women as priests

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

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

Click to expand...

You say that as if "leader" and "servant" are not equivalent. That's a fundamental disagreement between us (as our many previous discussions have established).

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

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

Click to expand...

I don't think so but welcome your clarification. Are elders superior to the rest of the body of Christ? To me, that starts off on the wrong foot from the get go.

Elders are elders if and only if they are servants. I take a position of strong equivalence versus your position of superiority and inferiority. In Christ, there is no slave or free, superior or inferior, etc. Yes?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

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?

Click to expand...

There are churches today where women are in direct leadership positions. That might not be the case for your particular church, but they exist as ordained by those who stand in the same relation to the same Lord and Spirit as yours. No?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

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

Click to expand...

You can believe what you want, patriarchy is not of Christ. It's more akin to Roman paterfamilias than to followers of Jesus Christ.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

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?

Click to expand...

Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian. I know y'all appeal to councils. Councils are good and needed but not necessarily infallible.

Josheb said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I already know that you're a retired mental health counselor, and being that I've been the son of a mental patient, I can appreciate your work.

I know, too, that we may not agree on what constitutes "proper exegesis" and/or hermeneutics, but at least we essentially agree about how women have a place at the table of leadership within the Church, one that has at times been misconstrued and mishandled by various men within the Church over the last nearly 2,000 years.

As for Catherine Kroeger, I don't fully rely upon her 'exegesis' where 1 Timothy 2 is concerned, but where her comments are useful, I'm more interested in her overall hermeneutical/historical study of the possible cultural background encompassing the church in Ephesus during Paul and Timothy's time. It's for this reason that I tend to refer to her treatment of 1 Timothy 2, the one found in the book I've cited on occasion.

So, thank you for your additional perspective on this topic.

davetaff said:

Hi in Christ we are all equal

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

Love and Peace
Dave

Click to expand...

Then Women are fathers and men are mothers?
Or are there also roles in play?

Or is the HS the Father, and the Father is the Son, and the Son is the HS?

So being equal in Christ is not a catch all for all things.

Peace and Blessings

davetaff said:

Hi seams we have a contradiction the thing is if a woman is in Christ she is not a woman she is a child of God and it seams there is no sex definition in the body of Christ so could such a person be allowed to teach I cant see why not.

Love and Peace
Dave

Click to expand...

It is right there in front of you. But you say you can't see why not?

1Ti 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Peace and Blessings

Strong in Him said:

So that one verse, taken out of context, overrides the fact that Paul had female co-workers, that Priscilla taught Apollos, that Deborah had been judge over all Israel, that both the OT and NT had female prophets?

Click to expand...

Odd that you use the phrase 'out of context' then do so yourself.

Did she? You seem to be leaving out someone? Aquila?

Expound is passive

1. to place or set out, put outside, expose
2. to set up, exhibit
3. metaph. to set forth, declare, expound

Deborah was during a time when the men had abdicated all responsibilities.

Peace and Blessings

BeeFive said:

Read about all the females in the Bible.

Miriam, sister of moses and aaron were all Levi priests.
Debra
Hulda
Philips 2 daughters
Priscilla

Click to expand...

Very incorrect. Very sloppy.

Peace and Blessings

public hermit said:

You say that as if "leader" and "servant" are not equivalent. That's a fundamental disagreement between us (as our many previous discussions have established).

Click to expand...

They aren't equivalent exactly. At least not in authority. You maintain Mary had such authority over a Church. Which church was she in charge of as a Pastor/elder/priestess.

public hermit said:

I don't think so but welcome your clarification. Are elders superior to the rest of the body of Christ? To me, that starts off on the wrong foot from the get go.

Click to expand...

Isn't your point that elders are the lowest in the church? That's how I take your interpretation of Christ to read.

public hermit said:

Elders are elders if and only if they are servants. I take a position of strong equivalence versus your position of superiority and inferiority. In Christ, there is no slave or free, superior or inferior, etc. Yes?

Click to expand...

If all are equal then why do women need to be in positions of power per this reckoning? That is if there is no functional or actual difference between any Christian then it should not matter whether women are elders.

public hermit said:

There are churches today where women are in direct leadership positions. That might not be the case for your particular church, but they exist as ordained by those who stand in the same relation to the same Lord and Spirit as yours. No?

Click to expand...

I mean that's difficult to know. It's hard to tell what many so called Christian churches actually believe, especially the Churches which ordain women. It doesn't seem clear to me they are necessarily Christian. I cannot assume that since they are free to dispense with all received teaching.

public hermit said:

You can believe what you want, patriarchy is not of Christ. It's more akin to Roman paterfamilias than to followers of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Patriarchy seems to be written in nature and existed in God's people long before the Romans. Also given how Christians did not utterly reverse this and embrace your latter egalitarian worldview until liberalism with its assumption of equality its difficult for you to make the assertion that patriarchy is merely a Roman holdover. We know of many priests and bishops in the history of thr church. They were men. Was the early Church in fundamental error until your Church and understanding come about?

public hermit said:

Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian. I know y'all appeal to councils. Councils are good and needed but not necessarily infallible.

Click to expand...

Well you don't even have to be a Christian to be Episcopalian these days. Also since you disregard the creeds and uphold these Churches, should I take that as emblematic of their attitudes as well? Why care about the creeds at all when the men who crafted them excluded all those women priestesses?

I have still yet to see how appointing women as clerics actually benefits a Church community or makes it more Orthodox. All those Churches you appeal to are dying the fastest.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

What Church was Mary overseer or elder of?

Click to expand...

The only Church that has ever existed. The question is a red herring and I'm not interested in the fallacy. The fact is she taught men, so regardless of how small or grand that lesson was, she stands as an example providing context to 1 Tim. 2:12.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

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?

Click to expand...

The logic here is, again, faulty. Women are not equal in all respects, and neither are all women equal to each other. Your set up is faulty. So too is everything built on the faulty set up. Furthermore, you've got a false-cause fallacy because any equality does not cause churches to do anything. It is this kind of reasoning that has caused the problem from the beginning.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

This is why I asked for examples of churches which have females in leadership as actually making churches more orthodox.

Click to expand...

Then the motive was faulty.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

From what I can see, all it does is accelerate the decline of orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

Scripture sets the standard for orthodoxy, not a sectarian denomination calling itself the "Church". The fact of scripture is women can and do hold positions of leadership throughout the Bible, and they do so in both Old and New Testaments, and the do so in positions of power and authority over men in which they undeniably teach men in various ways, doctrinally and practically. THAT is the standard of orthodoxy. ANY "church" denying those facts or attempting to qualify them in a manner minimizing, qualifying, or dismissing them is unorthodox. Misogyny accelerates the decline of orthodoxy.

What would an Eastern Orthodox cleric do if Deborah stood before him?

Female leaders may be a minority percentage in the Old and New eras and, as a minority, the may be the exception to the rule, not the rule, but to have a rule denying those exceptions is prima facie contrary to that precedent. Once the facts of scripture are acknowledged the question then becomes, "How do we develop and decide such a leadership in the body of Christ?" and NOT the denial of all women as priests. The legalistic among us would try and make sure the exact ration of women to men found in scripture is maintained.... leading to more accelerated decline in orthodoxy. Legalism kills. So too does antinomianism. It's likely there were female judges other than Deborah and female apostles other than Priscilla and Junias. Just because those are the only ones mentioned does not mean they were the only ones existing.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

One doesn't even need to be Christian to be an Anglican these days.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

The utilitarian element can't be ignored...

Click to expand...

No but it is completely fallacious as the sole measure.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

...and if it's going to make the Orthodox or Catholic Churches less Orthodox and less Catholic respectively why should we accept.

Click to expand...

ROTFLMBO! The requirement for priests to remain unmarried is wholly unscriptural. While Paul was single, Peter was not. All the Levitical priests in the Bible were all married as far as we know. One of the requirements of 1 Tim. 3's overseers is their being married to one woman, so anyone also arguing priest is synonymous with elder has an instant contradiction in their case. In fact, the RCC permitted priest to marry for several centuries before it was officially imposed in the 12th century! When you write that sentence understand it reads as nothing more than a confession of unorthodoxy and heresy that directly and openly conflicts with any and all appeals for scriptural orthodoxy. Huge fail. The RCC and EO would be MORE orthodox with scripture if and when they allow priests to marry!

The religious indoctrination and disregard for scripture is so rife in Posts 174, 175, 178, and 180 that the moniker under your handle should be reconsidered.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

All those Churches you appeal to are dying the fastest.

Click to expand...

Is it being suggested that women caused the decline?

KisKatte said:

Halo,

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

Click to expand...

My previous comment was deleted (apparently the censorship rules are similar to that of a secular world), so let me respond to KisKatte's invitation to offer my sincere, personal opinion with this summary of my original reply.

1 Timothy 2:11 KJV - 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Timothy 2:12 KJV - 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 KJV - 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.

1 Timothy 3:2 KJV - 2 A bishop [elder, pastor] then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ...

Titus 1:5-6 KJV - 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city ... 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one
wife ...

A godly, Christian woman does not do the opposite of what God tells her to do.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

They aren't equivalent exactly. At least not in authority. You maintain Mary had such authority over a Church. Which church was she in charge of as a Pastor/elder/priestess.

Isn't your point that elders are the lowest in the church? That's how I take your interpretation of Christ to read.

If all are equal then why do women need to be in positions of power per this reckoning? That is if there is no functional or actual difference between any Christian then it should not matter whether women are elders.

I mean that's difficult to know. It's hard to tell what many so called Christian churches actually believe, especially the Churches which ordain women. It doesn't seem clear to me they are necessarily Christian. I cannot assume that since they are free to dispense with all received teaching.

Patriarchy seems to be written in nature and existed in God's people long before the Romans. Also given how Christians did not utterly reverse this and embrace your latter egalitarian worldview until liberalism with its assumption of equality its difficult for you to make the assertion that patriarchy is merely a Roman holdover. We know of many priests and bishops in the history of thr church. They were men. Was the early Church in fundamental error until your Church and understanding come about?

Well you don't even have to be a Christian to be Episcopalian these days. Also since you disregard the creeds and uphold these Churches, should I take that as emblematic of their attitudes as well? Why care about the creeds at all when the men who crafted them excluded all those women priestesses?

I have still yet to see how appointing women as clerics actually benefits a Church community or makes it more Orthodox. All those Churches you appeal to are dying the fastest.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter; clearly you're going to favor misogyny and reject the faith of those who don't belong to your church. It's an old tale, antiquated and no longer viable.

Traditionalist often make this mistake. They mistake historical contexts for the movement of the Spirit. *Misogyny is throughout our history; therefore, misogyny is the will of the Spirit.* It's no different than *This is the way we've always done it; therefore, this is the way it should be done.* Appeals to tradition are not inherently fallacious but they're not inherently correct, either.

Your going to have to come up with something interesting to say if you want to make your point. Are women less than men? Prove to me they are less than, that somehow they are spiritually less than men and by that fact, they are not fitting as priests, and I'll agree. Otherwise, you're letting the unfortunate and sinful history of patriarchy, i.e., the subjugation of women, make your case for you. If that's it, we disagree and there's no point continuing.

public hermit said:

It doesn't matter; clearly you're going to favor misogyny and reject the faith of those who don't belong to your church. It's an old tale, antiquated and no longer viable.

Click to expand...

Unless you think the Church from antiquity hated women then I don't know where you come up with the idea of mysogony. I just happen to believe Christianity as it was once delivered. I try not to have my opinions swayed by modern sentiments.

public hermit said:

Traditionalist often make this mistake. They mistake historical contexts for the movement of the Spirit. *Misogyny is throughout our history; therefore, misogyny is the will of the Spirit.* It's no different than *This is the way we've always done it; therefore, this is the way it should be done.* Appeals to tradition are not inherently fallacious but they're not inherently correct, either.

Click to expand...

So the Church historically hated women throughout most of its existence since it would not permit them to be priestesses?

public hermit said:

Your going to have to come up with something interesting to say if you want to make your point. Are women less than men? Prove to me they are less than, that somehow they are spiritually less than men and by that fact, they are not fitting as priests, and I'll agree. Otherwise, you're letting the unfortunate and sinful history of patriarchy, i.e., the subjugation of women, make your case for you. If that's it, we disagree and there's no point continuing.

Click to expand...

Well let me ask you, are women equal to men in all respects? Or are we different at all?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Unless you think the Church from antiquity hated women then I don't know where you come up with the idea of mysogony. I just happen to believe Christianity as it was once delivered. I try not to have my opinions swayed by modern sentiments.

So the Church historically hated women throughout most of its existence since it would not permit them to be priestesses?

Well let me ask you, are women equal to men in all respects? Or are we different at all?

Click to expand...

I was being a little too generous in the way I phrased that and left room for you to deflect. Please, accept my apologies. To be clear, unless you can show women are spiritually less than men, and by that fact unable to be priests, nothing you can say on this subject interests me.

public hermit said:

I was being a little too generous in the way I phrased that and left room for you to deflect. Please, accept my apologies. To be clear, unless you can show women are spiritually less than men, and by that fact unable to be priests, nothing you can say on this subject interests me.

Click to expand...

Are you of the opinion inequality implies total inferiority instead of difference? There are women who can be more holy than a male priest, but it's not their holiness which prohibits them from being clergy. It is the difference of our nature and what God has ordained.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Are you of the opinion inequality implies total inferiority instead of difference? There are women who can be more holy than a male priest, but it's not their holiness which prohibits them from being clergy. It is the difference of our nature and what God has ordained.

Click to expand...

If you're appealing to tradition concerning what God ordains, I've already said my piece on that. If you're appealing to scripture, I've said my piece on that, too. If Christ revealed himself to a woman and then sent her to the men to bear witness, the precedent is set, i.e. in Christ the difference between male and female doesn't matter. I'm not going back and forth with you regarding either tradition or scripture.

But I am curious to hear more about "nature." What do you mean? What is it about the nature of women that precludes them from being priests?

public hermit said:

If you're appealing to tradition concerning what God ordains, I've already said my piece on that. If you're appealing to scripture, I've said my piece on that, too. If Christ revealed himself to a woman and then sent her to the men to bear witness, the precedent is set, i.e. in Christ the difference between male and female doesn't matter. I'm not going back and forth with you regarding either tradition or scripture.

Click to expand...

Except that only means that Christ thought of women as witnesses. Not ordained elders. Jesus could have appointed a woman as such yet he and the Apostles didn't. You're desperately trying to read into something an interpretation which isn't warranted. Like Mary being an Elder over a Church.

public hermit said:

But I am curious to hear more about "nature." What do you mean? What is it about the nature of women that precludes them from being priests?

Click to expand...

What is it about their nature that enables them to be priests? We know men can be priests and this is indisputable. Their intelligence? Their acumen? This is why I asked if you think men and women are entirely equal in respects to their nature. Do you believe this?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Except that only means that Christ thought of women as witnesses. Not ordained elders. Jesus could have appointed a woman as such yet he and the Apostles didn't. You're desperately trying to read into something an interpretation which isn't warranted. Like Mary being an Elder over a Church.

What is it about their nature that enables them to be priests? We know men can be priests and this is indisputable. Their intelligence? Their acumen? This is why I asked if you think men and women are entirely equal in respects to their nature. Do you believe this?

Click to expand...

Are women spiritually inferior to men in such a way that precludes them from being priests? If so, how? Clearly, I don't think so, in any way, so stop deflecting.

(I basically disagree with you interpretation of what the Jewish law was.

You assume that it was a temporary thing, and did not represent unchanging
moral principles.

The New Testament (Paul) would say that the Jewish law was temporary, but that
it dealt with unchanging principles. We see an example in Jesus, teaching that,
Yes, the Jewish law allowed divorce, BUT, a man who divorces his wife and
marries another woman commits adultery!!! and a man who marries a divorced
woman, commits adultery!!!

There are unchanging moral-ethical principles that the Bible asserts. This is
not what you are assuming, in your first post.)

TPop said:

Did she? You seem to be leaving out someone? Aquila?

Click to expand...

Yes, but we don't know how much teaching either of them did.
The implication is that she taught - and if Scripture, supposedly, says that women can't teach, that is an example of someone who did.
Besides, the implications for women's ordination would be that women can be ordained, but alongside their husbands. Which would knock all other arguments against it, on the head.

TPop said:

Deborah was during a time when the men had abdicated all responsibilities.

Click to expand...

No, she wasn't. There were male judges before Deborah.
And if God was so against women being in leadership, he could easily have raised up a man to take her place. If he can make worshippers out of stones he can make leaders out of reluctant men.

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! 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. 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. 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.

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...

No.

In my view, Priesthood is Fatherhood. A woman cannot be a priest anymore than she can be a father.

Women can have lots of roles and do lots of things. They can be intellectuals, teachers, speakers etc. They can't be spiritual fathers. They can be spiritual mothers, but that is not what Priesthood is.

It is not a question of ability. It has nothing to do with equality or with being pro-woman or anti-woman. It has to do with ontological reality.