A conservative argument for women priests

[Paidiske]

And how might one 'understand the scriptures' to come to any other conclusion?

You object to women in ministry on the grounds that Paul, in the New Testament, forbids it.

But one must take into account that Paul worked with and commended women in ministry; Junia, an apostle; Phoebe, a deacon; Lydia, leader of a house church; Priscilla, a teacher; and so on. Paul allowed women to prophecy and pray in mixed church gatherings. So either one of two things must be the case; either Paul's words are not actually meant to prevent women from leadership and ministry roles, or Paul's words and his actions were wildly inconsistent.

As I read them, the verses in 1 Corinthians 14 are not an absolute prohibition but guidance for a particular situation in a particular congregation at a particular time.

 

[SouthWestConvert]

You object to women in ministry on the grounds that Paul, in the New Testament, forbids it.

But one must take into account that Paul worked with and commended women in ministry; Junia, an apostle; Phoebe, a deacon; Lydia, leader of a house church; Priscilla, a teacher; and so on. Paul allowed women to prophecy and pray in mixed church gatherings. So either one of two things must be the case; either Paul's words are not actually meant to prevent women from leadership and ministry roles, or Paul's words and his actions were wildly inconsistent.

As I read them, the verses in 1 Corinthians 14 are not an absolute prohibition but guidance for a particular situation in a particular congregation at a particular time.

The role of an apostle was to spread the Word and found new churches.
Phebe was a 'servant'.
All of them could easily have completed their duties and positions whilst abiding by Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 14.

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

Even this word from Timothy does not prevent the aforementioned women from undertaking their duties, provided that they are aware of the limitations placed upon them to be obedient ultimately to God and faithful to his Word.

This in no way prevents women's prayer meetings such as Lydia's or missionary work as we would now refer it. But 1 Corinthians 14 is surely unequivocal.

 

[Paidiske]

The role of an apostle was to spread the Word and found new churches.
Phebe was a 'servant'.
All of them could easily have completed their duties and positions whilst abiding by Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 14.

Not if you interpret those writings as meaning that women cannot be in leadership or ordained ministry.

But 1 Corinthians 14 is surely unequivocal.

No, it really isn't. You can find some helpful further reading here: https://margmowczko.com/?s=1+Corinthians+14

 

[SouthWestConvert]

As you can see, I am new to these forums I came to have my views challenged which I find helpful as 'iron sharpeneth iron'.

I read the Word and believe in it because it is infallible and I am fallible. And so regardless of what my personal prejudices may be, I accept the Word and adjust myself to it, and not it to me.

With that being said, I feel to be witnessing the meandering attempts to downplay an unequivocal passage in a chapter regarding bringing order into church worship and the addition of duties to those that are not mentioned for the cause of manufacturing a form of inconsistency where I see none, to suite a personal cause.

I am here to have my own views challenged and so I thank you for this discourse and conclude that my initial views remain truthful and accurate.

Thank you once again.

 

[Paidiske]

As you can see, I am new to these forums I came to have my views challenged which I find helpful as 'iron sharpeneth iron'.

Indeed. It's one of the big benefits of a diverse forum like this.

With that being said, I feel to be witnessing the meandering attempts to downplay an unequivocal passage in a chapter regarding bringing order into church worship and the addition of duties to those that are not mentioned for the cause of manufacturing a form of inconsistency where I see none, to suite a personal cause.

That's not how I see it. As I explained, if it were unequivocal, we wouldn't see Paul elsewhere working with and commending women who ministered and led in diverse ways. Nowhere do we see Paul discuss the gifts given for ministry, or the roles of ministry, in ways which are restricted by gender. And we do see that there are ways of understanding these passages which take them utterly seriously but still allow for women's full participation in the life of the church.

And as to a personal cause... you might do well to actually ask women in ministry about their experiences of vocation. Few sought it of their own accord.

 

[The Liturgist]

And, you know, if people really want to talk about the pastoral reality of abortion, here's something to consider: by far the most common abortion-related pastoral situation I encounter, is older married women whose husbands pressure or coerce them, often with threat or abandonment or divorce, to have an abortion. The issue isn't that women don't see pregnancy as "safe and normal." The issue is controlling men who react badly to unplanned pregnancies disturbing their comfortable lives. So there's teaching to be done there, but it might not be the teaching that some people expect.

This is very true. Most women who are Christian are generally opposed to abortion in my experience, but some men who profess Christianity are, in my opinion, hypocrites, who will try to pressure their wives or other romantic partners into abortion.

And indeed the scenario you mentioned is not a new one. Dean Martin plays a glamourized pilot character in the 1968 film Airport who after a flight attendant he has been having an affair with reveals that she is pregnant, immediately offers to send her to Sweden, which at the time was supposedly the place to go.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Quite.

The problem with this is that you then have people who resort to threat of schism every time they don't get their own way, to stymie change or indeed even discussion. It becomes a tool of control, rather than a grievous last resort.

At the end of the day, we have to stand up for what we believe and know to be right. What other people do in response to that is on their conscience.

And, you know, if people really want to talk about the pastoral reality of abortion, here's something to consider: by far the most common abortion-related pastoral situation I encounter, is older married women whose husbands pressure or coerce them, often with threat or abandonment or divorce, to have an abortion. The issue isn't that women don't see pregnancy as "safe and normal." The issue is controlling men who react badly to unplanned pregnancies disturbing their comfortable lives. So there's teaching to be done there, but it might not be the teaching that some people expect.

I know of too many examples of boyfriends forcing abortions on pregnant women to think it’s all about women being free to choose. Quite often it is about boyfriends being free of responsibility.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In my experience, outside of the UCC, where nearly everyone outside of the Faithful and Welcoming churches was pro-abortion, the male clergy of the mainline churches were more likely to support it.

Also, a number of female presbyters were not only conservative, but were members of husband and wife ministry teams, which we also see routinely in the Salvation Army. In this respect, they resemble the Presbyter/Presbytera duo which characterizes most Orthodox parish priests (since only a minority are monastics), albeit without the division of responsibilities.

That’s not the result of the PRRI surveys, but those only surveyed ‘mainstream’ groups so perhaps the sample you looked at and who they were looking at differed. Not all clergy act like mainstream clergy.

 

[zippy2006]

OK. It's qualified.

Are female clergy more progressive than male clergy on average? Yep. Why? Because denominations which 'ordain' females tend to be more progressive, and because females tend to be more progressive than males.

 

[RileyG]

Are female clergy more progressive than male clergy on average? Yep. Why? Because denominations which 'ordain' females tend to be more progressive, and because females tend to be more progressive than males.

That's USUALLY the case, I think some exceptions might be North American Lutheranism and various Pentecostal sects.

 

[RileyG]

I know of too many examples of boyfriends forcing abortions on pregnant women to think it’s all about women being free to choose. Quite often it is about boyfriends being free of responsibility.

It's very sickening, to say the least.

 

[RileyG]

You object to women in ministry on the grounds that Paul, in the New Testament, forbids it.

But one must take into account that Paul worked with and commended women in ministry; Junia, an apostle; Phoebe, a deacon; Lydia, leader of a house church; Priscilla, a teacher; and so on. Paul allowed women to prophecy and pray in mixed church gatherings. So either one of two things must be the case; either Paul's words are not actually meant to prevent women from leadership and ministry roles, or Paul's words and his actions were wildly inconsistent.

As I read them, the verses in 1 Corinthians 14 are not an absolute prohibition but guidance for a particular situation in a particular congregation at a particular time.

Yes. It's my understanding that particular verse in 1 Corinthians 14 is about the woman IN that congregation were being too noisy or something, so Paul told them to stop asking so many questions. Not that THAT VERSE specifically forbids female pastors/priests.

That's how it was explained to me in my NT course in college.

 

[RileyG]

In my experience, outside of the UCC, where nearly everyone outside of the Faithful and Welcoming churches was pro-abortion, the male clergy of the mainline churches were more likely to support it.

Also, a number of female presbyters were not only conservative, but were members of husband and wife ministry teams, which we also see routinely in the Salvation Army. In this respect, they resemble the Presbyter/Presbytera duo which characterizes most Orthodox parish priests (since only a minority are monastics), albeit without the division of responsibilities.

From my very limited experience, those who are part of the UCC (as well as Disciples of Christ, since they share ministers and altar fellowship) are very pro-abortion, pro-LGBT. I think of two female ministers from my college town in particular.

Many continuing Anglican Churches have female priests (not bishops) and are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Quite.

The problem with this is that you then have people who resort to threat of schism every time they don't get their own way, to stymie change or indeed even discussion. It becomes a tool of control, rather than a grievous last resort.

At the end of the day, we have to stand up for what we believe and know to be right. What other people do in response to that is on their conscience.

And, you know, if people really want to talk about the pastoral reality of abortion, here's something to consider: by far the most common abortion-related pastoral situation I encounter, is older married women whose husbands pressure or coerce them, often with threat or abandonment or divorce, to have an abortion. The issue isn't that women don't see pregnancy as "safe and normal." The issue is controlling men who react badly to unplanned pregnancies disturbing their comfortable lives. So there's teaching to be done there, but it might not be the teaching that some people expect.

I appreciate that perspective and I do not doubt that it is the truth. When I was Pentecostal, there was talk of very conservative parents pressuring their teen daughters into abortion, because they could not bear the shame in the assembly of having a pregnant unwed teen

We are suffering the effects of the so called “sexual revolution”, when the women became promiscuous and seduced all the men and turned them into boys.

A woman is called to be a mother. That is the one thing that she can be that a man can never be. All of this feminist clap trap, that tries to prove that a woman is just as good as a man, causes her to abandon her original vocation, motherhood.

Take a look at feminist politics. It is all bent on destroying motherhood. Abortion kills a child and prevents a woman ever becoming a mother to that child. Sterilization and contraception prevents motherhood and makes a woman a plaything of men or a mere seductress. Working outside the home abandons her children to strangers and severely impairs the mother/child bond. Transgender takes someone that can never be a mother and dresses it up to look like a woman but never will be, or takes a potential mother and tells her she is no good just be a man. All feminist, all destructive.

The Bible says the thief comes not but to kill, rob and destroy. Feminism kills a woman, robs her of children and destroys her motherhood. There is nothing feminine about it

Yes I know men are no better. The sexual revolution has killed their masculinity, robbed them of their leadership and destroyed fatherhood. Are we not men? No we are beer guzzling fat lazy babies that bark orders at women and demand sex. Or else you have the virtue signaling wimps that agree with feminism that women quickly grow bored of.

Genesis says you will be saved through the bearing of children . Motherhood is a woman’s vocation. Feminism says it’s not. Who is denying God? I don’t care what anyone’s conscience says. We are all called to deny ourselves and submit our conscience to the word of God

The elect will do so, the others will just make excuses. Yes there are special circumstances where women are called to serve God as virgins or repentant celibates, just as men are called the same way, but they do not abandon the roles God has ordained for them. Men are fathers, women are mothers. The two shall not mix roles in this world and still say they are obeying God

There will never be women priests, just as a man will never be a mother. It is not what God created them to be

In the next world eye has not seen not ear heard. Women could very well be above and ruling men, but not in this world. Be faithful unto death and we are given a crown of life. Resentment and rebellion only invites chastisement

 

[Paidiske]

We are suffering the effects of the so called “sexual revolution”, when the women became promiscuous and seduced all the men and turned them into boys.

I find that take pretty laughable; as if there was no promiscuity (among men and women) before the 1960s.

A woman is called to be a mother. That is the one thing that she can be that a man can never be. All of this feminist clap trap, that tries to prove that a woman is just as good as a man, causes her to abandon her original vocation, motherhood.

Some women are called to be mothers. Others are not. Your own church has a long and fine tradition of women excelling in all kinds of other ways, as well.

And, you know, it's quite possible to be a mother and do other things. We don't find it remarkable that men are fathers and also pursue other vocations.

Take a look at feminist politics. It is all bent on destroying motherhood.

Oh nonsense. If anything, it is bent on making sure that the work and the cost of parenting does not fall disproportionately on mothers, but is shared between parents.

Working outside the home abandons her children to strangers and severely impairs the mother/child bond.

I've worked outside the home since my daughter was very young, and I have never abandoned her to strangers, or even used paid childcare (which is what I assume you're referring to). Parenting responsibilities, and working responsibilities, can be shared. Without severe impairment to attachment, although I'm sure the hyperbole is very emotionally satisfying.

All feminist, all destructive.

I think you have a very narrow and distorted view of feminism.

Are we not men? No we are beer guzzling fat lazy babies that bark orders at women and demand sex. Or else you have the virtue signaling wimps that agree with feminism that women quickly grow bored of.

I'm so glad this doesn't characterise the many excellent men I see around me. (Are there some men who are lazy etc? Sure. But it hardly characterises a generation).

Genesis says you will be saved through the bearing of children .

I believe you're thinking of 1 Timothy, but it doesn't mean that every woman must bear a child in order to receive salvation. Rather that she will be kept safe through the (dangerous, especially in those days) process of bearing children.

There will never be women priests,

Given that I am a priest who is a woman, again, I just find this a laughable denial of reality. I'm right here talking to you.

And it's got nothing to do with "resentment and rebellion."

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Given that I am a priest who is a woman, again, I just find this a laughable denial of reality.

And it's got nothing to do with "resentment and rebellion."

You are no more a priest than I am. The office of priesthood requires valid orders, of which neither you nor I possess
We both can memorize the words of the liturgy, but without the ecclesial authority we we be presuming it to ourselves
You may laugh, but being a priest as you claim, you refused to even share the Gospel with me. You claimed that you cannot define it. How can you minister what you do not know ?

Valid Holy Orders proceed from the chair of Peter. We cannot presume them for ourselves by mere conscience or desire

You may also laugh at my view of feminism, but I challenge you to research its origins. Mary Wollstonecraft wrote about it in the 18th century, the we had the “free love” cult of her daughter Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley and her husband Percy, along with Lord Byron and Marquis de Sade. In the 19th century we had Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony, research their writings. The 20th century brought us Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem and others
Research their writings and tell me how biblical they are.

If you won’t even look, then we can all see that you do not want to know and have become a god unto yourself. Can’t define the Gospel, can’t define feminism, yet claims to be a priest. How can we believe you ? How does your laugh sound ?

 

[Paidiske]

You are no more a priest than I am. The office of priesthood requires valid orders, of which neither you nor I possess

That's a position. I - and my church - disagree.

The reality, though, is this; whether you think my orders are valid or not, I'm functioning in the role of a priest in charge of a parish. You want to claim that women can't do that; but you put up no argument as to what it is that we lack, what aspect of the role we cannot fulfill. Why not ask about my experience - pastoral, liturgical, administrative, whatever - and see how it is that my experience differs from that of men, how it is that women are able to inhabit this role?

Rather than just trying to tell someone who is living something, that she can't do it, which comes across as, well, completely disconnected from reality. Like telling a bird on the wing that it can't fly.

We both can memorize the words of the liturgy, but without the ecclesial authority we we be presuming it to ourselves

Except that, of course, I hold that ecclesial authority. It's right there in the ordination service, where the ordaining bishop says to each ordinand, "Take authority..."

You may laugh, but being a priest as you claim, you refused to even share the Gospel with me. You claimed that you cannot define it.

I did not. I refused to engage in discussion which would simply prolong your demeaning attacks.

You may also laugh at my view of feminism, but I challenge you to research its origins.

Oh, please do continue to assume my ignorance. It only undermines your own credibility.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That's a position. I - and my church - disagree.

Oh, please do continue to assume my ignorance. It only undermines your own credibility.

There is only one Church through which comes authority. You assembly rebelled against Apostolic Authority and now claims authority for itself. It is the same as when Bishop Lefebvre claimed authority for himself to ordain bishops and incurred excommunication by the very act of defiance.

We cannot assume authority for ourselves. You can believe that you have authority just like I can believe and act as though I have a billion dollars in the bank. It does not make it true

My credibility is not an issue. It is yours. You put yourself out as a priest of God, yet fail to demonstrate your authority or lack of ignorance.
You call my request for a demonstration of your authority and knowledge a demeaning attack.


No, I am just showing that you have not established your position as priest. Your whole argument can be summed up as “I say that I am a priest cause my bishop says so”

Ok, your Bishop wishes to hold onto authority despite rebellion against authority. How does that work? God has told us that He wishes obedience rather than sacrifice. How do we learn obedience from those that refuse to obey?
Protestants tried that and wound up with over 30,000 factions. Once obedience is abandoned, it does not recover.

Even the demons know this. Jesus I know. Paul I know, but who are YOU?

As Paul said, Is Christ divided? God forbid!

Go ahead and ignore my questions and write me off as a demeaning old man. You will have to answer them some day. I pray that you are ready

 

[Paidiske]

There is only one Church through which comes authority.

I agree that ultimately, there is only one Church. But that one Church lives in and through various institutional bodies. No one denomination can claim to be the Church at the expense of others.

We cannot assume authority for ourselves.

And I am pointing out to you that those in ordained ministry do not do that. Authority is given by their churches.

My credibility is not an issue.

Of course it is. You are making claims to be putting forward truth, and you are doing so in ways which demean others. You would need a very high standard of credibility to have those claims taken seriously; no one is going to take them at face value from an anonymous internet poster.

You put yourself out as a priest of God, yet fail to demonstrate your authority or lack of ignorance.

I'm not here to show off, and I'm certainly not here to play endless games with people whose only agenda in the conversation is to discredit me.

You call my request for a demonstration of your authority and knowledge a demeaning attack.

You're the one who tried to tell me women in ministry don't really proclaim the gospel. Yep, that's a demeaning attack.

No, I am just showing that you have not established your position as priest.

Did you think I was making a false claim? If you like, I'll PM you a link to my parish's website. You can check out my position, my sermon archive, the works. I don't post it publicly because I've had a couple of... interesting... interactions with forum members over the years.

Your whole argument can be summed up as “I say that I am a priest cause my bishop says so”

My argument is that I'm a priest. I'm living the life and doing the work of a priest. I hold the authority of my church (through my bishop) to do so. I'm being faithfully obedient to the call of God on my life. That's just reality.

Ok, your Bishop wishes to hold onto authority despite rebellion against authority... How do we learn obedience from those that refuse to obey?

Surely you realise that that's not how any Anglican clergyperson understands their church's relation to authority?

I see my bishop living in obedience to the authority of the church in which he serves, its constitution, canon law, and so on. There's no rebellion there.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I am going to jump in here, admitting I have not read the the previous post, so forgive me if I repeat what has already been said.

For some reason this has been on my mind a lot the last 2 weeks. seeing I do not come here as often as I did I find it rather odd.

It come down to a hermanutical approach to the text. How do you interpret the text, what assumptions do you make and how do you apply the text in real life and what are the consequences.
one of the first hermanutical assumptions is ......Is the text a universal command or his it addressing a local situation. traditional interpreters assume that all scripture is a universal command or law for all time and place. They do not factor in the local circumstances that are involved. in the case of women in preaching and teach paul makes it clear that women are to be quiet an learn, they are not to teach. For all time and eternity these women were to be quite and be not have any voice. That is one interpreatation of the evidence

Another interpretation of the evidence with that it was a local situation. in the case of Ephesus and the women being told to be quit it was a repetation issue. Ephesus was the first place that the church went public and had it's own public service not in a home but in the hall of Tryannaus. This public service was the first of it's kind out side the temple in Jerusalem. it was literally the founding of the service that would take place for then next hundred years. but there was a problem there was a cult in Ephesus , Artimesus or Diana. and it had women involved in there service, they were prostitutes. So a women involved in a worship service would be considered a prostitute. This would be a problem for Paul and new church.

Using this method we see the situation is local Paul is facing a problem and he provides a solution to the problem. the command was not for every church in every place. but for Ephesus. the problem was a bad reputation because of assocation with immorality not preaching. Where there was no temple prostiution this proabition would not be in affect. The de-facto view would be in effect, the Holy spirit gives the gifts and if the gifts are manifest in a women then we accept the gift as from the Lord.

notice same passage of scripture completly different application , because of the assumption made in the interpretation. Still God's word, but different result, that does not rob women of the atoning work of Christ and the Holy spirit.