women as priests

Paidiske said:

When we are discussing the meaning of "priest" in contemporary Christian usage, surely evidence of contemporary Christian understanding is not irrelevant?

Click to expand...

Not at the expense of scripture. Scripture defines "contemporary Christian understanding," not the other way around. We, you and I, agree that not everything in modernity is bad or wrong, but on any occasion where modernity directly contradicts explicit statements or precedents in scripture then the error is modernity's, not scripture's. In the case of "priest," there may be liberty to organize and structure Christians and their leadership in ways not known in the NT era but that is not a license to do anything.

Paidiske said:

All cases, no.

Click to expand...

Then don't change the subject.

Paidiske said:

But again, if we are discussing what the contemporary role of a Christian priest is...

Click to expand...

We are not. We're discussing whether or not women can be priests. Nothing more. To define the term "priest" in any way other than the precedents set in scripture is to assert what is de facto extra-biblical. To then use that extra-biblical definition to answer a question creates several fallacies, beginning with special pleading.

Paidiske said:

...then surely the practice and understanding of communities which have priests is relevant?

Click to expand...

No. It is not. That's part of the problem and the reasons why women have been excluded from positions in which they might otherwise serve God and do so well.

Paidiske said:

It was not exactly equivalent, I agree...

Click to expand...

Then do not make that argument. It is fallacious.

Paidiske said:

...the world has changed, the church has changed...

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. If the role has changed in order to prohibit women, or changed in any manner that excludes women contrary to the standards and precedents set in the NT then all those changes are wrong. Change, in and of itself is not wrong, but the types of change may well be so.

Paidiske said:

...and the way this role is expressed has changed.

Click to expand...

According to who? Is it the Catholics, the Anglicans, or the Lutherans who get to serve as arbiters?

Paidiske said:

But modern day Christian priests are functioning in the NT office of elder, even though that office has developed somewhat over the last twenty centuries.

Click to expand...

Maybe in your denomination, but not in mine or in many others.


Your avatar looks female, and your profile says you're female. If that is the case, then whatever institution/organization it is in which you participate as a priest then your existence answers the question asked. Why is there a need to redefine the term(s)? I was raised in the Episcopal Church and came to Christ, after many years away, in a conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist, charismatic Episcopal congregation. In the Episcopal churches here in America there are the ministers (priests or reverends) and the vestry (administrative elders). Wiki puts it this way: "The title 'Elder' is usually given to those Anglicans ministers who are not vicars but hold a learned role within or beyond a congregation, such as a Reader who assists a priest or a Pioneer Minister who seeks to engage with those who are outside the traditional Anglican Communion structures." That is just an example. The salient point is that the Anglican Church does not get to define terms for all the rest of Christendom. The Presbyterian Church, alternatively calls both the priest/minister/reverend and those elected to administrate the local congregation "Elders," but it makes a distinction between the "teaching elder" (the priest/minister/reverend) and the presbyters, who make up the "ruling elders", (sometimes called, "committee elders," or "administrative elders)." The priest does not rule the congregation and the elders do not teach (unless denominationally qualified to do so). Why should we not have that example define the matter and require everyone in Christendom to follow that example?

Can you see the problem?

Can you see how far afield of the op you've gotten?

2PhiloVoid said:

Ok. From what you're saying above, and even though I think you're overdoing it on dismissing Kroeger's arguments as they sit in the specific book that I cited earlier to Paidiske, it sounds like both of us are more or less not against women playing some role(s) in Church Leadership.

With this assumption then, can I take it that we're in general agreement about women's roles in the Church?

Click to expand...

I am not "against" Kroeger (I simply think she's unnecessary and somewhat problematic) and I am wholly in support of women in leadership positions, even over men, no matter what those roles are titled, as long as it is not the elder/deacon as described in scripture and even on those occasions I read scripture to be speaking about married women where their husbands already serve in the same role.

I'm sure we are all familiar with the problems often inherent in family-run congregations and how divisive it can be to have a husband and wife disagreeing on congregational governance (and how difficult that might be for a priest/minister/reverend sitting on that vestry committee).





At the risk of causing another tangent and proving myself hypocritical, let me run a real-life scenario by you and @Paidiske. I am a retired mental health counselor. Many times I have had ministers (priests, ministers, reverends, pastors - I'll use the word "minister" as a generic reference even though I am aware of certain sectarian differences) as clients. Those in the more institutional and liturgical denominations often come to private practices because of apprehensions about using whatever in-house resources their denomination might possess. A small percentage of them quite literally imagine themselves authorities everywhere they go - including the inside of a counselor's office. Most of these would-be "kings" are denominational (and many of them have little formal training like that of a seminary) but that's not always the case. I've worked with ministers from just about every denomination/sect within Christendom. I mention these self-styled "kings" because they are not rulers of anything in my office. And I make that quite clear, and I do so upfront the first time we meet because if they will not bow to the fact their lives are out of control (meaning they are not kings of their own lives, so how can they be kings over anyone else?) then I will gladly refer them to another therapist. I've seen and heard some very unscriptural and spiritually and psychological responses. These next words may sound odd to either of you, but they have proven effective for many ministers (I, for one, was surprised the first it was attempted, and it worked). I tell them, "In this room I am the minister to the ministers (or priest to the priests, pastor to the pastors, etc.) and as such we need to establish some boundaries because neither one of us is in authority."

The point of the example is there are occasions when priests subordinate themselves to what we might accurately call, "the priests of the priests," or "minister of the ministers." We normally call them "counselors" but counselors also, like ministers, go by many names (therapists, psychotherapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.).

Can a woman be a counselor?

If so, can a female counselor counsel priests - can she serve as a priest to the priests?





Assuming the answer is affirmative then I trust the absurdity of this op's question is also recognized and is accompanied with sadness over the ways we have for centuries obfuscated God's word to restrict half of the body of Christ from serving us in God-given roles of leadership.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


There is a reason why circumcision is not required.

Josheb said:

Not at the expense of scripture. Scripture defines "contemporary Christian understanding," not the other way around.

Click to expand...

How does it do that when the cultures are so different?

Jesus told his disciples to wash people's feet as he had done. How many times have you told your guests to take their socks/tights off and put their feet in a bowl of soapy water?
Paul said that long hair on a man is disgraceful. It may not look nice or be unhygienic, but disgraceful? No. Ditto with women and short hair.
Are you saying that our contemporary understanding about hairstyles is determined by what happened in the first century? What about clothes? Diet? Forms of transport?
What about mobile phones, computers, PowerPoint etc etc which are not even hinted at in Scripture?

Let's look at some church examples. Where does Scripture say that we have to own our church buildings? Or have various committees so that some small places spend more time on building maintenance than on spreading the Gospel? Or even, come to that, have a 1 hour church service every Sunday which someone else takes?
Where does the NT say that only an ordained member of the clergy may preside at communion? Where does the NT say "they broke bread every day - always making sure that one of the Apostles was present to read the account of the Last Supper" (There wasn't one.)
Having an ordained Minister/Priest/Vicar to celebrate communion is not Scriptural. Yet I'm sure that every mainstream Christian denomination follows that practice - even those who say "we are not going to ordain women because we don't believe it's Scriptural."

Josheb said:

Not at the expense of scripture. Scripture defines "contemporary Christian understanding," not the other way around.

Click to expand...

I don't see how the contemporary use of the word priest for the NT office of elder is "at the expense of Scripture."

Josheb said:

Then do not make that argument. It is fallacious.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It doesn't have to be exactly equivalent to be close enough to be a legitimate use of the term.

Josheb said:

According to who? Is it the Catholics, the Anglicans, or the Lutherans who get to serve as arbiters?

Click to expand...

We each determine such things within our own ecclesial communities.

Josheb said:

Why is there a need to redefine the term(s)?

Click to expand...

I am confused. Which term do you think I am redefining?

Josheb said:

The Presbyterian Church, alternatively calls both the priest/minister/reverend and those elected to administrate the local congregation "Elders," but it makes a distinction between the "teaching elder" (the priest/minister/reverend) and the presbyters, who make up the "ruling elders", (sometimes called, "committee elders," or "administrative elders)." The priest does not rule the congregation and the elders do not teach (unless denominationally qualified to do so). Why should we not have that example define the matter and require everyone in Christendom to follow that example?

Click to expand...

Would it not be better to say that the Presbyterian model, and the Anglican model, and whatever other models there might be, are all contemporary expressions of the NT office of elder?

Josheb said:

Can you see how far afield of the op you've gotten?

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem far afield to me at all. If we're discussing whether women can be priests, we need to be clear what it is we mean by "priests." And in the contemporary church, we don't mean what Koine Greek would describe as a hiereus; we mean what it would describe as a presbyteros. And one of the reasons that that is important, is that it means that the Levitical restriction of OT priesthood to men is not relevant.

Have women priests ever made a Church better and more orthodox? Why is it that Churches which have women in charge tend to deviate from historic orthodoxy more so than Churches which do not? Key examples being the liberal Anglican and Lutheran Churches in which Christianity seems more like an option rather than a necessity.

Strong in Him said:

How does it do that when the cultures are so different?

Click to expand...

Has the thread been read? I believe the thread already answers and addresses that question and does so diversely.

Strong in Him said:

Jesus told his disciples to wash people's feet as he had done. How many times have you told your guests to take their socks/tights off and put their feet in a bowl of soapy water?
Paul said that long hair on a man is disgraceful. It may not look nice or be unhygienic, but disgraceful? No. Ditto with women and short hair.
Are you saying that our contemporary understanding about hairstyles is determined by what happened in the first century? What about clothes? Diet? Forms of transport?
What about mobile phones, computers, PowerPoint etc etc which are not even hinted at in Scripture?

Let's look at some church examples. Where does Scripture say that we have to own our church buildings? Or have various committees so that some small places spend more time on building maintenance than on spreading the Gospel? Or even, come to that, have a 1 hour church service every Sunday which someone else takes?
Where does the NT say that only an ordained member of the clergy may preside at communion? Where does the NT say "they broke bread every day - always making sure that one of the Apostles was present to read the account of the Last Supper" (There wasn't one.)
Having an ordained Minister/Priest/Vicar to celebrate communion is not Scriptural.

Click to expand...

What is the question asked in this op?

Strong in Him said:

Yet I'm sure that every mainstream Christian denomination follows that practice - even those who say "we are not going to ordain women because we don't believe it's Scriptural."

Click to expand...

Factually, that is incorrect, and logically your personal surety is irrelevant and any appeal to it is fallacious. What you are "sure" of has been addressed in this thread and addressed decisively by multiple posters. I do not care what "every Christian mainstream Christian denomination follows." Those answering from denominationally-defined perspectives have made those povs known. What I do care about is what the whole of scripture teaches when rendered correctly.


I noted Post 10 asserts, "No, Paul says 'I do not permit a woman to teach .... she must be silent.' That is very far from saying that no woman can speak in church. Paul did not forbid women from worshipping."

Paul did, in fact, say he did not permit a woman to teach BUT he said that in a letter to his pastoral letter to Timothy after decades of affirming women in leadership positions over me. The aforementioned Priscilla and Junias were female apostles. Multiple women in the church in Corinth prophetesses. Prophetesses teach. The first witnesses - teachers - of the resurrection were women and without them the men might never have known for days. Deborah taught men and had authority over them (that's why I started my op-reply with her example). A whole-scripture approach requires us to understand Paul's words to Timothy in its (limited) context and NOT to overgeneralize those words eisegetically to subordinate (or subjugate) all women in all circumstances. The practice of singling out one verse and forcing it to define all others is called "proof-texting." It is a practice to be avoided and disdained. Paul's words cannot be made to contradict the example set by Deborah (or any of the other female leaders in scripture).

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Have women priests ever made a Church better and more orthodox?

Click to expand...

Why should a strictly utilitarian approach be the measure and who gets to decide?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Why is it that Churches which have women in charge tend to deviate from historic orthodoxy more so than Churches which do not?

Click to expand...

Evidence?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Key examples being the liberal Anglican and Lutheran Churches in which Christianity seems more like an option rather than a necessity.

Click to expand...

rotflmbo! Women did not make Anglicans or Lutherans liberal.

Josheb said:

Why should a strictly utilitarian approach be the measure and who gets to decide?

Click to expand...

I simply ask the question. Do women in leadership actually make a Church more orthodox. I just don't see it in the churches which do have women in charge. They become less orthodox or are already less orthodox.

Do you have any examples of women actually benefitting a Church and directing it to be more orthodox?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Have women priests ever made a Church better and more orthodox?

Click to expand...

If God calls women to be priests, then yes, ordaining those women makes the church better; in that it is faithfully obedient to God.

And if we're talking sheer pragmatics, the rates of abuse by women clergy are much lower than the rates amongst the men, and, I would argue, the presence of women clergy makes it more difficult for the men to form boys' clubs in which that behaviour is covered up.

Paidiske said:

If God calls women to be priests, then yes, ordaining those women makes the church better; in that it is faithfully obedient to God.

And if we're talking sheer pragmatics, the rates of abuse by women clergy are much lower than the rates amongst the men, and, I would argue, the presence of women clergy makes it more difficult for the men to form boys' clubs in which that behaviour is covered up.

Click to expand...

Doesn't answer my question.

FYI, for those with an interest: "Shall Women Preach?" c. 1891, by Louisa Woosley, the first female ordained in the Presbyterian Church (Note: this is a pdf file).

I also recommend....

"10 Lies the Church Tells Women," by J. Lee Grady
"Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," by John Pipe and Wayne Grudem
"Man and Woman in Christ" by Stephen B. Clark
"Two Views on Women in Ministry," edited by Stanley Gundry
"Women in Ministry," edited by Bonnidell and Robert Clouse
"Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate," by Michelle Lee-Barnwall

There are others (a husband-and-wife team the Kostenbergers, and the aforementioned Catherine Kroeger, for example have written books on the topic) that could be added but these will suffice to provide an array of argument. I do not wholly agree with any of them. Reading them will provide plenty of good rationale and plenty of lame rationale. It will be observed that most approach the matter from a 'roles" perspective (a word that is nowhere found in the Bible). A reader with a good knowledge of scripture and some prowess with the basics of logic (and fallacy) will likely find them all informative but ultimately wanting if s/he checks the authors' exegesis against scripture. Btw, these are conservative authors, not subscribers to liberal or feminist theologies. I can add some feminist writings upon request, but I didn't see anyone here arguing that pov.

Paidiske said:

If God calls women to be priests, then yes, ordaining those women makes the church better; in that it is faithfully obedient to God.

And if we're talking sheer pragmatics, the rates of abuse by women clergy are much lower than the rates amongst the men, and, I would argue, the presence of women clergy makes it more difficult for the men to form boys' clubs in which that behaviour is covered up.

Click to expand...

Well said.

It's worth noting that sexual abuse is a very small percentage all clergy (about 2%), but the vast majority of sexual abuses by clergy (88% in the RCC) are same-sex abuses). Both those stats are much less (and therefore more "orthodox") among women.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Doesn't answer my question.

Click to expand...

Aside from the fact the question is fallacious, yes, it does answer the question.

The degree to which a cleric is orthodox is dependent upon their devotion and education, not their sex. Women are just as intelligent, just as industrious, and can be just as educated as any man. That means they can be just as correct (orthodox), or just as incorrect (heretical) as a man. Those from the Orthodox Church may not find the RCC or Protestants orthodox but the same holds true in reverse.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Do you have any examples of women actually benefitting a Church and directing it to be more orthodox?

Click to expand...

Deborah, Mary and Mary, Priscilla, and Junias.

Josheb said:

Well said.

It's worth noting that sexual abuse is a very small percentage all clergy (about 2%), but the vast majority of sexual abuses by clergy (88% in the RCC) are same-sex abuses). Both those stats are much less (and therefore more "orthodox") among women.

Aside from the fact the question is fallacious, yes, it does answer the question.

The degree to which a cleric is orthodox is dependent upon their devotion and education, not their sex. Women are just as intelligent, just as industrious, and can be just as educated as any man. That means they can be just as correct (orthodox), or just as incorrect (heretical) as a man. Those from the Orthodox Church may not find the RCC or Protestants orthodox but the same holds true in reverse.

Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't answer my question. If what you say is true and that women are equal to men in all respects should we not see churches which place women in positions of authorities becoming more orthodox and not less? This is why I asked for examples of churches which have females in leadership as actually making churches more orthodox.

From what I can see, all it does is accelerate the decline of orthodoxy. One doesn't even need to be Christian to be an Anglican these days. The utilitarian element can't be ignored and if it's going to make the Orthodox or Catholic Churches less Orthodox and less Catholic respectively why should we accept.

Josheb said:

Deborah, Mary and Mary, Priscilla, and Junias.

Click to expand...

What Church was Mary overseer or elder of?

KisKatte said:

Halo,

I want to know your opinions. Your sincere personal opinions.

God allowed divorce because of the hardened hearts of the men/husbands. Only because of that. So the law has a SENSE OF MEANING and is not for the bad but for the good. And if time change, the law is changed by God, too!

Click to expand...

There was never supposed to be divorce. Divorce is sin. Jesus fulfilled that law by placing it back where it always should have been. Not allowed.
So any divorce argument will not help you here.

Uncaring Jerks as church leaders is nothing new. To Jesus or us. Again. That does not help your argument. God tells us to obey our Governments. This was during the time of Rome. When they treated Christians horribly!

The Law does not change. It gets set back by Jesus, from what man made it, to what God created it for.

KisKatte said:

And also it is written in the scripture that the letter is killing (= the written law), that instead we should be from the spirit! Yes it is written that women should shout their mouths in the church. But also it is written in the bible that also the daughters, not only the sons, will make prophecy in the future. Times are hard.

Click to expand...

Times are always hard. Deborah took up and lead the people. Because Men abdicated their responsibilities. She should not have had to. The men were weak and full of fear and sin.

KisKatte said:

Many priests for example are loyal to the aggressors if the aggressor is a man and do not allow the abused women to divorce. This is only one example. Yes a women priest can be lead out of the right path in DETAILS but in general I believe because of the abuse of power of man, wich did NOT stop in front of the church doors, we need women as priests.

Click to expand...

Female priests will not fix sin. There is no earthly fix for sin.
Neither does a woman need divorce or permission to leave an abusive spouse. Women in abusive situations have tons more opportunities and resources in 2024 then in 1700's 1400's, 800's. etc.
And spouse that is being abused by their spouse, I would recommend separation. And calling the police.
Women who cannot advocate for themselves are in a very difficult situation. Leave. Lock the doors. Call the police.

KisKatte said:

Also I do not believe in a too great difference between women and men. Maybe not EVERY woman should become clergy member. But some should for sure. Also only Paul the apostel, who first was chasing the christians wrote against women. Possibly at THAT time women were not capable to become clergy or even only the specific place Paul addressed his letter to. Now is another time. Another apostle writes there is no difference between men and women.

Click to expand...

Scripture is for all time.
God is not a respector of persons. But he does apply roles to us. Fathers, mothers, children, masters, sub-ordinates, etc. And their are hierarchies. Governments, High Priests, family.

KisKatte said:

I do not believe in a perfect book, because God existed also before the bible existed and there is no perfect church neither a perfect book. We should also be capable to think logically for our own. So tell me just your since opinion. Would you like women as priests if this is a capable woman?

Click to expand...

God's Word is perfect.
We do use our logic. And logic tells us what a good argument is and what an invalid argument is.
Much of your arguments are based upon how things are in the World. And that scripture does not stop these bad things. That is not a valid argument.

I am very careful who we 'church' with. My wife picked out the church that we go to. She found it. It is very good!
My wife has no desire to be a pastor or head of the church or head of the family. She knows that is not her role.
I know my role is to get my wife's input on virtually every significant decision I make. I would be a fool to not ask her input.
She rarely gets what she wants. I rarely get what I want. We get what is the best decision, most practical, and the most wise.

Men not obeying scripture by being abusive to women is not resolved by women church leaders. There are other avenues.
First is to pick a good husband based upon how they treat others that they can treat poorly if they like. Disabled, handicapped, elderly, service workers. How they read scripture. What scripture means to them.

Peace and Blessings.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

What Church was Mary overseer or elder of?

Click to expand...

If there is a church, then she is an elder of that church by virtue of being the first to bear witness to the risen Lord. All other elders are elders by virtue of that primary function, i.e., to bear witness to Christ. The origin of that function is the direct link between the risen Lord and her indubitable; first-hand experience of Christ. How is that not obvious to you?

public hermit said:

If there is a church, then she is an elder of that church by virtue of being the first to bear witness to the risen Lord. All other elders are elders by virtue of that primary function, i.e., to bear witness to Christ. How is that not obvious to you?

Click to expand...

So what Church was she in control over as elder?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

So what Church was she in control over as elder?

Click to expand...

Control? What control? You have heard how the gentiles lord it over their subjects, it will not be so among you. The one who is greatest must become least and serve. The Son of Man came....Christianity 101.

Not to be contrary, but I also think your assumption that having women clergy leads to a rejection of orthodoxy doesn't follow. There are so many women serving right now, I know many personally, that can say the creeds without their fingers crossed behind their backs. They love our risen Lord as much as anyone, they're super-talented, and they fill the gap men have abandoned. And like Jesus, they're often more compassionate than the empire of Christendom. Lol

public hermit said:

Control? What control? You have heard how the gentiles lord it over their subjects, it will not be so among you. The one who is greatest must become least and serve. The Son of Man came....Christianity 101.

Not to be contrary, but I also think your assumption that having women clergy leads to a rejection of orthodoxy doesn't follow. There are so many women serving right now, I know many personally, that can say the creeds without their fingers crossed behind their backs. They love our risen Lord as much as anyone, they're super-talented, and they fill the gap men have abandoned. And like Jesus, they're often more compassionate than the empire of Christendom. Lol

Click to expand...

public hermit said:

Control? What control? You have heard how the gentiles lord it over their subjects, it will not be so among you. The one who is greatest must become least and serve. The Son of Man came....Christianity 101.

Click to expand...

So why then should women want positions of leadership if they can be greater as servants?

Wouldn't Mary in a position of elder make her inferior to women who aren't in that position?

But you get what i mean when i say control. So lets not play games. I mean a person in direct leadership position with the authority to make decisions within a community. What Church was she in charge of according to your understanding?

public hermit said:

Not to be contrary, but I also think your assumption that having women clergy leads to a rejection of orthodoxy doesn't follow. There are so many women serving right now, I know many personally, that can say the creeds without their fingers crossed behind their backs. They love our risen Lord as much as anyone, they're super-talented, and they fill the gap men have abandoned. And like Jesus, they're often more compassionate than the empire of Christendom. Lol

Click to expand...

Am I to believe that historic Christendom has been in error since apostolic times based on the last sentence?

Why appeal to the councils then which excluded women priest and bishops from attending and participating in such discussions?

Also what churches are these women you know part of?