The World Needs Women Priests

[Albion]

And those denominations are part of the church.

And we all agree to that.

Calls to preach, and to ordination, are properly submitted to, and tested by, the church.

Well, that didn't seem to be what you were saying. It appeared that your contention was that IF a women feels the call, the church itself cannot rightfully say that its age-old understanding of God's word precludes her from ordination.

 

[Albion]

Sure, but presbyter, priest, bishop, and elder all refer to what was originally the same office.

Actually priest was not one of the terms originally used, that came later.

1. The statement (above) that you are taking exception to is, however, correct as it stands.

2. In addition, I previously had made mention myself of the fact that the use of the word "priest" to mean presbyter came into use later.

 

[Albion]

We also know that there were a number of female disciples of Jesus

...and that is what always happens to discussions of this particular topic.

The subject is supposed to be women's ordination. The opponents point to a half-dozen or so scriptural and historical reasons for their stand, and the advocates then turn women's ordination into what God must surely want done as they intuit the matter or else describe it as if it were a civil rights issue.

It's as though they want us to take seriously the notion, at least for debate purposes, that the historic churches adhere to the original belief of the Church with regard to this matter because they look down on women!

They argue that women were "leaders" (but not clergy) in the ancient church, that they were deaconesses (but not clergy), that they were highly regarded by Jesus (as though that answers the question), that some were appointed as messengers, i.e. as "apostles"(but not clergy), that they can deliver a sermon as effectively as any man (which is certainly true but off the subject). And that's only part of the information that absolutely doesn't 'prove' that women were ordained or should be.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well, that didn't seem to be what you were saying. It appeared that your contention was that IF a women feels the call, the church itself cannot rightfully say that its age-old understanding of God's word precludes her from ordination.

Sorry, I probably wasn't too clear.
Women cannot ordain themselves; they submit their call to the church and it is tested, which may, or may not, result in training and ordination. That was my question; how can a woman usurp (forcibly snatch) authority from men, when her authority from God to preaching/ordination is recognised by men?
But, if a woman believes she is called to ordination but belongs to a denomination which says "no, we don't accept that calling for women", she is free to leave that church and go and find one which will allow her to explore that call from God.

When God calls, it will happen; despite religious leaders, and church members, who may say otherwise.
I know of people who were turned down for ordination by one church - they were men, so nothing to do with gender - who said "well we know we're called to do this", went to another church and were accepted.
Gladys Aylward wasn't ordained, but when the missionary board said "no", she went anyway - and founded a church in China.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes.



The following is extracted from a sermon I gave many years ago:

We also know that there were a number of female disciples of Jesus - Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, the sisters Mary and Martha, Joanna, Susanna and Salome are all named. Whenever the female disciples are mentioned in the Bible, Mary Magdalene is always the first named. In the literary tradition of the time the first named is always the most important. Mary Magdalene is even named ahead of Mary his mother. Even the name Mary Magdalene may be informative. Mary "of Magdala" seems not to be correct since there is no solid historical or archaeological evidence that there ever was such a town. Another possible interpretation of the word "Magdalene" is that it is derived from an Aramaic word meaning roughly "the most important". Early Christian writers have sometimes referred to her as "Mary the Great" and also as the “Apostle to the Apostles”. Why should such importance be attached to this woman?
Here is an interesting take on the story of Mary and her sister Martha. Martha is scurrying around preparing a meal and is getting a little overheated because Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus listening to him teach. Martha comes to Jesus and asks him to tell Mary to get up and help her.

The fact that she asked Jesus rather than going directly to her sister says something in and of itself. In that culture a married woman could be directed only by her husband. To go to the wife directly when her husband is present would be an insult to the husband in that very patriarchal society. We can draw each of us our own conclusions here. And yes I do believe that Mary the Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same person.

Interesting.
But that doesn't answer the point that in Luke 7 the woman who anointed Jesus is not named; whereas in Luke 8:3 Mary Magdalene is named and described as a woman from whom 7 demons had been driven out.
If Luke knew it was Mary M who anointed Jesus, why did he not name her a few verses before? Jesus said that she was showing much love because she had been forgiven much. But there is no suggestion elsewhere that Martha's sister, Mary, had led a sinful life. She is not named in that incident in Luke 10:38-42, nor at the tomb of Lazarus, as Mary Magdalene. Neither id Mary Magdalene identified as Martha's sister at the cross and in the garden.

The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip are not Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Sorry, I probably wasn't too clear.
Women cannot ordain themselves; they submit their call to the church and it is tested, which may, or may not, result in training and ordination. That was my question; how can a woman usurp (forcibly snatch) authority from men, when her authority from God to preaching/ordination is recognised by men?

Isn't the point there that the Church, in the rightful exercise of the authority granted to it by Christ, decides against the ordination of the applicant, just as it would or could do with a man who says he has a call but the Church decides, for one reason or another, that he isn't eligible?

But, if a woman believes she is called to ordination but belongs to a denomination which says "no, we don't accept that calling for women", she is free to leave that church and go and find one which will allow her to explore that call from God.

That's true. There are plenty of churches which hold to different doctrines than the ones which most often come to mind when this issue is raised, and we don't ordinarily think of them as non-Christian simply because of the doctrinal differences.

I know of people who were turned down for ordination by one church - they were men, so nothing to do with gender - who said "well we know we're called to do this", went to another church and were accepted.

Gladys Aylward wasn't ordained, but when the missionary board said "no", she went anyway - and founded a church in China.

Sure. So shall we say that the controversy here has been resolved?

 

[Strong in Him]

Isn't the point there that the Church, in the rightful exercise of the authority granted to it by Christ, decides against the ordination of the applicant, just as it would or could do with a man who says he has a call but the Church decides, for one reason or another, that he isn't eligible?

But some sections of the church, with the authority granted by Christ, accept women for ordination.

Sure. So shall we say that the controversy here has been resolved?

Well we can end the discussion between us, if you like.
But originally, I asked @Redwingfan9 to explain what he meant by "usurp authority", and I've not yet had an answer.

If a woman WAS standing up in church and saying "I feel called to be ordained. Get out of the pulpit, I'm taking over"; you could very well say that she was snatching authority by force.
But not if the church itself has tested, prayed over, recognised and accepted her call, and ordained her.
And in a lot of cases, a female preacher/vicar will be under the authority of a male vicar/bishop/Superintendent.

 

[Albion]

But some sections of the church, with the authority granted by Christ, accept women for ordination.

The issue here is not what some denominations do, but whether what those denominations do or believe is correct.

 

[Redwingfan9]

But some sections of the church, with the authority granted by Christ, accept women for ordination.



Well we can end the discussion between us, if you like.
But originally, I asked @Redwingfan9 to explain what he meant by "usurp authority", and I've not yet had an answer.

If a woman WAS standing up in church and saying "I feel called to be ordained. Get out of the pulpit, I'm taking over"; you could very well say that she was snatching authority by force.
But not if the church itself has tested, prayed over, recognised and accepted her call, and ordained her.
And in a lot of cases, a female preacher/vicar will be under the authority of a male vicar/bishop/Superintendent.

Any church that is engaging in worship or doctrine not authorized in scripture is doing so without the authority of Christ. We can hardly be surprised in a fallen and totally depraved world that the church would find itself in error from time to time.

As for women usurping the authority of men by preaching, a woman need not shove a man out of the way to usurp authority. The very act of preaching is an usurpation of authority not granted a woman in scripture. Timothy is clearly speaking about the church, that no woman is to have authority over a man and is to remain silent, ie she isn't to preach.

 

[pescador]

Any church that is engaging in worship or doctrine not authorized in scripture is doing so without the authority of Christ. We can hardly be surprised in a fallen and totally depraved world that the church would find itself in error from time to time.

As for women usurping the authority of men by preaching, a woman need not shove a man out of the way to usurp authority. The very act of preaching is an usurpation of authority not granted a woman in scripture. Timothy is clearly speaking about the church, that no woman is to have authority over a man and is to remain silent, ie she isn't to preach.

Galatians 3:28 says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

In one sentence the argument about "The very act of preaching is an usurpation of authority not granted a woman in scripture" is done away with. There is nothing in the New Covenant that prohibits women from participating fully in the Protestant faith, including teaching, preaching, prophesy, speaking in tongues, and the rest of the spiritual gifts.

People use 1 Corinthians to justify their discrimination against women, yet in that same epistle Paul wrote, "The churches in the province of Asia send greetings to you. Aquila and Prisca greet you warmly in the Lord, with the church that meets in their house."

Sexist untruths have no place in true Christianity.

 

[Albion]

There is nothing in the New Covenant that prohibits women from participating fully in the Protestant faith, including teaching, preaching, prophesy, speaking in tongues, and the rest of the spiritual gifts.

There is another discussion dealing with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but none of the gifts mentioned here has anything necessarily to do with "Women Priests," which is the subject of this thread.

The point you made goes to the contention of some that women should have no sort of leadership role whatsoever in church affairs or even speak in church, but only a very small segment of Christianity makes that its basis for not ordaining women as clergy.

 

[Strong in Him]

Any church that is engaging in worship or doctrine not authorized in scripture is doing so without the authority of Christ.

Really?
Where are Powerpoint/DVDs/Pianos/Service books/Flags or banners/Kid's programmes - even dog collars authorised in Scripture?

As for women usurping the authority of men by preaching, a woman need not shove a man out of the way to usurp authority. The very act of preaching is an usurpation of authority not granted a woman in scripture.

Women in the NT proclaimed the Gospel. Jesus not only allowed this, on one occasion he told a woman to do it. No doubt you'll tell me that telling the disciples that Jesus is alive, the disciples were to meet him in Galilee, Mark 16:7, and then he would be returning to his Father, John 20:17 was not a sermon. But Mary proclaimed the risen Christ, who she had personally seen and gave them a message - to go to meet him in Galilee, after which he would be returning to God. She delivered that message to a roomful of men, and Jesus told her to do so.

There were also prophetesses who proclaimed God's word.

Timothy is clearly speaking about the church, that no woman is to have authority over a man and is to remain silent, ie she isn't to preach.

Timothy wasn't speaking to anyone; it was Paul.
And considering he had many female co-workers, knew of women who hosted church gatherings (which meant rather more than "come round for tea and cake"), addressed the deaconesses in the church, taught that women could prophesy and spoke of Christians praising God with Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, it's unlikely he would have meant women to be completely silent and not worship, or give testimony to, God.

 

[Strong in Him]

The issue here is not what some denominations do, but whether what those denominations do or believe is correct.

That's the whole nature of the debate - some say yes, some say no.

But I would say that those who say "no", can only believe that their sisters in Christ who are preaching, with God's authority, inspiration and knowledge, are lying or deluded when they testify that God has called them to do this.
They must also be terribly clever - managing to persuade male clergy, theologians, bishops, Superintendents etc that, not only do they have a call, but we expect them to spend time and money training them. In the Bible, anything that was dreamed up and instigated by humans beings, ultimately failed - yet the numbers of ordained women is growing and the Gospel is being proclaimed.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Galatians 3:28 says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

In one sentence the argument about "The very act of preaching is an usurpation of authority not granted a woman in scripture" is done away with. There is nothing in the New Covenant that prohibits women from participating fully in the Protestant faith, including teaching, preaching, prophesy, speaking in tongues, and the rest of the spiritual gifts.

People use 1 Corinthians to justify their discrimination against women, yet in that same epistle Paul wrote, "The churches in the province of Asia send greetings to you. Aquila and Prisca greet you warmly in the Lord, with the church that meets in their house."

Sexist untruths have no place in true Christianity.

Applying modern concepts of discrimination to scripture is always a fools errand. The fact is that while men and women are equal before the Lord in our depravity, sin and misery, he has nevertheless given us different roles in life. That is made plain by the very clear teaching of the roles of husbands and wives, to say nothing of the obvious differences within the church.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Really?
Where are Powerpoint/DVDs/Pianos/Service books/Flags or banners/Kid's programmes - even dog collars authorised in Scripture?



Women in the NT proclaimed the Gospel. Jesus not only allowed this, on one occasion he told a woman to do it. No doubt you'll tell me that telling the disciples that Jesus is alive, the disciples were to meet him in Galilee, Mark 16:7, and then he would be returning to his Father, John 20:17 was not a sermon. But Mary proclaimed the risen Christ, who she had personally seen and gave them a message - to go to meet him in Galilee, after which he would be returning to God. She delivered that message to a roomful of men, and Jesus told her to do so.

There were also prophetesses who proclaimed God's word.



Timothy wasn't speaking to anyone; it was Paul.
And considering he had many female co-workers, knew of women who hosted church gatherings (which meant rather more than "come round for tea and cake"), addressed the deaconesses in the church, taught that women could prophesy and spoke of Christians praising God with Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, it's unlikely he would have meant women to be completely silent and not worship, or give testimony to, God.

I understand Paul was speaking, I meant to say in Timothy...

Silence clearly means in the context of preaching and teaching in corporate worship. For centuries women sang psalms with the rest of the congregation in Jewish synagogues. Everyone at that time would have known that and the context would have been understood to mean church leadership and preaching during corporate worship.

 

[MarkeSmith]

A woman cannot be a father!

No offense to women, a man cannot be a mother either.

Not a matter of equality He created them male and female but with very different roles!


Jesus ordained two priests.
John the Baptist and Mary of Bethany.
Where is this in the bible?
John was of the old covenant how could He be ordained a priest of new?

 

[pescador]

Applying modern concepts of discrimination to scripture is always a fools errand. The fact is that while men and women are equal before the Lord in our depravity, sin and misery, he has nevertheless given us different roles in life. That is made plain by the very clear teaching of the roles of husbands and wives, to say nothing of the obvious differences within the church.

"The fact is that while men and women are equal before the Lord in our depravity, sin and misery..." I don't know where this self-abasement came from but that is not the way that God sees His children.

When Jesus gave up His life for the forgiveness of sin he made us perfect in God's eyes. It may have a self-debasing "ring" to regard one's self as depraved, sinful, and miserable, but that is a serious error.

Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." To make a hierarchy or other distinction that contradicts this is simply heresy.

 

[Redwingfan9]

"The fact is that while men and women are equal before the Lord in our depravity, sin and misery..." I don't know where this self-abasement came from but that is not the way that God sees His children.

When Jesus gave up His life for the forgiveness of sin he made us perfect in God's eyes. It may have a self-debasing "ring" to regard one's self as depraved, sinful, and miserable, but that is a serious error.

Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." To make a hierarchy or other distinction that contradicts this is simply heresy.

Who said there is a hierarchy? I merely said God gave us different roles.

Scripture is abundantly clear about our depravity and our desprate need for a savior. We are dead in trespasses and sins, our hearts are dead and can only be made alive by God. This isn't self abasement, it's a plain reading of God's word.

 

[pescador]

A woman cannot be a father!

No offense to women, a man cannot be a mother either.

Not a matter of equality He created them male and female but with very different roles!


Jesus ordained two priests.
John the Baptist and Mary of Bethany.
Where is this in the bible?
John was of the old covenant how could He be ordained a priest of new?

1 Peter 2:9, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

This is referring to the entire body of believers. It is a unscriptural myth to consider that there is a separate priesthood and laity.

 

[pescador]

Who said there is a hierarchy? I merely said God gave us different roles.

Scripture is abundantly clear about our depravity and our desprate need for a savior. We are dead in trespasses and sins, our hearts are dead and can only be made alive by God. This isn't self abasement, it's a plain reading of God's word.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of "our depravity" and "our desprate [sic] need for a savior"; it certainly doesn't apply to believers.

We are not dead in trespasses and sins; we are alive to God in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 2:1-6...

"And although you were dead [past] in your offenses and sins, in which you formerly lived according to this world’s present path, according to the ruler of the domain of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience, among whom all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest…

But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even though we were dead in offenses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you are saved!— and he raised us up together with him and seated us together with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus..."

"... our hearts are dead and can only be made alive by God" is a plain denial of Christ's saving work: the cross. Those of us who are saved are, by definition, living [present tense] a new life in Christ.

Self-abasement may have an aura of humility and piety but it is contrary to God's Word.