Female ordination

[Gnarwhal]

I have absolutely no idea why, but I'm having a bear of a time fully embracing female ordination. I was brought up in a church where there were women on staff and whom operated in pastoral roles, but I think my difficulty comes from having always had a male figure as a shepherd - which is what I see the priest as.

For those of you who had difficulty accepting female ordination, how did you come to terms with it?

I just want to note that I'm not a sexist or misogynist, I try to maintain a view that's egalitarian as possible. This is just a role that, in my life, has historically always been filled by men.

The one time I visited an Episcopal church, the rector was on vacation so they had a visiting female priest celebrate the eucharist and for some weird reason I found it off-putting. I was processing it with my dad afterwards, saying I didn't get why I felt weird about it because there are/were a number of women in my old C&MA congregation who were seminary-educated and had delivered sermons and lectures and lead other services.

I'm really vexed by this because I want to embrace it, but for some reason there's a slight discomfort to it... Any suggestions?

 

[ebia]

I have absolutely no idea why, but I'm having a bear of a time fully embracing female ordination. I was brought up in a church where there were women on staff and whom operated in pastoral roles, but I think my difficulty comes from having always had a male figure as a shepherd - which is what I see the priest as. For those of you who had difficulty accepting female ordination, how did you come to terms with it? I just want to note that I'm not a sexist or misogynist, I try to maintain a view that's egalitarian as possible. This is just a role that, in my life, has historically always been filled by men. The one time I visited an Episcopal church, the rector was on vacation so they had a visiting female priest celebrate the eucharist and for some weird reason I found it off-putting. I was processing it with my dad afterwards, saying I didn't get why I felt weird about it because there are/were a number of women in my old C&MA congregation who were seminary-educated and had delivered sermons and lectures and lead other services. I'm really vexed by this because I want to embrace it, but for some reason there's a slight discomfort to it... Any suggestions?

Get to know a female priest.

 

[Liberasit]

Get to know a female priest.

 

[Lance Schmidt]

Get to know a female priest.

What ebia said.

My first experience with female clergy was within the last six months, and like you I was uncomfortable even though I couldn't figure out why. Over time as I have learned to know them, observed their ministry and listened to their sermons, my discomfort slowly faded and is developing into a deep thankfulness, respect and admiration for the spiritual gifts that women bring to the life of a church. I've now actually reached a point where the idea of an all male clergy seems...well....incomplete.

 

[Sean611]

I have been in the same boat as you before. Growing up in the JW cult, men held all leadership positions and it was something that I was very use to. Also, my wife grew up in the Southern Baptist church and was only use to male preachers. The first few times of having a female preacher was very very strange for my wife and me. However, after getting to know the person and how wonderful this person was, it made it very easy to accept a female preacher and was something I rarely even noticed anymore.

Currently, we have a male (mostly retired, a wonderful man by the way) and female priest and it is something I don't notice anymore. However, when I watch videos of other services from around the Episcopal Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church, I still sometimes feel uncomfortable with certain female priests. I'm not really sure what it is, just being honest.

That being said,

 

[Albion]

I have absolutely no idea why, but I'm having a bear of a time fully embracing female ordination. I was brought up in a church where there were women on staff and whom operated in pastoral roles, but I think my difficulty comes from having always had a male figure as a shepherd - which is what I see the priest as.

For those of you who had difficulty accepting female ordination, how did you come to terms with it?

I'm willing to reply and contribute to the pool of responses you are hoping for. I'm one who "has had difficulty accepting female ordination," I guess it's safe to say. But I almost think your question presumes that I/we DID come to accept it.

On the contrary, and knowing that the practice is wrong, I joined a traditional Anglican church that maintains the historic and Biblical standards.

If I may offer another--and short--observation about this matter, I'd like to point out that there are a number of Scriptural reasons for maintaining a male priesthood and episcopate IN ADDITION to the arguments from tradition (if that is persuasive to you).

By comparison, the argument FOR women's ordination is overwhelmingly based upon two points: God loves everyone, and women are capable of "doing the job." Even a casual study of the evidence shows that the justification behind women's ordination is primarily social and not theological while the evidence that supports the historic position is very strong.

 

[Sean611]

I'm willing to reply and contribute to the pool of responses you are hoping for. I'm one who "has had difficulty accepting female ordination," I guess it's safe to say. But I almost think your question presumes that I/we DID come to accept it.

On the contrary, and knowing that the practice is wrong, I joined a traditional Anglican church that maintains the historic and Biblical standards.

If I may offer another--and short--observation about this matter, I'd like to point out that there are a number of Scriptural reasons for maintaining a male priesthood and episcopate IN ADDITION to the arguments from tradition (if that is persuasive to you).

By comparison, the argument FOR women's ordination is overwhelmingly based upon two points: God loves everyone, and women are capable of "doing the job." Even a casual study of the evidence shows that the justification behind women's ordination is primarily social and not theological while the evidence that supports the historic position is very strong.

Albion, I respect your position and female ordination is something that I accept, while not always being 100% comfortable with it.

However, if I may pose an argument. If women's ordination is largely social and not theological (which I tend to agree on), then could it be true that their prohibition was mostly due to social reasons and not theological reasons? If we accept that women are just as capable as men and I believe they are, then who is not to say that the traditional arguments for prohibition are due to old social attitudes in relation to women? Just an observation and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

 

[Albion]

Albion, I respect your position and female ordination is something that I accept, while not always being 100% comfortable with it.

That's fine, and I respect those who hold the position that I cannot. I merely wanted to speak for my own perceptions on this matter, as I thought the OP was wanting.

However, if I may pose an argument. If women's ordination is largely social and not theological (which I tend to agree on), then could it be true that their prohibition was mostly due to social reasons and not theological reasons?

That's a theory we sometimes hear, and I respond this way--

Those who advance that contention usually mean that Paul was just a chauvinist, or if not that, that Jesus was constrained by the rules of the society that he was born into such that he virtually had to choose only men to be his Apostles.

That means that we are being told AUTOMATICALLY that the Scriptures are NOT the word of God, not revealed, not inspired. To accept that argument IMO is to take the Humanist's view of the origins and meaning of the Bible. I can't do that without overthrowing the basis for most of that which we believe.

And in addition, I think it's almost silly to believe that Jesus, who was God and who hung around with tax collectors and unmarried women and was accused of everything from being a political revolutionary to a blasphemer because of his unapologetic profession of unpopular and even shocking ideas...

...would have been afraid to choose someone that society didn't think appropriate. Not convincing IMO.

If we accept that women are just as capable of men and I believe they are, then who is not to say that the traditional arguments for prohibition are due to old social attitudes in relation to women? Just an observation and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

By most standards women ministers are at least as capable as male clergy. I am familiar with some who are very powerful preachers. But this is not the question.

We're talking about something God has instituted, and we know that to different believers he has given different gifts and assignments. We often quote the passage in which these different functions are likened to parts of the body all working together for the overall good. But then we come to this matter, and suddenly we're talking as though it were an equal opportunity job offer.

Why don't we say that Ginger Ale will do just as well as water in Baptism? Why don't we anoint with marmalade instead of chrism? Here, in these kinds of situations, even the liberals adhere to the Biblical and historic standard...but not when it comes to a role that has--let's face it--power, status, and prestige associated with it, not by God or Scripture, but by society.

 

[PaladinValer]

Canon 15 of Chalcedon.

The Greek uses cheirotonia, not cheirothesia, which means real Holy Orders. Women were ordained and not only wore a stole but even administered Holy Unction, something only priests or bishops could do.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I have never had any problem with it. Perhaps because I came to Anglicanism from a faith tradition (trinitarian Pentecostalism) that was in part founded by a woman evangelist, and has always had women pastors.

 

[MKJ]

I have absolutely no idea why, but I'm having a bear of a time fully embracing female ordination. I was brought up in a church where there were women on staff and whom operated in pastoral roles, but I think my difficulty comes from having always had a male figure as a shepherd - which is what I see the priest as.

For those of you who had difficulty accepting female ordination, how did you come to terms with it?

I just want to note that I'm not a sexist or misogynist, I try to maintain a view that's egalitarian as possible. This is just a role that, in my life, has historically always been filled by men.

The one time I visited an Episcopal church, the rector was on vacation so they had a visiting female priest celebrate the eucharist and for some weird reason I found it off-putting. I was processing it with my dad afterwards, saying I didn't get why I felt weird about it because there are/were a number of women in my old C&MA congregation who were seminary-educated and had delivered sermons and lectures and lead other services.

I'm really vexed by this because I want to embrace it, but for some reason there's a slight discomfort to it... Any suggestions?

Well, I don't embrace it. And I do know quite a few female priests, and would consider some of them friends, so I dont know that that is necessarily a fix.

 

[yogosans14]

I have been in the same boat as you before. Growing up in the JW cult, men held all leadership positions and it was something that I was very use to. Also, my wife grew up in the Southern Baptist church and was only use to male preachers. The first few times of having a female preacher was very very strange for my wife and me. However, after getting to know the person and how wonderful this person was, it made it very easy to accept a female preacher and was something I rarely even noticed anymore.

Currently, we have a male (mostly retired, a wonderful man by the way) and female priest and it is something I don't notice anymore. However, when I watch videos of other services from around the Episcopal Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church, I still sometimes feel uncomfortable with certain female priests. I'm not really sure what it is, just being honest.

That being said,

You were in the JW cult to?Very bad memories from it, thank god I got out.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Though I have not struggled with the issue on a personal level, I have in the abstract as I have learned about Catholicism and Orthodoxy since becoming Anglican (and also explored Catholicism before my conversion). The most convincing argument in their favor is that it seems that the church never ordained women as priests or bishops, although perhaps the lines blur before the development of the current structure of ordination - I don't know.

In part because I am a member of a church that ordains women, I simply accept it and never feel odd receiving the Eucharist from their hands, but most of my experiences prior to Anglicanism were of Pentecostalism and the UMC and I am accustomed to experiencing women in those roles.

It does seem to me, as Albion mentioned, that women's ordination and other social changes in the church, ones that I accept I might add, were largely advocated in secular terms which is a weakness, though some advocates do have a more theological approach.

My main intuition regarding this, and I have been told that I am wrong, regards Jesus' humanity and the nature of his sacrifice which are pointed to in the Eucharist. All people, men and women, and I might add, those that due to physical and genetic anomalies are not capable of being classified according to the male/female sexes, were represented in the incarnation and life, death, and resurrection. The fact that Christ became human seems more significant in these roles than his genitalia. So perhaps the fact that a woman is human means that she can represent Christ when presiding at the Eucharist. That is how I intuitively feel, and I am open to being corrected in my line of reasoning, but there it is.

I wonder, too, if a woman can not validly preside at the Eucharist, if she may also not validly baptize in an emergency. There has been doubt in the past as to whether any laity could, including within Orthodoxy, and if the child lives I think the Orthodox will actually rebaptize whether a lay man or woman baptized the child, but that may depend on which jurisdiction they are in.

Unless I converted to another church, I cannot really question women's ordination without throwing all our orders in doubt, though that doesn't prove my position is correct - it's just an observation.

 

[mark46]

I am sure that you not suggesting that those who accept women's ordination are "saying that the Scriptures are NOT the word of God, not revealed [and] not inspired". I say this out of respect. As you can see later, I have great sympathy for your position.
============
I would suggest that Tradition has changed on many points over the centuries (e.g. forgiveness, public reconciliation and many others). I don't think that changing the requirements for Holy Orders is change that is Church-busting. Clearly you disagree.

IMHO, the focus on issues of gender and sexuality have diverted us as Church from focusing on our primary missions of evangelization and responding to those in need.

Personally, I am not convinced that all priests should be male, Semitic Jews as were all the apostles. Peter certainly believed this until his mind was changed after a confrontation with Paul (and the Holy Spirit).

There was much diversity and differences in practice as we see in Acts and in John. The Early Church had many different practices, so much so that Anselm said, with regard to proper practice, to do in Rome as the Romans do.
=====

All this being said, the strongest argument AGAINST the ordination of women is the Tradition of the Church. While we have some women "apostles" among this who were sent forth in Acts, there is little in Early Church that supports female ordination. There is some evidence that women were ordained to baptize and put oil on other women (especially those who were unclothed).

The issue before us (as always) is how we live the gospel in our age, consistent with the teaching of Scripture. We are not Amish, who must live as they did in time in the past. I understand the temptation of picking a time in the past when we think all was better than now and acting as we think that they did. Personally, I don't think this is what Jesus expects of us.

That's fine, and I respect those who hold the position that I cannot. I merely wanted to speak for my own perceptions on this matter, as I thought the OP was wanting.


That's a theory we sometimes hear, and I respond this way--

Those who advance that contention usually mean that Paul was just a chauvinist, or if not that, that Jesus was constrained by the rules of the society that he was born into such that he virtually had to choose only men to be his Apostles.

That means that we are being told AUTOMATICALLY that the Scriptures are NOT the word of God, not revealed, not inspired. To accept that argument IMO is to take the Humanist's view of the origins and meaning of the Bible. I can't do that without overthrowing the basis for most of that which we believe.

And in addition, I think it's almost silly to believe that Jesus, who was God and who hung around with tax collectors and unmarried women and was accused of everything from being a political revolutionary to a blasphemer because of his unapologetic profession of unpopular and even shocking ideas...

...would have been afraid to choose someone that society didn't think appropriate. Not convincing IMO.


By most standards women ministers are at least as capable as male clergy. I am familiar with some who are very powerful preachers. But this is not the question.

We're talking about something God has instituted, and we know that to different believers he has given different gifts and assignments. We often quote the passage in which these different functions are likened to parts of the body all working together for the overall good. But then we come to this matter, and suddenly we're talking as though it were an equal opportunity job offer.

Why don't we say that Ginger Ale will do just as well as water in Baptism? Why don't we anoint with marmalade instead of chrism? Here, in these kinds of situations, even the liberals adhere to the Biblical and historic standard...but not when it comes to a role that has--let's face it--power, status, and prestige associated with it, not by God or Scripture, but by society.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Well, I don't embrace it. And I do know quite a few female priests, and would consider some of them friends, so I dont know that that is necessarily a fix.

I respect your position and have considered it, but if I ever come to embrace it, I would have to leave the ECUSA. I would even doubt the ordinations of men who were ordained by male bishops with only males in their episcopal lines because if women's ordination is impossible, the teaching of the church has changed in such a way that I would doubt the church had the proper intent to ordain. I am curious as to how one could remain in a church that ordains women while disagreeing with it, especially given that the sacramental functions are essential to the church. I could not bear to have doubts about this. If I came to such a conclusion, I would probably become Orthodox.

 

[Sean611]

You were in the JW cult to?Very bad memories from it, thank god I got out.

Yep, I got out when I was 17. My parent's got a divorce and then both were disfellowshiped. I too have bad memories from my time there and it will be something that I struggle with my entire life, you simply cannot get a ruined childhood back.

Currently, I have two aunts, two uncles, a cousin, and a grandma still in this cult. They are all on my mother's side and they all shun her, except her mother (my grandma).

 

[Albion]

All this being said, the strongest argument AGAINST the ordination of women is the Tradition of the Church.

]
That may be so, but I don't approach it as though we're looking at "Sacred Tradition." It's simply the record of the mind of the Church we're talking about there. And I am most concerned, in the final analysis, with the testimony of Scripture.

While we have some women "apostles" among this who were sent forth in Acts, there is little in Early Church that supports female ordination. There is some evidence that women were ordained to baptize and put oil on other women (especially those who were unclothed).

Agreed and agreed. Those women were clearly not clergy but were deaconesses, a set-aside lay office even today. Some churches have them and some do not.

The issue before us (as always) is how we live the gospel in our age, consistent with the teaching of Scripture. We are not Amish, who must live as they did in time in the past. I understand the temptation of picking a time in the past when we think all was better than now and acting as we think that they did. Personally, I don't think this is what Jesus expects of us.

Well, I think everyone has to follow his conscience, but I personally am uneasy about appeals to change things in order to keep up with the times, etc. For one thing, it's very hard to know which changes are right to do and which ones are wrong to do, even if I were to accede to your line of thought.

While certain matters, like the nature of Lent or the shape of the liturgy, obviously are not meant to be set in stone forever--because there's no basis for doing so--when we begin to second-guess Scripture, that's questionable. And we should make no mistake about it; that's what woman's ordination means--setting aside Scripture because we are convinced that "God would approve" or the even more dubious proposition that was used in the debates that led up to the ordination of women in TEC: "The Holy Ghost is moving now in a direction different from he moved in previously because the times are now right for it." That is so subjective.

In any case, I find that there are stronger and weaker arguments on both sides, and I've tried to avoid the weaker ones on the side that I've come down on while, at the same time, I am able to appreciate the stronger ones on your side. It's just that I don't find very many of them.

 

[ebia]

Just to counter the "the only argument for ... is sociological" furphy put around strangely by people who spend a lot of time trying to argue against other arguments for:

http://ntwrightpage.com/wright_women_service_church.htm

 

[everbecoming2007]

I think the mind of the church and tradition can refer to the same thing, thoough tradition can also refer to local customs, so I can see why one would make a distinction.

But it appears to me that since the reformation we Anglicans have changed things that were consistently the mind of the church and still are in Orthodoxy, for instance, mandatory private confession. Where do we draw the line? Scripture, we say, yet the mind of the church as manifest in its practice is how we interpret scripture on difficult issues such as this one, women's ordination, or the Holy Trinity. It seems to me the Trinity issue would be hard to sort out definitively without the aid of the mind of the church manifest in the Creed - that's why we needed a council.

Yet we have changed longstanding practices like mandatory private confession that all the ancient non-reformation churches still adhere to except perhaps the Old Catholics.

]
That may be so, but I don't approach it as though we're looking at "Sacred Tradition." It's simply the record of the mind of the Church we're talking about there. And I am most concerned, in the final analysis, with the testimony of Scripture.



Agreed and agreed. Those women were clearly not clergy but were deaconesses, a set-aside lay office even today. Some churches have them and some do not.


Well, I think everyone has to follow his conscience, but I personally am uneasy about appeals to change things in order to keep up with the times, etc. For one thing, it's very hard to know which changes are right to do and which ones are wrong to do, even if I were to accede to your line of thought.

While certain matters, like the nature of Lent or the shape of the liturgy, obviously are not meant to be set in stone forever--because there's no basis for doing so--when we begin to second-guess Scripture, that's questionable. And we should make no mistake about it; that's what woman's ordination means--setting aside Scripture because we are convinced that "God would approve" or the even more dubious proposition that was used in the debates that led up to the ordination of women in TEC: "The Holy Ghost is moving now in a direction different from he moved in previously because the times are now right for it." That is so subjective.

In any case, I find that there are stronger and weaker arguments on both sides, and I've tried to avoid the weaker ones on the side that I've come down on while, at the same time, I am able to appreciate the stronger ones on your side. It's just that I don't find very many of them.

 

[MKJ]

I respect your position and have considered it, but if I ever come to embrace it, I would have to leave the ECUSA. I would even doubt the ordinations of men who were ordained by male bishops with only males in their episcopal lines because if women's ordination is impossible, the teaching of the church has changed in such a way that I would doubt the church had the proper intent to ordain. I am curious as to how one could remain in a church that ordains women while disagreeing with it, especially given that the sacramental functions are essential to the church. I could not bear to have doubts about this. If I came to such a conclusion, I would probably become Orthodox.

I suppose the main difference is that I consider that lines of ordination in Anglicanism are still valid if they don't involve a female bishop.

The particular parish I belong to decided quite a number of years ago that it did not want to be divided over women's ordination. At that time, and now, the congregation was pretty spit in their opinions. So the practice they have more or less followed is not to have women performing a priest's role in the parish. On the other hand, female members of the parish who want to be ordained are supported to the bishop.

The bishops we've had have gone along with this, more or less gracefully - largely due to political and financial considerations. I think the current bishop believes that the members who are "backwards' are old fogies who will eventually die out. (Which isn't the case, the demographics are actually the reverse if anything.)

Of course this is a delicate balance that could be upset at pretty much any time. A different sort of bishop, a faction or even individual in the parish that challenges the (unwritten) status quo, some sort of change in the wider church - any of these these things could upset that balance. I suppose what people hope for is a change in direction in the AC. TBH I think that some parishioners have their heads in the sand about it a bit, and if it happens it will be a shock to them. They mistake the sucess of our parish for the attitude of the ACC more generally.

So for me - I am there as long as I can remain there - it is a good place in most ways. If the situation does change, I don't know what will happen to the parish, if it will leave the AC, or split, or what. What I do will depend largely on that, although I don't know that I would remain there if they joined one of the alternate Anglican bodies.