. I love the fragrant fog of a well-incensed church. Although I only use it at my late morning services for the benefit of people unused to it or who have allergies.

Paidiske said:

Well, given that I'm someone who actually wears it and is able to gauge people's reactions, I can tell you it's one of a range of images prompted by it.

Another, of course, is "paedophile," but fortunately that is less of an issue for women than for men. (Some of my male colleagues have stopped wearing their collars in public due to so frequently being attacked for the perception that they are paedophiles).



I can definitely see the benefit in the sort of t-shirt you suggest. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that the collar thereby serves no purpose either; but all I was trying to point out is that the meaning of something like that is dependent on its social context, and is not always clericalised or harmful.

Click to expand...

I sometimes wear an Eastern Orthodox style cassock, which lacks a clerical collar, and I’ve noticed this spares me the odd extremely rare remark from someone who thinks I am a Roman Catholic priest.

Paidiske said:

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.



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 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.



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.



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



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).

Click to expand...

Indeed. When my congregation grows and my services are well attended and my people are happy, I feel great joy. And when it shrinks due to death or attrition, and when services are not well attended, or my people are there in numbers but are unhappy or suffering, I am unable to avoid sorrow. The worst is when I feel I have failed them; for example, if I am unable to attend a service due to illness, or if my counseling doesn’t help someone, or if I make a mistake in my preaching, or especially, more than anything else, if there are any problems at funerals, even if they are not my fault.

I actually get really emotionally involved in funerals and always have tears on my face at one point or another, which is a weakness; I should project confidence in the resurrection to the laity, but I have extreme empathy and the sadness of the mourners affects me even if I was not well acquainted with the loved one.

Fervent said:

Partly, but the biggest influences on church leadership were Constantine's declaration of Christianity as the official religion of the empire granting the church prestige and a controversy with the Donatists over whether the church should re-admit recanters during a martyrdom episode being addressed by vesting baptismal and Eucharistic rites with those the bishop ordained instead of belonging to the believers at large.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Donatists did not exist during the time of Constantine; there were Novationists, but the main heresy was Arianism, and the First Ecumenical Council convened by Constantine declared it heretical. Then a scheming bishop named Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a closet Arian, baptized Constantine on his deathbed and gained influence over his heir Constantius, who convened another council with bishops appointed by the Arians, which overturned the Council of Nicea, exiled St. Athanasius from Alexandria to Trieste, in Germany, imposed Arianism as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and began a new persecution of Christians that would last into the 380s.

The Liturgist said:

Wrong. Donatists did not exist during the time of Constantine; there were Novationists, but the main heresy was Arianism, and the First Ecumenical Council convened by Constantine declared it heretical. Then a scheming bishop named Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a closet Arian, baptized Constantine on his deathbed and gained influence over his heir Constantius, who convened another council with bishops appointed by the Arians, which overturned the Council of Nicea, exiled St. Athanasius from Alexandria to Trieste, in Germany, imposed Arianism as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and began a new persecution of Christians that would last into the 380s.

Click to expand...

My post did give the impression I was putting them at the same time, didn't it? I meant to point to the two distinct issues, not link them in time. I view the changes in response to those two issues as major turning points in ecclesiology especially in how Augustine used secular powers to curb his Donatist opponents.

The Liturgist said:

And you’re a good one. If my library shelves collapse and I am crushed under the weight of my rare and obscure liturgical texts, I want you to do my funeral! Just be sure to use one of the more rare and exotic BCP editions; the 1928 Deposited Book or the 1929 Scottish book would do nicely.

Click to expand...

Right now I'm not sure I'd be allowed to travel overseas, even to take a funeral, so maybe you'd better have a plan B.

The Liturgist said:

I actually get really emotionally involved in funerals and always have tears on my face at one point or another, which is a weakness; I should project confidence in the resurrection to the laity, but I have extreme empathy and the sadness of the mourners affects me even if I was not well acquainted with the loved one.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that empathy and confidence in the resurrection are necessarily mutually exclusive...

Paidiske said:

Right now I'm not sure I'd be allowed to travel overseas, even to take a funeral, so maybe you'd better have a plan B.

Click to expand...

That’s what we have Zoom and giant flatscreens for!
[/quote]

I am not sure that empathy and confidence in the resurrection are necessarily mutually exclusive...[/QUOTE]

Indeed, I have an extreme confidence in the resurrection and the life of the world to come. I am not a Universalist; I bewail my own sins and work our my salvation with fear and trembling. But I also believe God is love and the source of all mercy and goodness.

What makes me get teary is either my relationship with the loved one or emotional empathy with the family.

My fear is that for those members of the family whose faith is marginal, they might misinterpet my tears as indicative of doubt in eternal life, when that is not why I get weepy at all.

I also tear up during some of the Holy Week services, including the Easter Sunday service, because it is so beautiful, the victory over death. I always read the Paschal Homily of St. Chrysostom because it is superior to anything I could preach, and it is a struggle to read it without choking,

A few other services also affect me this way, such as commemorations of martyrs, the exaltation of the cross, the Dormition, All Saints Day and All Souls Day. However most of these we dont celebrate, although I would if I could get away with it; we do celebrate St, Peter and Paul on the closest Sunday or the Sunday following Trinity Sunday, we do celebrate All Saints Day on the Sunday closest to it (and Reformation Sunday the week before) and we do a Holy Cross Sunday on the Sunday closest to September 14. Unfortunately there is a limit to how high church I can get my congregation; the trick is to dial it up slowly, so for example, this year on the Sunday before Holy Cross Sunday we will commemorate the martyrdom of John the Baptist and I will introduce the people to the long standing custom among Eastern Christians of not eating food on a platter on that day, and we will also add Michaelmas, which is the last BCP service we don’t attempt to squeeze into the adjacent Sunday. We do Transfiguration Sunday, and there was no controversy about that, which pleased me.

Fervent said:

My post did give the impression I was putting them at the same time, didn't it? I meant to point to the two distinct issues, not link them in time. I view the changes in response to those two issues as major turning points in ecclesiology especially in how Augustine used secular powers to curb his Donatist opponents.

Click to expand...

Remember, as important as Augustine was in the West, the Eastern church never had much use for him. Many Orthodox churches don’t even observe his feast days, and many EO texts call him “blessed Augustine” rather than St. Augustine. His contemporary John Cassian is much more widely read and venerated to this day.

Philip_B said:

My Church - Anglican - does hold biblical services and on the first day of the week we gather for the breaking of the bread. (Acts 20:7) We hold the view that in Christ their is neither Male nor Female (Galatians 3:38). We also take the point the Jesus said Come unto me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28).

Click to expand...

YOu really want to reopen the gay issue don't you! If you really believe that fully, then you cannot say there is any longer a sin of homosexuality for there is no male or female!

Philip_B said:

I do have trouble with your argument for it discounts the cultural context as a contributing factor of what was understood and determines it as a divine imperative. Now, as I observe it we do have a differing view of scripture, in that I believe it is inspired and that in the words of scripture we encounter the life giving Word of God; and it would seem that you take is that every word is as if spoken by God himself to be the eternal truth for ever. I realise that in this position neither of us will convince the other.

Click to expand...

It seems that you are implying teh bible is not the Word of God but simply contains the Word of God, and we are left to determine through prayer and whatever what was simply cultural and what is to be taken as binding on the church for all history. That is what has caused the mess teh church is in today before God.

I think God was smart enough without our sage wisdom to determine to inpsire and include in the bible what He wanted teh church to practice until He returns!

Philip_B said:

Now I have little expectation that you will give any credence to what I say or why I say it. I have however found this link from the Baptist Church of South Australia Women in Ministry | Baptist Churches of South Australia which you may find interesting.

Also there is an essay from the Baptist Tradition addressing Paul's writing in 1 and 2 Timothy, that you may also find helpful. https://sabaptist.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Women-preaching-and-the-Bible-Cousins.pdf

Click to expand...

Well I will read when I find time. I have read many well written pieces on the sanctity of women in ministry, but they have to negate the simple passage we are debating.

But what is still lacking is how Paul would write this here and yet in Corinthians write totally different and say it was for all teh churches if this simply means marital faithfulness.

And to call it an idiom so far has been very disingenuous.

I can post 40-50 common American idioms and also chart their development into an idiom. That is evidence and proof it is an idiom. But here "husband of one wife" has been alleged to be an idiom, but yet all that h as been offered is others opinion saying teh same, but no development of grammatic evidence of how this developed into an idiom for simple marital faithfulness as a neuter gender .

Philip_B said:

I would remind you that this is about women priests, not women pastors, and the evidence of scripture and the historic tradition of the Church is that Preaching is but one part of ministry.

None the less last Sunday in our Parish Church, a Woman who is a Priest conducted the liturgy including the Sermon and Reading of the Holy Gospel and the anaphora, a Man read the first reading, a Woman read the 2nd Reading, a woman led the intercession. I am wondering how many of these roles you believe should be open to women and men, and how many should be open to men only (provided of course that they do not have long hair, don't set off the gaydar alarm, and have had only one wife) ?

Click to expand...

Following the Golden rule, gender discretion is not permitted behavior.
If there were such rules, they would not take precedence.

nolidad said:

YOu really want to reopen the gay issue don't you! If you really believe that fully, then you cannot say there is any longer a sin of homosexuality for there is no male or female!

Click to expand...

No Sir, however I note that you appear to have a fixation.

Once again I would remind you of the title of the thread, 'Women Priests', and my post simply referred to a classic Pauline text that suggests that matters such as gender, race, economic reality and social status should not be the defining issues, rather we should focus on our unity in Christ. It was certainly one of the texts that was discussed 30 years ago when the Church in this place was considering the enabling legislation for the Ordination of Women to both the Diaconate and to the Priesthood, as they did not happen at the same time.

Philip_B said:

No Sir, however I note that you appear to have a fixation.

Click to expand...

Yes indeedy.
What Does the Bible Say About The Golden Rule?

Women Priests must be treated by you, just as you would wish Women priests should treat you.

Man - woman - woman woman - woman man..binary, non-binary..black, white yellow, brown, all persons must be treated =....well you can read it for yourself.
Yes, the church happens to have some written history. Or they don't.

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Luke 6:31
And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Galatians 5:14
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Matthew 22:39
And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

James 2:8
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

sparow said:

In my minimum experience women make good Priests; but does the Law allow for women priests; does the law forbid women priest? Does women Priests depend on the law being abrogated? Are women Priests a judgement on the inadequacy of men?

Click to expand...

Christ was a man, thus his representatives here on this earth are men.

Women have an important role in the Church, it is not in the priesthood though