The World Needs Women Priests

[Hmm]

Something tells me I'm not wrong here. Is there any Church which has started to ordain women which hasn't drifted to the left either politically or theologically? If that is the case, why is that?

Before I can answer that you need to explain what you mean by a church being theologically left and also how a church can be politically left.

The statement was that if a woman can become a nun, she can become a priest. This implies that to be in a monastic vocation is the enough qualification to be a priest. It isn't.

That's not what you said in your monkish statement above though.

 

[Albion]

Something tells me I'm not wrong here. Is there any Church which has started to ordain women which hasn't drifted to the left either politically or theologically? If that is the case, why is that?

Intriguing questions. No, after thinking on it for awhile, I cannot think of any. I'll be interested to see if any can be identified by other posters.

The statement was that if a woman can become a nun, she can become a priest. This implies that to be in a monastic vocation is the enough qualification to be a priest. It isn't.

Agreed.

 

[Love365]

Let's suppose the Catholic Church does this. How long before it resembles a limp and impotent Episcopalianism or any of the other mainstream Protestant Churches? I have a feeling what's left of actual Catholicism would fall into the void and people would no longer care about that worldwide communion.

The Episcopal Church only has to work in the United States.

The Catholic Church has to work in countries all around the world.

 

[Albion]

The Episcopal Church only has to work in the United States.

As I recall, The Episcopal Church is represented in nineteen different countries.

 

[Hmm]

The thing is though, it's a fact. There have been women priests in my own church, the Church of England, for over 25 years. Here are some statistics from the Church of England:

"The statistics show that women made up around 32% of the 20,000 active clergy last year, with a growing proportion of senior posts such as Bishops, Archdeacons and Cathedral Deans, occupied by women, from 25% in 2018 to 27% last year."

Now, unless you say that the Church of England is not a real church and that every one of these women were mistaken to believe they had received God's calling to enter into the ministry, I can't see any valid argument that can be made against women's ordination. Simply quoting proof texts that are disputed by serious scholars and clergy just doesn't cut it.

Of course, it's possible to argue that the Church of England isn't a real church but I personally would not be able to take that seriously.

 

[Paidiske]

Let's suppose the Catholic Church does this. How long before it resembles a limp and impotent Episcopalianism or any of the other mainstream Protestant Churches?

Is there any Church which has started to ordain women which hasn't drifted to the left either politically or theologically?

Well, that assumes that Anglicanism is "limp and impotent," which I can assure you it isn't.

As for drifting to the left, I can't speak to that. I observe an Anglican communion which encompasses a political and theological spectrum. That said, your question seems to assume that drifting to the left would be automatically bad, but that probably deserves discussion. When drifting to the left means things like supporting the humane treatment of refugees, supporting ecologically responsible policies, and opposing workplace structures which exploit workers (just examples that come to mind from my own diocesan committee work), then isn't that the sort of position to which the gospel ought to commit us?

The Episcopal Church only has to work in the United States.

The Episcopal Church is part of a global communion. The diocese in which I serve, in Australia, is part of the same church.

 

[rturner76]

As for drifting to the left, I can't speak to that. I observe an Anglican communion which encompasses a political and theological spectrum. That said, your question seems to assume that drifting to the left would be automatically bad, but that probably deserves discussion. When drifting to the left means things like supporting the humane treatment of refugees, supporting ecologically responsible policies, and opposing workplace structures which exploit workers (just examples that come to mind from my own diocesan committee work), then isn't that the sort of position to which the gospel ought to commit us?

I think more than the issues you mentioned when people say churches go to the left, I assume they mean making homosexuality not a sin and/or gay marriage and pro-choice sympathetic. I'm pretty sure that is what most conservatives would cite specifically.

I personally don't care, it's not my issue but I would say the Catholic Church is to the left on all issues but those two. I think in general, women are just more accepting than men about many things including people. Men are more sticklers on the gay issue especially.

 

[Philip_B]

homosexuality not a sin and/or gay marriage and pro-choice sympathetic

These are not matters which lend themselves to and understanding of left or right. The left and right of politics are to do with the economic realities, typically reflected in the parties of Labour and Enterprise.

One with said that the Labour Parties believe that money is made round to go round, while the Parties of Enterprise believe it is made flat to stack.

The issues of Homosexuality, Single Gender Marriage, Pro-life, and Pro Choice, typically would cut a swathe through both the red and the blue* side of politics having supporters and detractors all over the place.

_______________
*
In the USA Blue is Democrats to the Left and in Australia Red is Labor to the Left.
In the USA Red ins Republican to the right and in Australia Blue is for the LNP to the Right.

 

[Albion]

Now, unless you say that the Church of England is not a real church and that every one of these women were mistaken to believe they had received God's calling to enter into the ministry, I can't see any valid argument that can be made against women's ordination. .

I guess it all depends on what the observer thinks is "valid," but obviously, I'd say, the churches which do not ordain women (including the largest ones and oldest ones) can make the same argument that you did --except in reverse. And they can also point to Scripture, Tradition, and history.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Before I can answer that you need to explain what you mean by a church being theologically left and also how a church can be politically left.

That's not what you said in your monkish statement above though.

Theological liberalism and conservatism are distinguished by the willingness to treat literally certain aspects of the faith i think. It's more a spectrum than a strict binary. If you deny the resurrection actually happened then you're more liberal, just as one example. If you agree with Adolphus Von Harnack, then you're a liberal theologian, maybe not even a Christian. I think its a bit hard to define but when we see a liberal theologian and a conservative theologian we know the difference. Maybe the best way to tell is if they're on the liberal part of Patheos or have been invited to contribute at First Things.

I hope that helps because I would like to know of an example of a Church ordained women and then proceeding with Conservative vision. Emphasizing the necessity of Christianity vs other religions. Emphasizing that Christ alone can only give salvation. Speaking against homosexuality and the sexual revolution. Far as I can see they all go the opposite way if they have ordained women. It would be generally shocking to me if that happened.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a cause but it Certainly could be a symptom.

 

[Paidiske]

I think more than the issues you mentioned when people say churches go to the left, I assume they mean making homosexuality not a sin and/or gay marriage and pro-choice sympathetic. I'm pretty sure that is what most conservatives would cite specifically.

I personally don't care, it's not my issue but I would say the Catholic Church is to the left on all issues but those two. I think in general, women are just more accepting than men about many things including people. Men are more sticklers on the gay issue especially.

If those issues are what is meant, then I think they need to be specified. Because simply to speak of left and right is so broad as to be meaningless, otherwise.

In my own experience (in Australia, which is certainly a very different social landscape to America), I do not observe, though, that one can equate "ordains women" with "approves same sex marriage and abortion." They are independent issues and different churches respond to each differently.

Theological liberalism and conservatism are distinguished by the willingness to treat literally certain aspects of the faith i think. It's more a spectrum than a strict binary. If you deny the resurrection actually happened then you're more liberal, just as one example. If you agree with Adolphus Von Harnack, then you're a liberal theologian, maybe not even a Christian.

Okay, say we take this definition; by that measure I'm not a liberal in the slightest. I believe each article of the Creed quite literally and profoundly. And my church would not consider ordaining someone who said they didn't believe it. The idea that being egalitarian entails abandonment of the faith is completely untrue.

I hope that helps because I would like to know of an example of a Church ordained women and then proceeding with Conservative vision. Emphasizing the necessity of Christianity vs other religions. Emphasizing that Christ alone can only give salvation. Speaking against homosexuality and the sexual revolution. Far as I can see they all go the opposite way if they have ordained women. It would be generally shocking to me if that happened.

Well, as you've observed, it's a spectrum, but I don't know of any churches around me which would endorse other religions as equally valid, or the like. There's a range of positions on homosexuality (and we'd have to unpack all that you mean by "the sexual revolution" as well), but generally speaking, most churches in my experience would still be upholding a fairly traditional ethos on marriage and sexual ethics. (Even the Anglican diocese of Sydney ordains women as deacons, and they're pretty conservative!)

So I find this idea - common on CF - that somehow ordaining women means throwing every other Christian idea or standard out the window completely at odds with my actual experience of church. It's one issue - among many - on which Christians differ. Not a litmus test of overall faith.

 

[Love365]

When a male priest says that abortion is a sin,
on some level those words ring hollow and empty.
Because he could never get pregnant himself.

That is why you need women priests.

 

[Albion]

Probably the weakest argument we've heard yet.

 

[Hmm]

I guess it all depends on what the observer thinks is "valid,"

I'm not sure it does. Any argument against women's ordination would only be true if the Church of England and the calling of every one of it's women priests are dismissed as phony. Because if just one of these callings is from God then any argument against is false.

but obviously, I'd say, the churches which do not ordain women (including the largest ones and oldest ones) can make the same argument that you did --except in reverse.

That's true. I think society is taking the lead on this issue and the Church needs to learn from that just as it had to in Galileo's time.

And they can also point to Scripture, Tradition, and history.

But the Church of England, for one, can also point to Scripture and at least 25 years of history. I think the important thing about history though is the fact that at one point in time a church made a decision that it believed was God directed, not how long ago that decision was taken.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Okay, say we take this definition; by that measure I'm not a liberal in the slightest. I believe each article of the Creed quite literally and profoundly. And my church would not consider ordaining someone who said they didn't believe it. The idea that being egalitarian entails abandonment of the faith is completely untrue.

I'm glad you believe in the Creeds and what they actually say. Far too many are comfortable relativizing them and Christian doctrine in general.

Egalitarianism might not necessarily entail an abandonment of the faith but it is a trajectory. One which is incongruous with much of the Church's history and will have effects on any given Church given enough time. I'm not convinced that effect has or will be positive. Given the penchant for female clergy to embrace political liberalism which I see as antithetical to Christian moral teaching.

Well, as you've observed, it's a spectrum, but I don't know of any churches around me which would endorse other religions as equally valid, or the like. There's a range of positions on homosexuality (and we'd have to unpack all that you mean by "the sexual revolution" as well), but generally speaking, most churches in my experience would still be upholding a fairly traditional ethos on marriage and sexual ethics. (Even the Anglican diocese of Sydney ordains women as deacons, and they're pretty conservative!)

So I find this idea - common on CF - that somehow ordaining women means throwing every other Christian idea or standard out the window completely at odds with my actual experience of church. It's one issue - among many - on which Christians differ. Not a litmus test of overall faith.

Maybe at the moment it might not mean throwing out every standard, but in ten years, maybe the Anglican Church can loosen another standard in the efforts of compassion. Eventually The Church of England will approve of Homosexuality, that's just how it's going to go. Conservatives will be told to accept it or take a hike and there will be a schism. I wish the conservatives all the best because they won't inherit the power centre of Global Anglicanism in the divorce settlement and instead will be given scraps. The liberal side will continue to accept whatever is in vogue, trans-rights and perhaps eventually many other secularly approved values. I don't know how it's possible to actually deny this is the inevitable future of Anglicanism given the tensions that exist within.

I think it's a good test ask yourself if you think the Church you belong to now will remain unchanged in the near or distant future. You might like your Church now, but will it remain fundamentally the same entity in the future? Would C.S Lewis have recognized the Church of England of his day in the current one day? I dare say he would only find it in conservative Anglicanism.

I'm curious when you say most Churches hold a traditional sexual ethic. Would that mean there are some that don't? That accept that sex outside of marriage is acceptable? I recall here in Auckland the Anglican Church made an announcement to that effect. Actually I found her exact words:

The Rev. Dr. Helen Jacobi, Vicar of St. Mathew in the City of Auckland told The Spinoff, a weekly newsletter, that unmarried Anglicans can still have sex. "Yes, absolutely. Rejoice, all who appreciate a church hymn while also appreciating a bit of hanky panky. You may be falling short of God's purposes for human beings in England but in New Zealand, you're doing just fine."

AUCKLAND ANGLICAN DEAN SAYS NZ ANGLICANS CAN HAVE SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE | VirtueOnline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

If global Anglicanism tolerates this as an acceptable opinion, it will supplant the majority opinion eventually. Just a guess.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's true. I think society is taking the lead on this issue and the Church needs to learn from that just as it had to in Galileo's time.

At what point should the Church stop following society in your opinion?

 

[Paidiske]

Egalitarianism might not necessarily entail an abandonment of the faith but it is a trajectory. One which is incongruous with much of the Church's history and will have effects on any given Church given enough time. I'm not convinced that effect has or will be positive. Given the penchant for female clergy to embrace political liberalism which I see as antithetical to Christian moral teaching.

Honestly, I don't really see that female clergy are any worse than the men on any particular issue, and on some, measurably better. (The rate of sexual abuse of children by women clergy is almost non-existent compared to that of men, for example).

That said, I disagree. If it's a trajectory at all, it's the same trajectory that rejected slavery and apartheid and anti-semitism. It's a trajectory which embraces the worth and dignity of every single human being, without caveat or exception. That's a trajectory with which I'm very comfortable.

I don't know how it's possible to actually deny this is the inevitable future of Anglicanism given the tensions that exist within.

I don't think we can say that any particular prediction is inevitable. Certainly something will need to shift, I think, but for the moment, those who are unhappy seem perfectly happy to be destructive from within rather than seeking formal schism. Perhaps there will come a time when the rest of us will no longer be willing to tolerate that.

I think it's a good test ask yourself if you think the Church you belong to now will remain unchanged in the near or distant future.

No, I think that's a terrible "test." The question is not, will my church change? The question is, is my church where God would have me be? As long as I am convinced that the answer to the second question is yes - and I am - then this is where I will commit myself in service. I do not know, in relation to the various forces for change, why God has me exactly where I am; I identify neither with the extreme progressive nor the extreme conservative edge of things. I can only seek, as best I am able, to be faithful where I am and trust God to work through that.

I'm curious when you say most Churches hold a traditional sexual ethic. Would that mean there are some that don't?

Possibly. I will confess to not being up to date with all the most recent statements of the many denominations, and I need to leave some room open for diversity. (Also I note that for churches with a more congregational polity, there may well be far more breadth in practice than denominational statements might lead one to believe).

That said, for the ones of which I am aware, in broad terms the expectation would still be that sex belongs within marriage; and the churches which to any degree embrace same-sex marriage would be sharply in the minority.

The Rev. Dr. Helen Jacobi, Vicar of St. Mathew in the City of Auckland told The Spinoff, a weekly newsletter, that unmarried Anglicans can still have sex. "Yes, absolutely. Rejoice, all who appreciate a church hymn while also appreciating a bit of hanky panky. You may be falling short of God's purposes for human beings in England but in New Zealand, you're doing just fine."

AUCKLAND ANGLICAN DEAN SAYS NZ ANGLICANS CAN HAVE SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE | VirtueOnline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

If global Anglicanism tolerates this as an acceptable opinion, it will supplant the majority opinion eventually. Just a guess.

Well, I would certainly disagree with her, and I do not think that "global Anglicanism" (to the extent that there is such a thing; she is certainly correct that we do not have a governing body which dictates positions across the global communion) would consider this to be an acceptable opinion either. It would not be the position where I am.

Certainly we have mavericks and those who push the boundaries (in all sorts of directions). That is not a new feature of Anglicanism. But you cannot judge the whole by the mavericks or the boundary pushers (although they tend to get the headlines). Most of us are just ordinary, boring (in the sense of not generating sensationalist headlines), faithful, orthodox Christians who seek to love God and neighbour, in communities of word and sacrament. But those ordinary faithful Christian communities are not - what did you call us before? - limp and impotent. They are loci of God's transforming grace.

 

[Hmm]

At what point should the Church stop following society in your opinion?

Not sure what you're saying. Are you saying rhe church was wrong to (eventually) listen to Galileo?

 

[rturner76]

These are not matters which lend themselves to and understanding of left or right. The left and right of politics are to do with the economic realities, typically reflected in the parties of Labour and Enterprise.

One with said that the Labour Parties believe that money is made round to go round, while the Parties of Enterprise believe it is made flat to stack.

The issues of Homosexuality, Single Gender Marriage, Pro-life, and Pro Choice, typically would cut a swathe through both the red and the blue* side of politics having supporters and detractors all over the place.

_______________
*
In the USA Blue is Democrats to the Left and in Australia Red is Labor to the Left.
In the USA Red ins Republican to the right and in Australia Blue is for the LNP to the Right.

Politics are different in Australia and the UK. There, you have multiple parties like the Greens and others where opinions on individual issues can cross party lines.. In the USA it is very black and white. Like "whatever you are for, we are against."

I do agree that the left in the US also is more pro-labor union, public healthcare, public education, and the social safety net. The right is more capitalist, anti-union, top-down economics or "trickle-down" as it's been termed.

The issues of abortion and homosexuality are typically (here) a right or left issue. Liberals/progressives being pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage. The opposite for the conservatives.

This is a polarizing issue for us and being a member of one party typically means you follow their stance on these 2 issues.

The confusing part is that the party that believes in less government, and less regulation is FOR outlawing abortion and homosexual marriage which is more government regulation.

It's confusing, hypocritical, and oppositional but that's the nature of American government in general and it's why nothing gets done. The 2 sides refuse to agree or compromise on ANYTHING.

 

[rturner76]

If those issues are what is meant, then I think they need to be specified. Because simply to speak of left and right is so broad as to be meaningless, otherwise.

In my own experience (in Australia, which is certainly a very different social landscape to America), I do not observe, though, that one can equate "ordains women" with "approves same sex marriage and abortion." They are independent issues and different churches respond to each differently.

You are correct that those specific issues should be identified in global politics.

It has become very black and white in the USA about Liberal/left-Pro-choice, Conservative/right-Pro-Life, with a handful of people like me who a Left but still pro-life. In my experience, having that opinion has alienated me from 99% of the liberals that I know politically. A great number of people here vote based on that one issue of abortion.

I believe it is one of many issues but for a huge number of people, it's a choice based on one issue when voting.