Women Pastors part 2

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What is weird in accepting the Jubilee themselves they have proceeded to bind themselves to their unbreakable laws.

 

[Strong in Him]

I didn't say anything about the Apostles judging. I referred to Christ's will and intentions when he chose men only to be his first "clergy" and endowed them with the duties the church has long associated with ordained clergy.

He chose them to be his disciples; to follow him, learn from him, know who he was and preach the Gospel. They were not clergy.

We are his disciples too. We also have a commission to preach the Gospel, baptise and make disciples. Peter said that believers are a royal priesthood.

And regarding communion, the church may regard presiding at communion to be only a role for ordained clergy; but Scripture doesn't teach that.

 

[Albion]

He chose them to be his disciples; to follow him, learn from him, know who he was and preach the Gospel. They were not clergy.

Well, yes they were. They're customarily thought of as the first bishops of the church. To be sure, members of denominations that do not maintain the system of deacon, presbyter, bishop would find that peculiar or surprising to read.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well, yes they were. They're customarily thought of as the first bishops of the church.

They were assigned that title by other people - later on.
Jesus did not say, "follow me and I will make you bishops of the church". They were his disciples, friends and, after the resurrection, witnesses.

They were also all Jewish.
Does that mean you believe all bishops, and clergy, should be circumcised Jews?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

They were assigned that title by other people - later on.
Jesus did not say, "follow me and I will make you bishops of the church". They were his disciples, friends and, after the resurrection, witnesses.

They were also all Jewish.
Does that mean you believe all bishops, and clergy, should be circumcised Jews?

Interestingly, whereas the 12 apostles were Jewish, some members of the 70 were not. Furthermore, they did ordain non-Jews to be their immediate successors in several cases.

Their successors were styled episkopoi by St. Paul in his pastoral epistle to Timothy.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Now, here is my view on this issue:

If one does not regard ordination as a sacrament, there is no basis for not having female clergy.

However, if one does (specifically, the Orthodox, Protestants, Assyrians and Anglo Catholics), the priesthood and episcopate are male only, because the liturgy is written in that manner. However women can be ordained to the diaconate and hold a vast array of critical leadership roles in the fields of evangelism and theology.

We have to remember that St. Paul's ministerial partner was St. Theclas, a woman, and that Georgia was evangelized by St. Nino, an Armenian woman, who we venerate as equal to the apostles. And St. Mary is first among the saints, and is alone entitled to hyperdoulia.

I do think a case can be made of sexist bias in the case of people who reject veneration of St. Mary, who reject a sacramental priesthood and who reject the ordination of women. There are some who would reject deaconesses, which is nonsensical given the office is traditional and established in the early church.

Strictly speaking, the ancient, and in my view, preferrable, way, of baptizing adult women is to have a deaconess assist. This approach has lapsed, but given the increase in conversions to Orthodoxy I believe it should be revived.

 

[Paidiske]

Now, here is my view on this issue:

If one does not regard ordination as a sacrament, there is no basis for not having female clergy.

However, if one does (specifically, the Orthodox, Protestants, Assyrians and Anglo Catholics), the priesthood and episcopate are male only, because the liturgy is written in that manner. However women can be ordained to the diaconate and hold a vast array of critical leadership roles in the fields of evangelism and theology.

To be technical, though, this only holds if the liturgy is unchangeable. If, like Anglicans, you believe that the liturgy can change and still be effectual, you're on a different playing field.

(NB: I say this as someone who does not see ordination as a sacrament).

 

[Paul Yohannan]

To be technical, though, this only holds if the liturgy is unchangeable. If, like Anglicans, you believe that the liturgy can change and still be effectual, you're on a different playing field.

(NB: I say this as someone who does not see ordination as a sacrament).

From an Orthodox or Assyrian perspective, the central aspects of the liturgy are a component of Holy Tradition and are thus immutable. That said, the arrangement of services, the rules that order them (the Typikon in Byzantine parlance; the Armenians call this a word which means "Directory" and in Coptic use it is unwritten but quite elaborate), liturgical music and so on can be changed.

From an RCC perspective, these would be aspects of the Magisterium which are also hypothetically fixed.

Now, some Anglo Catholics do reject the ordination of women, which is why there have been several schisms within Anglicanism.

There is an extreme need in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism to avoid schisms on that scale, given the existing problems with the SSPX, and in Orthodoxy, the Old Calendar and Old Rite schisms (which are actually quite severe).

 

[Paidiske]

Even Anglicans would agree that there are some things we cannot change. Water baptism in the triune name, etc, would not be something we want to mess with.

The sex of ordinands is, in our view, not one of those things.

I don't know enough about Orthodoxy to be able to make any sort of educated comment, but I suspect Roman Catholicism is heading for, if not big schism, then mass exodus. From what I observe, the current tensions cannot be resolved within the current framework, nor will all their adherents be willing to inhabit them indefinitely.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I don't know enough about Orthodoxy to be able to make any sort of educated comment,

Orthodoxy is at the moment, thankfully, relatively stable. The only current controversies are primarily political in nature.

 

[Dave-W]

To be technical, though, this only holds if the liturgy is unchangeable.

Everyone believes the liturgy is changeable. Otherwise, every Orthodox and Catholic church would still be using first century Jewish liturgy.

 

[Paidiske]

But there was never any Jewish Eucharist. (For a start).

 

[Albion]

They were assigned that title by other people - later on.

Yes, yes, we've said before that the word is what we say today and that it's not what was said then to describe what we're talking about. That's no different from dozens of other theological terms like Trinity, Rapture, or Holy Communion which are not to be found in the Bible. However, none of that means that what is indicated by any of them is also not in Scripture.

All are--including clergy. This is also why, for your benefit, I used terms that are to be found in the Bible--deacon, presbyter, and bishop. Still no women indicated.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, yes, we've said before that the word is what we say today and that it's not what was said then to describe what we're talking about. That's no different from dozens of other theological terms like Trinity, Rapture, or Holy Communion which are not to be found in the Bible. However, none of that means that what is indicated by any of them is also not in Scripture.

All are--including clergy. This is also why, for your benefit, I used terms that are to be found in the Bible--deacon, presbyter, and bishop. Still no women indicated.

Neither is it indicated, in Scripture, that Christ called 12 men to be bishops.

That's my point. The disciples being appointed as bishops is either your interpretation, or a later teaching by the church; it's not Scriptural.

 

[Albion]

That's my point. The disciples being appointed as bishops is either your interpretation, or a later teaching by the church; it's not Scriptural.

Actually, it's neither of those.

 

[Strong in Him]

Actually, it's neither of those.

Well it's not Scriptural, so it must have come from somewhere.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Wow, this is really getting liturgically biased. I wonder why no Charismatics are chiming in...

 

[Albion]

Well it's not Scriptural, so it must have come from somewhere.

According to the New Testament, Christ commissioned--in fact, directed--those men to forgive (or retain) sins, observe (i.e. re-enact) the Lord's Supper, preach Christ as Lord and proclaim the kingdom, convert and baptize the nations of the world, and decide doctrine. They are shown in Scripture exercising the right to call ministers and send them to serve new churches.

In other words, they administer the sacraments, ordain presbyters, safeguard the true faith, and oversee missionary work. They're bishops.

What's more, the first century churches saw them as such, for which we can point to historical records from that era.

 

[Strong in Him]

According to the New Testament, Christ commissioned--in fact, directed--those men to forgive (or retain) sins, observe (i.e. re-enact) the Lord's Supper, preach Christ as Lord and proclaim the kingdom, convert and baptize the nations of the world, and decide doctrine.

Jesus, Paul and James told us to forgive one another - James said that we should confess our sins to one another.
The disciples, and women, broke bread together in the upper room after the ascension - we are not told that it was the disciples who "presided", or called to mind the Last Supper. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth about the Lord's Supper; his complaint was not that they celebrated it without an apostle present.
Jesus told his disciples to preach the Gospel, baptise and make disciples. Clearly that didn't mean just the 12, or the church would have ceased long ago. If we are Jesus' disciples, these words apply to us too.

In other words, they administer the sacraments, ordain presbyters, safeguard the true faith, and oversee missionary work. They're bishops.

All believers are to forgive sins, preach the word, "be ready to answer for the hope that is in us", 1 Peter 3:15, and stand up for, and teach, the Gospel. All believers can receive the gifts that the Spirit has for them, e.g teaching, evangelism, being a pastor.
Paul taught the faith, forgave sins and sent people on missionary journeys, and he wasn't one of the 12. In fact, on one occasion he didn't even send John Mark or Silas; he had a row with Barnabas and they split up. Paul wasn't converted by any of the 12.
After the ascension, Matthias was chosen to be an apostle - the criteria being that he'd been a witness to the resurrection. The first witness to the resurrection was Mary Magdalene; Jesus chose to appear to her first rather than the other 11 disciples who were all in hiding.

Peter says that all believers are a royal priesthood.

What's more, the first century churches saw them as such, for which we can point to historical records from that era.

Yes, they may have done, later. But at the time, it was different. At the time Jesus did not say, "follow me and I'll make you bishops in the church", nor, "I will build my church and you are the first bishops." Nor did he ever say "and you must never allow women to be appointed or ordained."

 

[Philip_B]

All believers are to forgive sins, preach the word, "be ready to answer for the hope that is in us",

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours
now and for ever. Amen.​