The World Needs Women Priests

[Hmm]

I would say to represent means "to speak in the name of". So if a primary function of the Holy Spirit is to speak God's word to us, can a woman do this and can she do this in an official capacity? I know there are different views on this but I really can't see why a non-gendered God can only speak through males, whether on the market, priest or papal level. Isn't the human vocation to reflect God and if God neither female nor male why do we need a male to represent him in church? I know God incarnated was male but is that the same as saying God is male?

 

[Strong in Him]

I would say to represent means "to speak in the name of". So if a primary function of the Holy Spirit is to speak God's word to us, can a woman do this and can she do this in an official capacity? I know there are different views on this but I really can't see why a non-gendered God can only speak through males, whether on the market, priest or papal level. Isn't the human vocation to reflect God and if God neither female nor male why do we need a male to represent him in church? I know God incarnated was male but is that the same as saying God is male?

The primary role of the Holy Spirit is to convict people of sin and draw them to Jesus so they can be forgiven. Then he makes them new creations, " Corinthians 5:17, they are born again, John 3:3 and he keeps working in them to transform them into Jesus' likeness, 2 Corinthians 3:18. He also interprets the Scriptures to us and gives us gifts so that we can serve God.
We are not told that those gifts are limited only to men, or that some of them aren't suitable for women.

 

[Albion]

I would say to represent means "to speak in the name of". So if a primary function of the Holy Spirit is to speak God's word to us, can a woman do this and can she do this in an official capacity?

I'm not sure that we can say that a minister does speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit, i.e. that this is the role we are discussing.

It's something to think carefully about.

I know there are different views on this but I really can't see why a non-gendered God can only speak through males, whether on the market, priest or papal level.

Well, it isn't a matter of logic. Or even ability.

Isn't the human vocation to reflect God and if God neither female nor male why do we need a male to represent him in church?

It's a matter of following Scripture and the Apostolic practice.

When it comes to all sorts of other church practices, those are the guideposts that most Christians and their churches stand with unhesitatingly. But when it's this issue...modern social standards seem to rise to the top of the list for many people.

 

[Bro.T--2]

According to Paul he say.....

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:11-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Archivist]

I'm not sure that we can say that a minister does speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit, i.e. that this is the role we are discussing.

It's something to think carefully about.


Well, it isn't a matter of logic. Or even ability.


It's a matter of following Scripture and the Apostolic practice.

When it comes to all sorts of other church practices, those are the guideposts that most Christians and their churches stand with unhesitatingly. But when it's this issue...modern social standards seem to rise to the top of the list for many people.

Yes, a matter of following scripture. The Bible tells us of a female deacon, a female apostle, female preachers. It tells us that in Christ there is neither male nor female. It isn’t a case of “modern social standards.” The Society of Friends has always had female ministers since its founding in the mid 1600s.

Where we differ is that I would never say that you are wrong for believing that women cannot serve as pastors. If you believe that then by all means, don’t join a church that ordains women. But don’t say that those who believe that the ministry should be open to women are wrong or simply following “modern social practice.”

 

[Strong in Him]

According to Paul he say.....

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:11-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Yes, he did.
But what did he mean? If it were clear, it would not cause so many debates.

 

[Bro.T--2]

Yes, he did.
But what did he mean? If it were clear, it would not cause so many debates.

The Lord set man and women in a orderly way, lets see what Paul say 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The priest is set by Levites and their wives help as Paul said in verse 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Another thing Paul said in 1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. Paul also said in Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

 

[Archivist]

The Lord set man and women in a orderly way, lets see what Paul say 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The priest is set by Levites and their wives help as Paul said in verse 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Another thing Paul said in 1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. Paul also said in Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Nor is there male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28

And, again, if you don’t think that women should pastor a church don’t join a church that ordains women.

 

[Albion]

Yes, a matter of following scripture. The Bible tells us of a female deacon, a female apostle, female preachers.

And not one of them is clergy...not deacons, presbyters, or bishops. That is the hard fact that people try to get around but cannot do so unless they redefine some of these titles.

That said, it does not mean that women are not to be leaders in the church. Obviously some women were important in various leadership positions in Biblical times, just as they are in some of the churches these days which do not ordain women.

And it also does not give support to those Evangelicals who take the "women to be in submission" or "to keep silent in church" approach. That's going to eliminate women priests, of course, but it's a different argument and one that has much less of a following, from what I can tell.

 

[pescador]

According to Paul he say.....

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:11-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I'm so happy that times have changed and that all God's children are equal in His eyes. There is neither male nor female (also Jew nor Greek, slave nor free) in Christ Jesus.

 

[Albion]

I'm so happy that times have changed and that all God's children are equal in His eyes. There is neither male nor female (also Jew nor Greek, slave nor free) in Christ Jesus.

There always were neither Jew nor Greek, etc. in God's universe. All his human creatures are precious to him.

That, however, doesn't have anything to do with the "jobs" or functions or roles that he has called some people to as opposed to those roles he has called others to.

Do not forget that the Bible also tells us that we are all like different body parts, one like the arm, another like the heart, and so on, but that all must work together for the overall advancement of God's will and for the good of Christ's church, just as the various body parts are different in the human but all of them are important.

 

[Archivist]

And not one of them is clergy...not deacons, presbyters, or bishops. That is the hard fact that people try to get around but cannot do so unless they redefine some of these titles.

Apostles were not clergy? I don’t think so.

That said, it does not mean that women are not to be leaders in the church. Obviously some women were important in various leadership positions in Biblical times, just as they are in some of the churches these days which do not ordain women.

And it also does not give support to those Evangelicals who take the "women to be in submission" or "to keep silent in church" approach. That's going to eliminate women priests, of course, but it's a different argument and one that has much less of a following, from what I can tell.

And that is why those who oppose female clergy should not joint churches that ordain. Once again, I’m not saying that anyone is wrong on this issue.

 

[Hmm]

The primary role of the Holy Spirit is to convict people of sin and draw them to Jesus so they can be forgiven. Then he makes them new creations, " Corinthians 5:17, they are born again, John 3:3 and he keeps working in them to transform them into Jesus' likeness, 2 Corinthians 3:18. He also interprets the Scriptures to us and gives us gifts so that we can serve God.
We are not told that those gifts are limited only to men, or that some of them aren't suitable for women.

I thought I was saying exactly that. That's what I meant anyway. God is an Equal Opportunities Employer.

 

[Albion]

Apostles were not clergy? I don’t think so.

The word means a messenger or emissary, and that is the position held by the woman you referred to. She was not one of the Twelve, nor does anyone think she was such, simply because her role is described in scripture by this word.

a•pos•tle ə-pŏs′əl
►

• n.
  One of a group made up especially of the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel.
• n.
  A missionary of the early Christian Church.

(American Heritage Dictionary)

 

[Archivist]

The word means a messenger or emissary, and that is the position held by the woman you referred to. She was not one of the Twelve, nor does anyone think she was such, simply because her role is described in scripture by this word.

a•pos•tle ə-pŏs′əl
►

• n.
  One of a group made up especially of the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel.
• n.
  A missionary of the early Christian Church.

(American Heritage Dictionary)

Absolute proof that she was not clergy? You’re saying, well, she was just a messenger. The fact is that we do not know. Actually our knowledge of the very early church is very limited.

Again, I keep saying that you are entitled to your beliefs on this issue. I don’t know why you cannot extend that courtesy to me.

 

[Hmm]

Yes, he did.
But what did he mean? If it were clear, it would not cause so many debates.

I really don't know about that. God couldn't have made it clearer that we are to love Him, to love others as we love ourselves. People will debate anything as for example the second commandment: Love others as you love yourself. How could that be clearer from God but how many people think the exact opposite and suffer/allow low self esteem, guilt etc and sacrifice themselves to others, i.e. love others but hate themselves?

 

[Paidiske]

As to the question of whether women could represent the Holy Spirit in a particular way, I would argue no. Every baptised Christian is indwelt by the Spirit, and the Spirit works in and through each one of us. It would be poor pneumatology to try to divide that up and have some people represent the Spirit in a particular way.

And not one of them is clergy...not deacons, presbyters, or bishops. That is the hard fact that people try to get around but cannot do so unless they redefine some of these titles.

There wasn't a clearly defined category of "clergy" to which anyone belonged at the time. Phoebe is no less clergy than Stephen, and Junia no less clergy than Andronicus or any male apostle. That more developed distinction came later.

It's anachronistic to read that later understanding back into the earliest texts. And rather intellectually dishonest to use that argument to exclude women from being clergy when, if we went by the language and understanding of the time in which the epistles were written, the category of "clergy" would be meaningless, and not apply to anybody.

 

[Albion]

There wasn't a clearly defined category of "clergy" to which anyone belonged at the time.

It's been mentioned before that clergy is of more recent origin, but it serves as a simpler way to refer to deacons, presbyters, and bishop, all of which are indeed identified in scripture, so there oughtn't be any problem with this.

 

[Archivist]

It's been mentioned before that clergy is of more recent origin, but it serves as a simpler way to refer to deacons, presbyters, and bishop, all of which are indeed identified in scripture, so there oughtn't be any problem with this.

But you are making determinations as to what offices were and were not clergy.

 

[Paidiske]

It's been mentioned before that clergy is of more recent origin, but it serves as a simpler way to refer to deacons, presbyters, and bishop, all of which are indeed identified in scripture, so there oughtn't be any problem with this.

But there is a problem, Albion. Because if you explain away the clear statement of Scripture that Phoebe was a deacon as "Oh, well, but she wasn't a really real deacon, she was a servant, or a lay deaconess, she wasn't clergy," you're using a distinction which didn't exist in Phoebe's time to reinforce a later distinction, and using that to deny the diaconate (and, by extension, the other orders) to contemporary women.