How connected is attitude towards women and inerrancy?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I grew up in a very ant-liturgical church and family. My mother had grown up Lutheran, my dad joined the Lutheran church when they got married, but they both left and rejected all liturgy as "dead" and "traditions of men" when they had born again experiences. The ended up helping to start a non-denominational charismatic church which I was in for about the first 30 years of my life.

Now, I just came back to the forums here for the first time in probably 4 years or so. I was bored and thought, hey.. I'll check out old CF and see what's going on these days. So I basically know nothing about what's going on in the forums here.

However, in my life in the real world, I can say that for quite a while now there has been a significant movement of people who grew up in the non-liturgical churches that are going back to the liturgical/traditional styles of worship. Some of them are doing it by actually going back to the Historic Churches, others are doing it by incorporating more liturgy into their existing churches, or starting new churches etc. So maybe you are seeing it in the forums because it is a significant movement in our culture at large.

I remember you quite well I username was MaidinHisimage, Evangelica whatever I was going by on this account at the time. No problem I'm done my rant. I'm quite used to being ripped off for what convenient only so no longer feeding bullets. I'll stick to my one or two threads like usual and me n Jesus can jus hang together. Sianara.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some of them are doing it by actually going back to the Historic Churches, others are doing it by incorporating more liturgy into their existing churches, or starting new churches etc. So maybe you are seeing it in the forums because it is a significant movement in our culture at large..

Liturgical churches have experienced some faint signs of increased interest, such as slowing declines in membership losses. Particularly some of the liberal ones like the United Church of Christ and Episcopalians. High profile evangelicals like Rachel Held Evans and Mike Mercer have made the journey into liberal mainline churches in the past few years, which no doubt brings with it increased interest and helps introduce traditional and liturgical forms of church to people who would otherwise not notice them on their radars.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And that's why it will remain unrelatable.

When I first returned to the forums after looking after 2 terminally ill siblings .

I'm sorry to hear about your siblings, Cassia. God bless you for looking after them.

I'm not sure why you consider Orthodoxy unrelatabe on whatever counts. Frankly, I think it's an east-west thing for most people. But whatever the case may be, may God grant you peace.

 

[obsolete]

Peace to you to and the horse you rode in on.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Catholics hold women in very high regard. We often get accused of worshiping one.

Yes, I know.

However, one of the ironies of this conversation is that Catholics, in general, often don't have a problem with protestant women ministers. Protestants and Catholics have significantly different views about what the role of the Minister/Priest actually is, and what they actually do. From the Catholic view, we have no problem with women ministers doing all the things that most Protestants actually believe that their ministers do. In the Catholic Church women can basically do all of those same things.

That IS one of the ironies.

It's funny, my husband is still very much invested in the Protestant thinking he was taught, and he will and has left churches he otherwise was very happy in just because they allowed a woman to fill in and speak when the pastor was gone, or some such. I'm not sure but I'd guess Catholics are similar to Orthodox in that women can fill a tremendous variety of roles in the Church. Pretty much anything except going into the altar and consecrating the Eucharist, and a few direct applications of the Sacraments. (Not even all, perhaps, as they could validly baptize someone, and if I'm not mistaken could take the Eucharist to a woman confined away from men, for example.)

I don't want to talk about myself, but I'm certainly given a range of roles in the Church - none of which did I ask for, but the priest asked me if I would fill them. And there are many other roles filled by women besides - essentially anything other than a few sacramental ones.

God Himself commanded the male priesthood to the nation of Israel. I'm not sure how today's sacramental priesthood compares to that - if it was only a couple of select roles restricted to men at that time or not. But that's what we have now.

Anyway ... saying it over isn't going to make any difference. I really wanted to comment on your point that Protestant women ministers aren't doing anything in most cases that women aren't doing in our Church either - especially in the case of those without Sacraments. There is no distinction between men and women to be made in that case.

 

[Paidiske]

However, one of the ironies of this conversation is that Catholics, in general, often don't have a problem with protestant women ministers.

In real life, I find I meet with two quite different reactions. The first - and far more common - is "How wonderful to meet a woman priest! I'm so looking forward to when our church finally does that!" (Or some variation on that sentiment). The second, and less common, are the people who treat us as less than dirt. Refuse to speak to us, call us all sorts of names, that sort of thing.

Protestants and Catholics have significantly different views about what the role of the Minister/Priest actually is, and what they actually do.

This is true, of course. But Anglicans, at least, would say that there is nothing a Catholic priest is or does that our priests are not or don't do. Whatever priesthood is, we inhabit it equally. Our sacramental life is equally valid. And the proof of this, in the end, is the grace of God at work in the people in and through the ministry of the church. As long as we can see that that grace is not absent from their lives, we know He hasn't abandoned us.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In real life, I find I meet with two quite different reactions. The first - and far more common - is "How wonderful to meet a woman priest! I'm so looking forward to when our church finally does that!" (Or some variation on that sentiment). The second, and less common, are the people who treat us as less than dirt. Refuse to speak to us, call us all sorts of names, that sort of thing.

Im actually really sorry and stunned to read this.

I would fit into neither category, since I can't with sincerity say that I'd be looking forward to when our Church does that (nor do I think they ever will). However, I most certainly would not look down on you or be rude, much less anything worse.

In fact I'm a little interested that I think women would undoubtedly bring a different dimension to a purely pastoral role. I guess I'm curious about how that plays out. We would have in our Church women we would simply seek out for such guidance, advice, help, without the need for them to be ordained. The priest's wife sometimes rather naturally fills that role with some experience, but in our parish I've only asked Presvytera for technical information and advice, and somewhat pastoral advice for dealing with children, but she's quite a bit younger than I so I tend to gravitate to women with more experience than myself in both faith and life to seek such guidance.

But I am sorry you've had such a reaction. While we don't recognize the possibility of women being ordained to the priesthood in our Church, it isn't our business to judge what anyone else does, and I'm just really sorry that you've received such a reaction from anyone. Though I suspect you're well experienced in dealing with your role. I do apologize if anything I've ever said came across in a wrong way, and please forgive me. God be with you.

 

[FireDragon76]

Anastasia, I can respect your viewpoint. Many Orthodox do not judge those outside the canonical boundaries of the eastern churches.

But there are Orthodox Christians that do treat Protestant pastors badly because they happen to be women. After the EKD in Germany elected a woman, Margot Käßmann, as their presiding bishop, the Russian Orthodox patriarchate seemed to express that the possibility of even having any dialogue had ended.

How can we take that any other way, then the denigration of women? Of all the issues that separate Orthodox and Protestants... that one is the one thing that ends dialogue? Yet Orthodox were willing to engage in dialogue with us for years beforehand, despite knowing we do not share their concepts of the priesthood or episcopate.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Anastasia, I can respect your viewpoint. Many Orthodox do not judge those outside the canonical boundaries of the eastern churches.

But there are Orthodox Christians that do treat Protestant pastors badly because they happen to be women. After the EKD in Germany elected a woman, Margot Käßmann, as their presiding bishop, the Russian Orthodox patriarchate seemed to express that the possibility of even having any dialogue had ended.

How can we take that any other way, then the denigration of women? Of all the issues that separate Orthodox and Protestants... that one is the one thing that ends dialogue? Yet Orthodox were willing to engage in dialogue with us for years beforehand, despite knowing we do not share their concepts of the priesthood or episcopate.

Well I can't comment on a matter I have no knowledge of.

But depending on the purpose of the dialogue ... ?

I'm hoping that we will have official word from the Church regarding relationships with non-Orthodox Christians. I expect that will come (hopefully sooner rather than later) and I hope it will be positive. I have every reason to expect it will be, because we already accept the baptism of all Trinitarian Christians except those with very different Christology (such as Christ being Michael the Archangel having been elevated).

So I am quite hopeful that we will have word of officially accepting others as part of the family of God. We simply have not had a council on it since before there were any such thing as a denomination, so the canons we have can't rightly be applied, IMO.

But ... is the purpose of the dialogue is actual unification ... you must please understand that the Church from the earliest days has not tolerated variance in certain things that were set forth. Yes, we have doctrinal freedom in many areas, but in certain things we all agree. That's the way the Church always was - again, since before denominations. And having a woman as a bishop would be one of those. I don't want to make an effort to compare it to anything else because I don't want to inadvertently be insulting. But such things as ecclesiastical structures cannot be changed, in our view. We had women with the Apostles, women we call "equal to the Apostles", and women we call "an Apostle to the Apostles" ... but we never ordained a woman episkopos, just as a man who had been married more than once, even for perfectly honorable reasons, cannot be ordained. That doesn't denigrate a widower who remarried, nor should it denigrate women. It just IS, and is set forth plainly in Scripture. That's the way we did it at the time of the Apostles, and the way we do it now.

So I can see the possibility that if some kind of real unity were the purpose of the talks, this would in fact make it plain that unity couldn't happen at that time.

I don't think unity - as in all being one Church - will ever happen. There is too much of a spirit of individualism in Christianity. I'm not saying this is the case with everyone, but many think it perfectly ok to separate themselves and make their own church over any disagreement whatsoever - even something that should be freely allowed as a point of disagreement. For some, unity with the Body isn't valued nearly as much as "agreeing with my every idea" ... I see little splits in some denominations all the time over it. Which is kind of ironic, since most will reject a more Traditional Church on the grounds that it enforces agreement or at least acceptance of some key beliefs, though they tend to be much more foundational and far fewer in number than the ones denominations split over.

I'm rambling, forgive me please. I don't actually know the case of the situation you cite. Though the Russians tend to be the most conservative among us. I won't judge them for that, given their recent history.

 

[Albion]

In real life, I find I meet with two quite different reactions. The first - and far more common - is "How wonderful to meet a woman priest! I'm so looking forward to when our church finally does that!" (Or some variation on that sentiment). The second, and less common, are the people who treat us as less than dirt. Refuse to speak to us, call us all sorts of names, that sort of thing.

I guess you can't say that you've literally met me, or else you'd have to say that there are three quite different reactions.

 

[FireDragon76]

@Anastasia, I don't think ecumenical dialogue is necessarily focused anymore on institutional unification as the main goal. We are looking for ways to promote a shared Christian witness in the world and promote cooperation among Christian bodies. One of the ways we do that is to make sure we understand where other Christians are coming from, so that the polemicism of the past does not influence us. You can't do that if you just come out and say "we won't talk to women".

From a Lutheran perspective, spiritual unity is a work of God, not human beings. There is unity wherever the Gospel is preached, in a limited but real way, and that is what we emphasize in ecumenism. We aren't interested necessarily in making Orthodox into Protestants.

 

[Paidiske]

In fact I'm a little interested that I think women would undoubtedly bring a different dimension to a purely pastoral role. I guess I'm curious about how that plays out. We would have in our Church women we would simply seek out for such guidance, advice, help, without the need for them to be ordained. The priest's wife sometimes rather naturally fills that role with some experience, but in our parish I've only asked Presvytera for technical information and advice, and somewhat pastoral advice for dealing with children, but she's quite a bit younger than I so I tend to gravitate to women with more experience than myself in both faith and life to seek such guidance.

But I am sorry you've had such a reaction. While we don't recognize the possibility of women being ordained to the priesthood in our Church, it isn't our business to judge what anyone else does, and I'm just really sorry that you've received such a reaction from anyone. Though I suspect you're well experienced in dealing with your role. I do apologize if anything I've ever said came across in a wrong way, and please forgive me. God be with you.

Nothing to forgive, Anastasia. You are consistently thoughtful, gentle and lovely. I am often forceful and unapologetic in putting across my position, but I try not to attack other people with whom I disagree (I may sometimes fail), and I have worried that I have been too harsh with you!

I'm not sure about pastoral differences. Women tend to do more work with children, but in our post-sexual-abuse crisis climate, frankly many good men are scared to do children's ministry. I've heard others say that women can be more empathetic, more emotionally sensitive, more demonstrative. In my observation, that's a bit of sexual stereotyping that's baloney; there's a spectrum of personalities across men and women, and having a woman doesn't guarantee someone soft and sensitive! (And there are some wonderful, gentle men out there, too). It's occasionally been the case, particularly with men nearing the end of life, that I've thought another man might be more helpful to them in processing their regrets and struggles.

My personal preference, actually, would be to work in teams; one person always struggles to be everything to everybody, but a diverse team can work together, maximising the strengths of each, to serve a community. Our church models make this very difficult, though.

Anastasia, I can respect your viewpoint. Many Orthodox do not judge those outside the canonical boundaries of the eastern churches.

But there are Orthodox Christians that do treat Protestant pastors badly because they happen to be women. After the EKD in Germany elected a woman, Margot Käßmann, as their presiding bishop, the Russian Orthodox patriarchate seemed to express that the possibility of even having any dialogue had ended.

How can we take that any other way, then the denigration of women? Of all the issues that separate Orthodox and Protestants... that one is the one thing that ends dialogue? Yet Orthodox were willing to engage in dialogue with us for years beforehand, despite knowing we do not share their concepts of the priesthood or episcopate.

Yes. One of the things that drives me nuts is the Anglican positions in dioceses which ordain women, which are listed as being only open to men "for ecumenical reasons." Either we ordain women or we don't, but to take the position that we ordain women, but then bow to pressure from other churches to make it easier for them not to have to interact with those icky ordained women is a lack of integrity that makes me deeply angry. (Not least because I've been interested in more than one of those positions, and ineligible to apply). The diocese of Europe is particularly bad in that regard, that I've noticed.

I guess you can't say that you've literally met me, or else you'd have to say that there are three quite different reactions.

Online is different again; and has a different range of reactions. I suspect partly because the cohort of people online tend to be much more educated and invested in their faith (that's a compliment ), and partly because it's not dealing with Australians, mostly, who are quite different to Americans in their take on lots of things!

 

[Albion]

Online is different again; and has a different range of reactions. I suspect partly because the cohort of people online tend to be much more educated and invested in their faith (that's a compliment ), and partly because it's not dealing with Australians, mostly, who are quite different to Americans in their take on lots of things!

I was playing the tease with my previous post, you know, but there was a more serious point to it.

While I believe what you wrote about the two kinds of people who have reacted to your ministry, I have to say that I have trouble appreciating either of them.

For me, this issue is simply a matter of theology, like the Real Presence. There's no reason to personalize it, either by treating the woman priest as if she were a winning political candidate or, OTOH, automatically to see her as an adversary.

There are two different "takes" on the Scriptural and historical evidence, that's all.

From my observation, many women ministers are better at performing the duties of the job than the average male is...except that it isn't a "job." But to be unkind to the minister for being on the other side of the debate (which is obviously the same side as taken by the church that ordained her) is ridiculous. Or so it seems to me.

So, anyway, that's what I called the "third way" of responding to the issue.

 

[Paidiske]

I think people struggle to not make it personal because the issue is deeply personal. It goes to the heart of who we are; and on the other side, it goes to the heart of what the church is, and whether a person can trust their church (which they need to be able to do). I'm not surprised at the strength of emotion in the discussions, although I do sometimes get tired of it.

Which is part of why I appreciate this forum, because it's supposed to be the one place on CF where people can't come in and denigrate women in ministry. Even the Anglican forum isn't a place where I can feel "at home."

 

[Albion]

I think people struggle to not make it personal because the issue is deeply personal.

Maybe so. I was just trying to say that I don't see it that way...which would seem to make me part of neither of the two camps that you said represent peoples' reactions to a woman priest.

Best wishes to you. I'll exit now.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sorry not much time to reply. You needn't fear that you were harsh.

I do like the idea of ministry teams where possible.

Nothing to forgive, Anastasia. You are consistently thoughtful, gentle and lovely. I am often forceful and unapologetic in putting across my position, but I try not to attack other people with whom I disagree (I may sometimes fail), and I have worried that I have been too harsh with you!

I'm not sure about pastoral differences. Women tend to do more work with children, but in our post-sexual-abuse crisis climate, frankly many good men are scared to do children's ministry. I've heard others say that women can be more empathetic, more emotionally sensitive, more demonstrative. In my observation, that's a bit of sexual stereotyping that's baloney; there's a spectrum of personalities across men and women, and having a woman doesn't guarantee someone soft and sensitive! (And there are some wonderful, gentle men out there, too). It's occasionally been the case, particularly with men nearing the end of life, that I've thought another man might be more helpful to them in processing their regrets and struggles.

My personal preference, actually, would be to work in teams; one person always struggles to be everything to everybody, but a diverse team can work together, maximising the strengths of each, to serve a community. Our church models make this very difficult, though.



Yes. One of the things that drives me nuts is the Anglican positions in dioceses which ordain women, which are listed as being only open to men "for ecumenical reasons." Either we ordain women or we don't, but to take the position that we ordain women, but then bow to pressure from other churches to make it easier for them not to have to interact with those icky ordained women is a lack of integrity that makes me deeply angry. (Not least because I've been interested in more than one of those positions, and ineligible to apply). The diocese of Europe is particularly bad in that regard, that I've noticed.



Online is different again; and has a different range of reactions. I suspect partly because the cohort of people online tend to be much more educated and invested in their faith (that's a compliment ), and partly because it's not dealing with Australians, mostly, who are quite different to Americans in their take on lots of things!

 

[Aviela]

After watching a number of debates on women's leadership, it seems to me that acceptance of women leaders is closely tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy in practice seems to mean not just no factual errors, but that Paul's advice to 1st Cent churches applies directly to us.

Are there churches that hold inerrancy and also have women as ordained leaders? Are there churches that don't accept inerrancy that don't?

Good question. I believe that the Bible is free from error but I also believe that women should be accepted into church leadership. Rather than believing the Bible has error, I believe that people misunderstand and misinterpret the Bible. This can come to light when we see varying contradictions. Women have been in leadership in the Bible and yet there are those few verses that make us question this very issue. I believe we need to see all scripture in context and see the truth of it. After all, it was Jesus (God) who stood up regarding the woman who was being stoned and the woman washing Jesus feet but man (people) who were in err.

 

[FireDragon76]

After watching a number of debates on women's leadership, it seems to me that acceptance of women leaders is closely tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy in practice seems to mean not just no factual errors, but that Paul's advice to 1st Cent churches applies directly to us.

Are there churches that hold inerrancy and also have women as ordained leaders? Are there churches that don't accept inerrancy that don't?

It's rare but it does happen. Perhaps they just don't view errancy/inerrancy through the same categories as traditional Reformed theology would. I know that Wesley accepted the ordination of women to preach, and I believe he likely held a high regard for the Scriptures. But he also probably did not read them the same way that the Fundamentalist/Modernist controverys unfolded the issue. So much of his approach was, after all, experiential and pietistic.

 

[Aviela]

...sorry I didn't realize this was a faith group thread...

 

[FireDragon76]

...sorry I didn't realize this was a faith group thread...

It's OK, it's the Egalitarian Christian section, so I don't see a problem.