Women’s Ordination: Open Thread

Glad to see Stand Firm ready to address this topic, although I realize that our discussion won’t resolve anything.

My belief about the ordination of women falls somewhere between positions 3 and 4, although I’m not sure I entirely understand the difference between 2 and 3.  I find Scriptural basis for women as deacons so I have no problem with women being ordained to the diaconate.  My Roman Catholic upbringing causes me to seriously question the validity of women ordained to the priesthood, such that even though I am a woman, I have never received communion from the hand of a woman in a collar.  However, I now find that my faith places me squarely in the conservative Anglican evangelical camp.  So today I wonder if women’s ordination might well border on adiaphora, considering all the confusion that exists among people who call themselves Christians concerning basic essentials of the faith: authority of Scripture, the Virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, etc.

Matt+
Well done.  You’ve presented a sound case for the “Woman as Deaconess/Priest, but not Bishop” line of reasoning.  I can only imagine how your parish is blessed through your thoughtful study.

Peace,
Andy

It woud also be interesting to hear from the Rev. Mrs. Kennedy about her experience and take on this if we behave ourselves.

Thanks for posting this interesting thread.

I also would choose #4, except only ordination to the deaconate.  I do not believe a woman can consecrate the eucharist or perform other sacraments.  I would not receive communion from a female priest.
But no one has addressed the issue of a single woman’s place in worship, whether previously married or not.  And I think many might take issue with the notion that childbirth provides salvation.

Thank you, Matt+, for your clear presentation.
Would, or could, anyone comment on the study by AMIA on this issue?
I am looking forward to all the input on WO—it’s a confusing issue, to say the least!
Jane, Edwin’s wife

My Views:

- Against WO to offices with roles defined to carry general authority over the Covenant Community. 

- Against women giving spritual instruction to men in a public setting, including preaching during Sunday worship. 

My conclusions:

- View WO as neither adiaphora nor as “essential,” (i.e., salvific) but rather a serious error that can yet be rectified. 

- View all forms of female spiritual headship over men, as a recapitulation of The Fall. 

- Am in agreement with the revisionists that the orthodox shot themselves in the foot by permitting WO.  Male headship is a creational distictive;  as is our sexuality.  Giving ground on the one, necessarily leads to yielding ground on the other. 

However, I also note that revisionists will also turn around and declare that those against WO hold an off-the-wall view.

- Believe that the battle over WO is temporarily lost, and the battle lines have (for now) shifted over to sexuality and core-doctrine issues.

I apologize in advance, but another priest in the ACN has a similar conclusion to Matt’s, and I think it also would server the discussion if I post it (and please do NOT ask me to identify him by name). Due to the length of the response, I will need to post it in 2 parts.
<blockquote>Part I

In any discussion of the role of women in society, we need to remember that until very recent years, if a woman was married, unless she or her husband were infertile, her time was likely spent with childbearing and childrearing. This meant that married women often had little time to learn, teach, etc. Factor in a much shorter life span than we now enjoy, and it is easy to see that biology had limited the horizon for what many women could hope to accomplish in life beyond having a family. This picture was painted in the extreme to recruit young women for the convents in the middle ages. A nun had the time and the access to learning and books to become a scholar. Typically, a wife did not. I know there are exceptions, married women and mothers who became scholars in their own right, but I believe this to be generally accurate.

Now oddly enough, after writing that, I am aware that in the ancient pagan world surrounding Israel, and in the pagan world into which the church was birthed, there were women priests. In many of the pagan temples, especially those that were deemed to influence fertility, their role was priest/prostitute. How their children were accommodated (if they were at all), I do not know.

In the history of Israel, there are two books in the Old Testament named for the women whose roll they feature, Ruth and Esther. Actually, Scripture is much kinder to the role and value of women than are the teachings of the Pharisees and the Rabbis, who generally thought it was wrong to teach women the Law.

Actually the words of many women are recorded in Scripture, in a favorable light beyond the two books of Ruth and Esther: Miriam’s song, Hannah’s praise to God (1 Samuel 2:1-20), the words of warning to God’s people issued by the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20), the song of Mary, the words of the Prophetess Anna when she sees the baby Jesus.

Miriam, the sister of Aaron led the women of Israel in song and celebration. Scripture refers to Miriam as a prophetess (Exodus 15:20-21).

The wise woman of proverbs is not shy. She is buying and selling land and wielding a great amount of authority for her household (Proverbs 31:10-29).

To my thinking, however, the most surprising story is that of the prophetess Deborah. More than a prophetess, Deborah was one of the judges of Israel. Now the Judges were the rustic but real leaders and deliverers of Israel. Two chapters of the Book of Judges (4 & 5) are devoted to the story of Deborah and the military victory Israel won at her direction.

Still, there would be no women priests in Israel, even though women priests and female deities were common in the paganism that surrounded Israel, (and in the paganism that surrounded the early gentile church). While Israel had queens, their queens apparently did not exercise the authority to rule the nation – their authority came through their husbands or sons.

When we get to Jesus, it is clear that unlike most Rabbis, Jesus took women seriously. He talked with them (even with prostitutes). He taught them (Luke 10:38-42), and women accompanied his disciples (Luke 8:1-3). The crowds he taught included women and children. The first witnesses of the resurrection were women (Matt 28:1-10). Jesus entrusted them to go and take the first news of his resurrection to his disciples – to whom he would appear later on. When after the ascension of our Lord, the disciples went back to the upper room to pray, there were women in their midst. Yet, Jesus closest disciples, the twelve were all men. There is also no indication that the 70 or the 120 included women.

When before his conversion, Saul was persecuting the church, he apparently thought Christian women were dangerous enough to the traditions that he wanted to preserve that he had them thrown into prison as he did the men (Acts 8:3 & 9:1-2).

It is to the Apostle Paul that the term misogynist is usually hurled. However, Paul went out of his way to evangelize women as well as men (Acts 16:13-15). In Philippians 4:2-3 he personally pleads with two women Euodia and Syntyche by name to reconcile their differences. These women must have been very significant in the life of the church.

Paul’s letter to the Romans, in particular the 16th chapter has some interesting clues in it regarding Paul’s attitude toward women. In verses 1-15 Paul specifically mentions 26 people by name. 18 of these are men, and 8 are women. Most of the women receive specific words of commendation.

Verse 1 is important to the discussion of women in the church:

Rom 16:1-2 ESV I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, (2) that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.

The word “servant” in this verse is the same word that elsewhere in scripture is translated “deacon.” However, the translation “servant” is more common. How does the translator know which to choose? One chooses by the context. Which translation of the word does the context here support? It is open to debate, but I side with those who think that Phoebe was appointed as a deacon, especially since the wording indicates that it was likely Phoebe carried Paul’s letter to Rome.

Further down, in Romans 16:7 we come to a more controversial verse. Some believe that they find evidence of a woman being numbered among the Apostles there. In that verse, we see the name “Junias.” In the accusative case, it is not obvious whether the actual name is “Junian,” a man’s name or “Junia,” a woman’s name. Scholars say the name is so far unknown to have been used as a man’s name. That is not proof, but it is evidence. Next, we must deal with what is said about this person – and that also is open to debate. Are Andronicus and Junia well known among the apostles, or well known to the apostles? Both meanings are possible, and the translators are divided in their rendering of the passage:

Rom 16:7 ESV Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Rom 16:7 HCSB Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

This one is too close for my limited skills to call. The historical evidence says that the name probably is Junia (a woman’s name), but many of the worlds finest Greek scholars cannot come to an agreement on whether is person is an apostle, or is known by the apostles. Consider also that while the New Testament uses the word “apostle” as a title. Like the word “deacon”, it also has a common meaning – “one sent out.” Gordon Fee, who is an outstanding New Testament scholar, and very much in favor of women’s ordination, states in his commentary on Romans that the text should probably be translated as, Andronicus and Junia were “outstanding among the missionaries.”</blockqote>

Part II

Verses often cited to indicate that only men could hold ordained church offices include the qualifications lists, which typically use the term, “the husband of one wife.” This phrase is found in 1 Timothy 3:1-13, and Titus 1:5-11. This is critical because Greek, as English used to, can use the masculine pronoun to refer to both men and women in a mixed group. However, the phrase “husband of one wife” is certain. I have seen attempts to argue that the word translated “wives” in 1 Timothy 3:11 should be translated as “women” and the qualifications there apply to female deacons. The Greek word used (gune) is commonly translated “women” elsewhere. However, every reference to “wife” in the entire passage is the same word (gune). So, the phrase “the husband of one wife” could be translated more literally as a “man (aner) of one woman” or a “one woman man.” In that context, I think it correct to translate the word as “wives” as most translators have done. That was likely the intention of the writer. To further this notion, the very next verse, verse 12 speaks of deacons being a “man of one woman.” It is hard to interpret it any other way. Some have asked, however, if 85% or 95% of your official church leadership is male, might not these passages emphasize male leadership while not disallowing female leadership, especially since some churches met in the houses of women?

Col 4:15 ESV Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

The accusation of misogyny has been hurled at Paul, primarily for what he says in 1Corinthians 14:33-36, and 1Timothy 2:12-14.

1Corinthians 14:33-36 comes as part of Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians to reduce the amount of confusion during church services. This is the context of the passage below.

1Co 14:34-35 HCSB the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says. (35) And if they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church meeting.

Given the context, the assumption that some women were disrupting the church service by asking questions of the husbands is probably correct. It is not at all likely that Paul wished to silence all speaking by women in the church for women did prophesy and pray in church services (Acts 21:8-9, 1Corinthians 11:5, cf Acts 2:17-18).

1Timothy 2:12-14 is direct:

1Ti 2:11-14 ESV Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. (12) I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (13) For Adam was formed first, then Eve; (14) and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The context seems to be general instructions on the content of public worship. This seems to be a straightforward prohibition on a woman teaching men. This is how the early church understood it also. Clement of Alexandria cites this scripture and says that the some of the apostles’ wives would accompany them on their travels (1Corinthians 9:5), but as sisters in the Lord, and they would teach the women.

There does seem to be a New Testament example, however, of a woman teaching a very prominent man.

Act 18:24-26 ESV Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. (25) He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. (26) He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

It is also interesting that most of the time when Scripture mentions Priscilla and Aquila, the woman’s name comes first!

So, what does the Bible teach about women’s ordination, or their roll in the church? It is not directly addressed! Nowhere does it specifically and concretely say that only men may hold official status in a church. Still the preponderance of data would indicate the male leadership is clearly the expected norm of church life, but how will we interpret this?

Some would say that all of the indications of males being in charge of everything were clearly culture bound, and not a necessary part of Christianity – now before you dismiss this, consider the discussion of head-coverings for women in 1Corinthians chapter 11. However, at the close of the discussion of head-coverings, Paul does not say a, “thus saith the Lord,” but ends that discussion by saying this:

1Co 11:16 ESV If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

In much of the Middle East, prostitutes would not wear a head covering, but respectable women typically would (Now I know that we could have a discussion on this until the cows come home, especially with Paul’s mention of angels but that is another topic).

In contrast, any time a New Testament writer appeals to the Old Testament, or to the order or intention of creation, we should have a hard time trying to interpret the point made as merely cultural, because the appeal is outside of culture.

OK. I know the question was “what does the Bible teach about….” However, if we are not going to simply dismiss the Scripture as out of date and out of touch instructions from another culture long, long ago, how are we to understand this? We are going to have to apply some logic to it.

One prominent woman theologian has taught that male leadership was part of the curse put on all creation at Genesis.

Gen 3:16 ESV To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

She goes on to say that, in Christ, the curse is removed.

Gal 3:13 ESV Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

She then appeals to this verse:

Gal 3:28 ESV There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The logic she is following is that if the curse is now removed for those who are in Christ, and if there is no difference between male and female in Christ, then male headship is now null and void.

The wife of one of my seminary classmates quipped, “And I suppose she had no pain in childbirth either!” There are two quick objections to this, which we can make from Scripture. One is that the New Testament does not seem to apply this logic to the role of women. The second is that male leadership was clearly established before the fall, in creation itself, when Adam names his wife. Equals do not name their equals.

Are we then to think that the feminine is inferior to the masculine? The Scriptures do not support that. It seems to take both masculine and feminine to fully reflect God’s image.

Gen 1:26-28 ESV Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (28) And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

How then are we to understand this?

Conservative theologians usually point out that there is a difference between function and essence. Jesus is co-equal with the Father, and of one essence with the Father, but while on earth He clearly subordinated his role and function to the Father’s role. Men and women are of the same essence (humanity) but have different roles.

So then, how are the role of men and women different in the church?

Let’s review some. We know Jesus took women seriously, and taught them – that was radical in his culture. No one seems to have protested that the Holy Spirit only fell on the men at Pentecost. We know that Paul evangelized women, taught women, and counted women prominently among his fellow workers, and addressed them personally in his letters. Women prayed and prophesied in public worship. But we do not see them leading or teaching in public ways (admittedly an argument from silence)

The most limiting direct word of Scripture would probably be Paul’s direction that he does not allow a woman to teach a man. To support that, he appeals to the created order, and to the fall of humanity. However, does he mean no teaching at all of any subject? Or is this prohibition confined to Scripture and doctrine?

If the role of a deacon is serving and not teaching, can a woman serve as a deacon?

Despite Paul’s prohibition of women teaching men, Priscilla had a role with her husband in teaching Apollos – who became a prominent evangelist. Paul gives no hint at all that he disapproved of that. Can a woman then teach the Scriptures or doctrine under the approval/authority of a man? This would clearly fit under the Scriptural teaching of male headship in the home.

Part III

This seems to be the pattern in use in Asia. David Virtue wrote in Virtue on Line, on July 3, 2006 “The truth is the Asians have worked out a wonderful way to allow women in ministry. They call them ‘pastors’ and they plant churches, become missionaries, evangelize, teach catechism, but the bishop comes around once a month to baptize, dispense Eucharist and perform all other sacramental acts. And the churches are growing like crazy.” In other words, these women ministers function under the headship of their male bishops.

It really is complicated and we must show grace to one another as we wrestle with our understanding of Scripture in these issues.

There are some other considerations also -

There are two more arguments which are not directly from Scripture, so I am including them separately. I probably do not represent either argument well, but I hope I have captured the basics of them.

Some see a pattern in the scriptures where more and more commonly women move to the forefront of ministry. Extend this pattern into the present, they say, and you see where in time women would be involved in every level and position of Christian leadership. This is sometimes referred to as “Trajectory.” The questions to ask out of this are:
1. Is there really a pattern of ever increasing involvement of women in leadership in the Scriptures?
2. If there is a pattern, is it legitimate to see it as extending beyond the scriptures into our present day?

Another issue that is important for Anglicans is whether a woman may preside at the Eucharist. C.S. Lewis wrote that there is a huge difference psychologically between saying “Our Father” in heaven and saying “Our Mother” in heaven. Our entire beings respond on different levels to the idea of “father” and the idea of “mother.” As Lewis wrote in a time when most altars were on the back wall, he was aware of a movement that is not as obvious now. There were times when the priest faced away from the congregation – toward the altar – when they were representing the people before God. Then there were times when the priest would turn and face the congregation, representing, Lewis said, God before the people. Lewis had no problem with a woman representing the people before God, but had difficulty with a woman representing God before the congregation. For some this will be a powerful argument. For others it will have no power at all.

Also, I have heard that there are some very angry arguments about this issue on conservative blogs around the country. I know that some people are passionate about this issue, but we can be passionate regardless of our position on this issue without being hateful.

And I think many might take issue with the notion that childbirth provides salvation

The text you mention (1 Tim 2 - last half) is talking about Eve, not about all women:  It says, “the woman ... she ....”  Eve is saved through the birth of the Messiah, many generations from her time. 

Recall also the meaning of the name Cain:  “I have gotten a man from the Lord.”  Some have suggested that Eve was anticipating the coming of the Serpant-Crusher prophesied in Gen 3:15.  I agree.

Matt, you might be surprised to read that I consider the I Corinthians passages about women silent in the churches to have nothing to do with this issue at all.  The case against WO, in my view, has been handicapped by introducing texts that are really irrelevant.  My personal view of those texts is that St Paul was attempting to silence a bunch of glossalaliac harpies.  Also the text from Acts relating to Priscilla is inconclusive; at most it shows a female in the role of a catechist.  Let’s try to observe a distinction between women in ministry and women in Holy Orders, a distinction a classical 16th century Protestant should have no trouble with, but one which might elude modern conservative evangelicals.  I believe a strong Biblical case against WO can be constructed along these lines:
(1)  the OT priesthood, along with its ancillary ministry of levites, was exclusively male, and this was in defiance of a pagan culture where female priests (I almost used the verboten word!) were well known.
(2) there is a strong and important continuity between the Old and New Testaments (I too am a Calvinist, Matt).
(3)  the Church’s apostolic ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon originated in the action of our Divine Lord Himself in appointing a male apostolate (even when He had approved the ministry of females in the warmest of terms). 
(4)  the episcopoi, presbyteroi, and diaconoi of the NT church were consistently male (Yes, I know episcopoi and presbyteroi were interchangeable terms in the NT, and please leave innocent little Phoebe out of this.  Her modest shoulders are not wide enough to bear the weight of the pro-WO argument.)
(5)  When Paul describes the qualifications of bishops and deacons in the the Pastoral epistles, he assumes that they will be male.  “Husband of one wife,” and stuff like that.
I believe that the official ministry of both Testaments was restricted to males for various reasons, principally because it was necessary to make that ministry as different as possible from the priesthood of paganism.  Now this raises the question, why is it that in our own tarnished age even those who mean to be orthodox and by-and-large are orthodox, have embraced WO?  I am thinking of John Stott (who also embraces annihilationism).  Is it because of a deeper reading of the NT, deeper than 2,000 years of Christian tradition, or is it because of an amiable accomodation to the Zeitgeist?  Cultural compromise is a very real danger, and the advocates of WO must shows us that have not sold the farm.  I’m deeply suspicious, not of sincere men (oops, <b> people <>) who hold a different view, but of the line of argument they are trying to sell.
Gee, all that, and I managed not to use the no-no term.

Fr. Matt - I wonder if your #4 is a reference to John Stott’s ‘Women, Men and God’ published in 1984?  His position has been summarised as I understand it from digging around as follows: male headship should be compatible with equality and yet male leadership not based on authority but responsibility.

Taking note of Paul’s ‘gifts of the Spirit’ in which every member is a minister of Christ, he thinks that it is permissible for women to teach men but considering that Jesus appointed men as apostles says “there is no prior reason why women should not be ordained” but “It remains my view that the best way to reconcile womens’ ministry with masculine headship is to ordain women for ministry in a local team situation”.

At the other end of the debate there is the Roman Catholic position set out as Dr Tighe says in what is now seen by them to be an infallible declaration ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ by Pope Benedict
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
There is an ecumenical point that the w/o position will affect sharing of communion with both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

For myself, I do not have a problem with W/O but do not wish to see further divisions within the Church [in whatever sense] through not making decisions collectively on this.

On Matt+‘s selected scriptures

Matt+‘s analysis of relevant texts notes a few possible contradictions which - to avoid - he concludes that Scripture is not forbidding the ordination of women.

1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 says women, “as in all the congregations of the saints” should be “silent”, should not “teach” and should not have “authority” over men. These, he notes, read plainly, forbid clerical authority to women.

But Matt+ doesn’t think these passages mean this, that it is not a universal proscription, though he says he is unsure how they _should_ be interpreted… merely that he’s sure that they don’t forbid women’s ordination.

In support of this rejection, he cites two passages: 1 Cor 11 - where women are described as praying and prophesying - and Acts 18 - where Aquilla and Priscilla teach Apollos.

Because women must be “speaking” in church (1 Cor 11) and teaching men (Acts 18), therefore, Matt+ argues, to be consistent, 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 must not mean what they seem to be saying.

I think Matt+ has solved the apparent contradiction by downplaying the wrong texts - dismissing the meaning of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 for the sake of the _implications_ of 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18, based on both linguistic and historical errors.

.

I’ll start with the Acts 18 passage - the linguistic error - as it is simpler. The translation Matt gives is that P and A “they invited them to their home” to teach him, he editorially adds that this was a house church, and then assumes that this means that they were teaching him in a _church_ context, and from that deduces female clerical activity.

However, the Greek text does not say “to their home”. The Greek text says that they “proselabanto” him. This is a form of the verb “proslambano”, a multifarious word, which can mean “to receive kindly into one’s home”, but also means “to take aside privately”, “to take by the hand”, “to take as friend”, etc. The KJV translates “took him unto them”; the RSV translates merely “they took him”.

Luke, in Acts, elsewhere uses this word most commonly to mean “to take meat” (e.g. Acts 27:33), once where the Jews “gather together” people in a mob to attack Paul (Acts 17:5) and when Paul is shipwrecked (Acts 28) and they are “welcomed” or “received” by the inhabitants. Note that, in this chapter, when Luke _does_ wish to indicate being welcomed into a specfic lodging, he does so not with “proslambano” but with other, unrelated words (v. 7).

Further, if you look at the context of the passage, Apollos has arrived and is preaching _in the synagogue_ about Jesus. P & A, hearing him, take him aside (proslambano) to give him additional instruction. The public worship is in the *synagogue* and P & A do *not* approach or teach him there, in public, but afterwards; the contrast between _public_, the synagogue, and _private_, an essential part of the connotation of “proslambano”, being emphasized.

Further, though the place of the public teaching is specified—the Greek says “synagogue”—no location is specified, suggesting that it is not important (not being, after all, a place of public worship).

Accordingly, Matt+ has based an essential interpretation - and a dismissal of the clear meaning of 1 Tim 2 - on an “interpretive” translation of “proslambono” in Acts 18 and a reading which goes against not just the sense of the particular passage but of Luke’s vocabulary and style as a whole.

Much more sensible - and true to Scripture as a whole itself - is to understand that in Acts 18, A & P are giving Apollos catechetical teaching in private—the modern analogy would be a home Bible study as opposed to a public church service. Not only is this understanding true to both the specific context and general vocabulary of the Book of Acts, it also is in no conflict with the texts about public ministry & teaching in 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2.

.

Matt+‘s dismissal of the apparently clear teaching in 1 Cor 13—on women keeping silent—is based on the praying and prophesying in 1 Cor 11. This is, indeed, a puzzle, for, as Matt rightly points out, the context is clearly that of public, corporate worship.

Here, rather than throwing up our hands or deciding, based on our own personal or social preferences, how we shall harmonize the text, we should look, first, to Tradition.

A difficulty with our earliest records of Church organization is that much of the terminology is in flux - as is the leadership of the various proto-communities between when they were evangelized by wandering apostles & teachers and when they were organized into settled communites led by bishops.

However, when these various documents refer to “prophets”, they do so as a separate “class” from “apostles” and “bishops”. Sometimes an individual might be *both*—after all, prophesy is one of the gifts of the Spirit (cf. Rom 12). But that fact that someone is described as a “prophet” or has the charism of prophesy does not, therefore, make that individual a priest or bishop. He might be. He might not. Look, for example, at the early influential “prophet” Hermas (whose “Shepherd” was taken, in some communities, to be as inspired and authoritative as other [as later determined] canonical books) who, though he took for himself that authority to prophesy, never thereby equated himself with apostles or bishops.

In short, while Matt+ rightly points out that, to avoid contradition, the “silence” Paul enjoins in 1 Cor 13 must not be a prohibition of the “prophesying” or “praying” he permits in 1 Cor 11, that latter passage DOES NOT EQUATE to “clerical” or “leadership” roles, just as the “private catechetical” role of Priscilla in Acts 18 does not equate to a “clerical” role.

Remember, in the early Church there were *many* orders and offices—Paul, e.g., talks about the orders of “virgin” and “widow”—and not all these offices are *ordained* or *clerical* ones. If one looks at the early church, it’s clear that prophets could be - and often were - _laity_—just as the surviving documents concerning DEACONESSES in the early church (a recognized and respected order) make EXPLICIT that that order was LAY, and not clerical. (There’s a rather extensive exchange on what scripture and Tradition has to say about “deaconesses” in
this thread
which gets increasingly specific and, as it goes along, cites many of the relevant texts and arguments.)

.

Matt+‘s exegesis of the NT texts, given above, is to say that he doesn’t know what to make of 1 Cor 13 or 1 Tim 2, but to dismiss that they prevent any sort of Scriptural obstacle to women being in _clerical_ orders (deacon, priest, bishop) based on the perceived contradictions with Acts 18 and 1 Cor 11.

But Acts 18 says _nothing_ about Priscilla having a public teaching role (that impression being given by an inaccurate - or at least conjectural - translation of the actual Greek and a number of assumptions not supported by the text itself), and, while 1 Cor 11 does describe women being “prophets”, it does not (given what the early Church understood encompassed by that rather amorphous label) thereby imply either a leadership or a clerical role.

A much more consistent interpretation of the texts, one that doesn’t dismiss the clear implications of uncomfortable passages and one which is consitent with the _practice_ and _history_ of the early Church (not just Scripture read in translation and a historical vacuum), is that while women certainly had an important role in the early Church—as patrons, as catechists, as prophets—they also were in both teaching and practice not permitted to have a *leadership* role in public teaching and worship.

Indeed, where, in early Church documents, the distinction between lay and cleric is specifically discussed, even such important women are _expressly_ described as being *lay*, not *clergy*. (Cf. the various documents cited, often at length, in that other thread cited above).

.

I agree with Matt+ that there is nothing in Scripture that prevents women from having an _important_ role in the Church—even a *leadership* role in a *lay* context (e.g. prophesying, which laity could and did do; catechizing, which laity could and did do; etc). And he highlights some of the several NT passages which prove this.

However, the clear implication of both Scripture and Tradition is that, while women may have such important and essential roles, they are nevertheless *forbidden* from being _ordained_ and from execizing the particular ministries given to the *clerical* orders of deacon, priest, and bishop.

The texts that Matt+ cites to “disprove” the implications of 1 Cor 13 and 1 Tim 2 are IRRELEVANT to the issue of _clerical orders_—Acts 18 actually says nothing about public teaching of women; 1 Cor 11 says nothing about an ordained office for women. The (frankly) misinterpretations he gives of these passages to dismiss the teaching of 1 Cor 13 and 1 Tim 2 simply don’t stand up to informed linguistic or historical scrutiny.

I respect Matt+‘s desire to read Scripture carefully and as a whole. Indeed, it is because I _share_ this respect for Scripture and (subordinate to it) Tradition, and believe Christians must submit to this authority, that I am obligated to hold to the apostolic & catholic teaching that women may not be ordained to clerical orders, regardless of what my personal or social tendencies might otherwise be.

.

pax,
LP

On logical inconsistencies in some of Matt+‘s 6 categories

Obviously, I fall into category 1—I feel that is the only faithful response to the clear teaching of Scripture and Tradition, and _mandatory_ for anyone who actually wishes to be faithful to a Biblical and patristic understanding of the Church.

But I’m not going to bother elaborating on that here. Anyway, I’ve given some of my own Scriptural and historical reasoning in another thread already on this site.

Rather, I want to point out some serious logical flaws in several of the position Matt+ outlines which, I think, defenders of those positions must address lest their views be seen as intellectually and Scripturally incoherent.

.

2. Women’s Ordination is contrary to scripture and Tradition. The practice is, however, currently being tested and tried through a Communion wide process of Reception. For the duration of this process, communion may be maintained with those who endorse and practice Women’s Ordination.

The implication of this position is that matters which are already clearly settled by Scripture and Tradition may, nevertheless, be “tested” as a process of “Reception” and that such abandonment of the authority of Scripture and Tradition—even if supposedly provisional (and we’ve seen PECUSA show just how disingenuously it treats that “provisional” nature—it has mandated the “provisional” practice)—isn’t serious enough to threaten communion.

This is exactly the same argument now being used by PECUSA to justify the “reception” of blessing homsexual activity. Look at all the rhetoric they throw about—it makes precisely this same appeal to “reception”. Experience trumps Scripture.

If you hold that the ordination of women is contrary to Scripture and Tradition, but nevertheless that there’s no reason to break off communion with—or even argue against—those who are “testing” and “receiving” a new practice, then you have no logical, theological or Scriptural grounds on which to object to those “testing” the blessing of homosexual activity. You cannot let the one camel into the tent and then, when the second one sticks its nose in, forbid it by objecting that you’re theologically and morally oppposed to having camels in your tent and will never let one in.

You already have.

.

3. Women’s Ordination is contrary to scripture and Tradition. It is not, however, an essential matter.

If you’re going to hold this, then you must make clear on what basis you discern between what is and is not an “essential” matter.

If that basis amounts to nothing more than “experience” or “social circumstances” or “changing times”, then you, again, have no leg to stand on if you reject the exact same argument coming from those who are now turning to “experience” or “society” to justify abandoning the teaching of Scripture and Tradition on sexual morality.

At the very least, you’d have to be arguing - to be consistent - that there should be *four* separate tracks, each with a discrete hierarchy, remaining in communion, to respect the different permutations of attitudes about WO and homosexual activity.

.

5 & 6

The New Testament does not specifically approve of or forbid Women’s Ordination but there is a definitive progressive trend revealed in the NT that provides a reasonable basis for it.

To say that the NT does not “specifically approve of or forbid WO” requires a somewhat strained reading of certain texts—one sometimes contrary to the clear sense of the passage and definitely opposed to the documented teaching and practice of the early Church.

Those who promote the pro-homosexual-activity position likewise offer a strained reading of certain texts and dismiss the teaching and pratice of the early Church. Further, they too point to this so-called “progressive trend” in the NT to justify their position—look at all the appeals to the “outcast” and couched in the vacuuous terminology of liberation theology which justify the position in PECUSA’s public rhetoric.

Anyone maintaining 5 or 6 is, if they wish to be taken seriously, must either, by the same arguments as they support WO, also support the jettisoning of Biblical teaching on sexuality _or_ must convincingly present a coherent and objective rationale to explain why their *own* tangential readings of the some NT passages and dismissal of early Church teaching and practice is okay but the *revisionists’* tangential readings of Scripture and dismissal of Tradition is not.

.

pax,
LP

Matt+,
Thank you for broaching the subject, it is important. I’ll be going back over your post and the submitted comments, but I’m just going on record that I’m in the #1 Camp. My view is slightly modified, however, in that it is valid, even necessary, to be co-belligerents with the #2 - #4 folk against the raw revisionists. Further, I believe it is possible (and I’m going beyond your #1 category) that there may well be a “process of reception” for a number of #2 - #4 folks: a Reception of Orthodox rejection of WO. For those open to that process/reception of orthodox rejection, I can be in Communion with them—that is, if they are unsure as to the theoretical possibility of WO, and agree they shouldn’t actually ordain women during their uncertainty. 

For me it is an essential Gospel issue, since I believe Scripture is sufficiently clear (St. Paul gives reasons other than “culture” for rejecting WO: Scripture itself, citing both the law and God’s design in creation). Further, it is against Tradition, big time. Finally, there is very strong (but non-binding on its own) evidence from Jesus’ and the Apostles’ examples: No choosing/affirmation of women for the original 12 (when Jesus broke so many other taboos), and no consideration by the Apostles of super-qualified women (the Marys) to replace Judas or to be ordained deacons. I also think it is relevent that Jesus became male, which is another supportive (non-binding) fact. To overthrow the text of Scripture, the Example of Christ & the Apostles, and Holy Tradition, is not the path of humility, but of “enlightened” disobedience.

Since I view WO as disobedience and revisionistic heresy, when the dust of Anglican realignment settles, it will be impossible to be in organic communion with those who promulgate this serious error.

That will make me very, very sad, for I admire you and others like you immensely. I’m just stuck thinking you’re caught up in an early version of what you’ve been criticizing in others.

God’s peace to all.

Sodbuster - I am not necessarily in agreement with what I posted. I simply said it would serve for discussion. I found it interesting that it (at least in my opinion at first reading after a long day) seemed to follow Matt’s line of reasoning. I appreciate those who are theologians and I’d rather watch and digest the discussion at this point.

Thank you for this entry. I should read Stand Firm more often! I’ve read your wife’s blog as well.

It shows how little I know of Evangelical churchmanship that until now I didn’t even know position no. 4 existed.

Not surprisingly my view is a Catholic one closest to 1: ‘Larger church > everything else’, ‘larger church’ generally meaning Rome and the Orthodox. It’s essentially my answer to every controversial issue in the Anglican row: ‘If you believe you’re only a branch of the larger church then stop acting like you’re the whole church.’

The arguments about headship from the New Testament, rightly or wrongly, don’t figure into my view and misogyny is nothing to do with it.

I’d like to further explain the Catholic position.

Quoting a good friend of mine, there are two Catholic opinions on this, impossibilist (the opinion of the Pope) and improbabilist, or ‘might the larger church change this someday?’ Once you accept ‘larger church > everything else’ the arguments against it - about the complementarity of the sexes for example - slot into place.

The arguments for it so far, like ‘Jesus didn’t found a church so the ministry is man-made - we can change it’, are non-starters for Catholics.

There will be no use of the word “priestess.” 

Exactly why is this word so offensive?  While I respect the right of the moderators to make rules, the prohibition of this word qua word seems almost Orwellian.

I am in complete agreement with Laurence K Wells above, however I am not a Calvinist! I also agree that the texts in the Bible about women being silent refer more to those who came to the “gatherings” and would do what most all women do…. talk constantly to the point of interupting the teachings going on, thus being a distraction. Probably talking about each others hair and jewelry and the dinner that Ruth made last night that was out of this world. I am interjecting here…sorry! But you get my point I’m sure. I do not hold to the notion that those passages indicate not to ordain them yet they mean to keep some sort of order within the worship service without constant talking. 

I have said this in another thread today that I believe that God made us male and female for a reason and not just for reproduciton purposes only. Men think and rule with reason and intellect. Women lean more often than not to emotion (Magaret Thatcher aside for Sarah). Men can be more analytical than women. Women can be actually more vengeful then men, (in my experience anyway).

It is very difficult for me to look at a woman wearing a collar and see a representation of Christ in male form and feel comfortable in taking communion from her, thus I don’t and won’t. I understand that others do not have this issue….....I guess that is good for them. But, I again agree with Mr. Wells that all the priests, deacons, bishops, elders, &  the 12 apostles appointed in the OT & NT were men and I beleive that if God had in mind for women to be ordained somewhere in all that history there would have been at the very least one female appointed, ordained what ever term you choose to use and thus we would have a more clear indication that it would be okay. Since there is none to be found clearly I have to say, 2000+ years of teaching out weighs a womens want to be priest, etc….

Fr. Matt:

I completely agree with you We have a female deacon who is AWESOME.  However, women priests and bishops are not of God - as Shori clearly demonstrates.

There are roles for women in ministry - but the ultimate authority has to remain with men.  That’s just reality.

Brave Matt!  ; > )

As I’ve said before, I hold to position #3.  I strongly suspect that the reasserters will not be able to hang together ultimately, in the event of a Communion collapse/fracture, but not because of the WO issue, since I firmly believe that those who hold to positions #2, #3, #4, and #5 will be able to be together, those who hold to position #6 will be ECUSA, and those who hold to position #1 will be the Continuers and perhaps the REC.

Since we are to some extent, and I am not sure why talking about the character of men and women, I quite often find that there is greater variety of character within each sex than there often is between them.  Consider the PB, Lady Thatcher, the Queen, Mother Theresa, Amy Johnson etc.

Gentlemen, as I noted in the article, the prohibition is not up for debate. I respect and admire those of you, like LKW+ argue that it is the right word, but for good or ill, whether for right reason or not, some find it intolerably and personally offensive. I do not, nor does Anne, so it is not personal to me. Normally I wouldn’t care, but since we want to have both those who vehemently disagree with WO and those who argue vigorously for it, there are certain limits that must be imposed. This is one of them. There will be no more argument. This is a general warning. Please do not make me ban you. I will if I must.

PM, There are exceptions to every rule! No (myself) is not saying that all are in some way the same in character….it is being used as a general rule of differences between men & women…Kind of like “Men are from Mars, women arre from Venus” no one is calling anyones character into question.

Sarah, I think you’re right that group #6 will ultimately stay in ECUSA, but what’s the barrier to group #1 joining the emerging province? Since groups #2-5 don’t consider WO necessary, they could always agree to a moratorium for the sake of unity with group #1. A fully re-united and re-energized orthodox Anglican province could be a reality with this once concession!

Hi DOK

One used to hear all sorts of arguments as to why men and women were different and there are obviously some anatomical and hormonal factors which do affect this, but it seems to me that any argument about ordination has to be from the theological basis, however that is defined by different denominations: Sola Scriptura; some RC combination of scripture and the church’s discernment; or the scripture, tradition reason formula one hears here.

I think the bible is a pretty good place to start, but that is me.  If it were proved to me that this was the will of God then I would believe that, but I am also prepared to accept that I do not know everything and go along with decisions that avoid division in the Church in the meantime.

LKW,
Your brief argument was excellent and contains most of the reasons why I am not in favor of WO.  I have simply never found any of the arguments in favor of abandoning the traditional church view convincing at all.  I would like to take position #1 except that I am still in TEC

Hi ATF,

As far as I have noticed—copious noticing too—those in categories #4 and #5 are unlike Matt in one area.  They believe it is scripturally warranted, and they’ll be doing it regardless; they seem to have no intentions of joining any group that makes them give up what they believe is a good and truthful thing.

I have not sensed much inclination at all for their giving up something that they believe to be scripturally warranted [again, there are a few exceptions, like the Kennedys].  And those like me, who are in category #3, have no intentions of making something essential, when we do not believe it to be so.

In fact, making something essential when it is not is something that is also a theological position; I’ve spent some time, believe me, in observing the antics of those Christians who are forever making their theology in all respects “essentials”.

So, I don’t think that #3, 4, and 5 will ever be—in general—with those in #1.

It is *possible* [but not probable] that those in #2 could be induced to group with #1.  I suppose in that case those in group #2 will need to decide which group that they would be inclined to join.

And finally, of course, when those of us in #3 consider groupings, there is also simply the “personal preference” as to whom we would want to be in alliance with, since, after all, those in #3 believe it to be a matter of adiaphora.

If I were to be a part of such groupings [unlikely, given this horrible breakup of the AC] I’d end up grouping with the #4s and #5s, most likely.  I have significantly more in common with the #4s, theologically speaking, than with the #1s.

Finally, keep in mind that there is no reason to suppose that the #1s would have any interest in having #3s, #4s, and #5s in their group.  Remember—it’s important enough to them to separate from those who believe otherwise.  Why on earth would they want to import the infection of such heresies into their own body, even were the 3s, 4s, and 5s to say “oh okay, we won’t.”

But of course, all of my above is sheer speculation, and there’s no proving any of it at all so . . . take it with some pounds of salt.

‘...some RC combination of scripture and the church’s discernment…’

RCs do it but it’s not peculiarly RC. The Orthodox do it too and what’s more they say scripture is part of tradition.

Position no. 4 is fascinating but I don’t think it’s tenable (sorry). Can’t really articulate why (yet?). It seems inconsistent. I don’t see the mainstream going in for it any more than they do the Catholic position!

Like I said I’m not big on headship. That said I am reminded of some old, politically incorrect wisdom. Headship of course need not mean ‘abusive, domineering’ and so on. (Remember Ephesians 5:25!) The fact is, and I think it’s to do with biology and otherwise how God made us, strong women are wonderful (made by God to be that way) but every healthy woman, no matter how strong and independent, in a relationship with a man wants somebody stronger she can fall back on when she needs it - who can and will take of her… and her children. Common sense! C.S. Lewis wrote something about this: that if you look at marriages where the wife is the real head of the family you’ll find she rather resents and even hates her husband for his weakness.

It’s a hard saying but I dare say if women consciously follow it (they already do it anyway) and a man realises his limitations and does not marry a woman stronger than him you’ll have a lot more happiness all round!

Anyway I can see that this might carry over into the church.

Call me a “5”.  As much as this is a theological question, you still must take into account those whom you have dealt with personally.  I have known a couple of wonderful female priests, and a couple of female priests who had no business wearing a collar.  BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, I CAN MAKE THE VERY SAME STATEMENT ABOUT MALES !!

MassPK

LKW+ et al,

Please do correct me if I am wrong. I have understood that one aspect of Reformed Anglicanism that sets it apart from other Reformed traditions is that we have not adopted the regulative principle. IN other words, and I believe Hooker argued for this in EP, while the church cannot act in a way forbidden in the scriptures, she is not bound to the positive precedent set there. For example, the apostles met every day in the courts of Temple to worship, study etc…The contemporary Church may follow this example and call gatherings every day (and we have MP every weekday at GS), but there is no violation of the scriptures if she does not.

By the same token, while it is certainly true that the NT model is that men were appointed to the role of presbyter etc…at the same time wouldn’t it be true that there is no proscription against women filling that role in so far as she does so within the limits of male headship. In the absence of such a proscription wouldn’t the Church have the authority to act?

Thanks for this thread Fr. Kennedy.
Considering this was foist upon me a few years back. I concluded position #1 is where I fit.
Thanks, Ms. Hey for your comments. Concur as to groupings. My comment is not as systematic; there is something about creep. The problem with “okay, we won’t” is the same kind of back-nagging that has gone on with bona fide revisions and breaking away from essential essentials. My daughter is 20…for twenty years I’ve been hearing “ha, ha, our mother” prayers and I don’t just mean in some other group. So the confusion becomes rather basic on the essentials.
As for no proof but taking with pounds of salt…I was baffled by reading Stott a few years back when the WO innovation was introduced from a surprising source. I wondered how far Dr. Stott would go in the innovations… we’ve not seen yet how far the church will go. Alas, I am not at the AiMA church in my area. I cringe at the WO thinking it an aberration that will go away. That bishop thing gets me every time. The bishop ordained this woman to priestly orders, so if she’s the one up there, no matter how surprising…the bishop who is in charge must know what’s best…

Young Fogey

every healthy woman, no matter how strong and independent, in a relationship with a man wants somebody stronger she can fall back on when she needs it - who can and will take of her… and her children.

Where do you live?  It sounds like somewhere a lot of men would like to live - and where did you get your marvellous name?

While I believe that Scripture doesn’t explicitly address the issue of the ordination of women, I do believe the issue needs to be considered within the context of the wider church.  Anglicanism claims to be but one branch of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, the other two branches being Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. 

From the little I know about the Orthodox Churches (and any Orthodox here, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong), it seems that women’s ordination is a non-issue.  The Roman Catholic Church claims that she does not have the authority to ordain women, making it a closed issue. And the Anglican Communion is a house divided, with different provinces and even dioceses within individual provinces holding conflicting positions and practices with regard to the ordination of women. 

If Anglicanism’s assertion about itself is true, then how can it act alone?  It seems to me that any change in an unbroken, 2000-year-old tradition of the church can be legitimate if and only if there is consensus within the larger church.  In other words, until and unless all three branches of the church agree that the ordination of women can be supported by Scripture, then no one branch should engage in this practice.

thanks for this Matt,

I wonder if the question, itself, is slightly flawed. I would seperate the question of ordination from the wider question of the teaching/preaching ministry. ISTM that scripture is clear that women should not be in a position of teaching authority over men so I would suggest that even preaching to a mixed congregation is out. That is not to say, of course, that women should not teach. So, for example, in Sydney women are regularly teaching other women, to the extent of large conferences where women are teaching thousands of other women.

The question of ordination then follows this. What is the role of the ordained minister. In the CofE we lost the debate over women’s ordination, I would suggest, because we had already lost the debate over the primacy of the teaching ministry. The more the ordained ministry is divorced from the teaching ministry, the more it is acceptable to suggest women should be ordained.

RE: “Let’s try sticking to the topic, not strategy and which group one doesn’t like.”

Sodbuster, I addressed the issue, concerning what I think important, which was what Matt asked for.  I did not say that I did not “like” a group; I merely expressed which groups I would probably be in alliance with, which is an entirely different thing from the expression of a “like” or “dislike”. 

I have no intentions of arguing the position of WO; just because you may wish to does not mean that anyone else who addresses the issue but does not argue about WO’s theology is not “on topic”.

Matt said: “If you hold to one of the positions below, please do correct any misunderstanding on my part and please feel free to expand as much as you like on my admittedly too-brief summaries.”

I have felt free to “expand as much as I like” and what I said was on topic.

To expand further on the topic of WO and the various groups that Matt described and asked for feedback on, I’ve noticed that those in the #1 and #6 camps wish to argue and debate the theological aspects of the topic more, which is understandable, since it is of vital importance to both groups. 

But those in the other groups are more interested in “what can be done with the remaining groups” . . .

I suspect that this post will veer off into two different “conversation streams” with those in some camps arguing the theology of it, and those in others conversing about the various groups and possibilities [or non] of unity and work together.  And I think those two conversation streams will be great for those involved in them!  ; > )

I respect and admire those of you, [who] like LKW+ argue that it is the right word,

Perhaps we need another rule, that the moderator will not misquote nor misrepresent what his participants have written.  I am not defending the word, indeed, it is truly offensive in that it allows validity to what I regard as invalid.  Am I being warned just for asking a question?  Something I learned the hard way as a classroom teacher is that students can obey draconian rules in such a manner as to make them appear ridiculous.

No you are not being warned for being inquisitive. But the virtue or lacktherof of that word is not going to occupy this thread. If I mischaracterized your position, it was unintentional and I pray your forgiveness. But again, discussion on the appropriateness of this word must now end.

Where I got my screen name.

From the little I know about the Orthodox Churches (and any Orthodox here, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong), it seems that women’s ordination is a non-issue.  The Roman Catholic Church claims that she does not have the authority to ordain women, making it a closed issue.

Both are correct.

Matt….et al.

Sorry to join in so late or maybe not! Anyway duty calls often and work hours aree long, computer time is often short, as tonight.

Briefly, and I’ll be back later in more detail.

Matt, Thank you, the rules are much needed and perfectly articulated. Althought, topic focus is somewhat narrow. But I guess it really must be.

If, and a BIG if,  if I were an - Matt, you’ll understand me here - evangelical, a Protestant, I’d wholeheartedly agree with Matt and position #4. But I’m not. I am an orthodox Anglican. Some say Anglo-Catholic, Catholic Anglican, Orthodox Anglican, idiot, etc. They are work. Whatever.

My approach is through a “consensus patri” looking glass, so to speak. My theology viewed mainly through a lens of Orthodox Catholicism, pre-Great Schism Catholicity within the first millennium.
1. Orthodox Catholicism (East meets West)
2. some pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism
3. Oxford/Tractarian/Scot/Seabury (NonJurors) Anglo-Catholicism
4. pre-1930’s ECUSA Traditional High-church Episcopalianism.
5. I like some of Ryle, Whitefield, Pink, some very good reading.

My position is # 7. As you say Matt, WO is not exactly against the mandate of Holy Scripture. But WO is highly inconsistent with Holy Tradition. We are approaching this issue from two totally opposite ends of the spectrum. One Catholic, the other Protestant.

I was just told that my time is up, off to work I go!

PEACE

“Southern Virginia, how do you justify schism from Rome, then? If it is not Scripture which is the authority, then what else can you do? The Church of England as a separate entity would have no validity, if what ever the bishops say and do, is right.”

Sodbuster,
I’ve been pondering that business a while too. The business of the priests being under the bishops. So is it finding the right bishop? Who does the selecting. Apparently GS bishops are coming to the rescue of our american branch and consecrating bishops for the priest to align with.

Mr. Ould has brought in the subject from one standpoint, the whole teaching/preaching issue. Right teaching from women in the right setting is helpful, espcially when the men have fallen down on the job. But it doesn’t appear we are at the end of time and so women teaching the men should be the norm. And while I am living along with others in what I continue to see as ever more flawed AC, clearly from my few posts, you should not think that I think the bishops, across the board, have been right. It’s an odd thing to look upon as a pew-sitter. I ask my anglo-cath acquaintances, “why not rome, then?” It’s a puzzle. The bishops that ordained the first women in ECUSA didn’t seem to mind going a long way to get us where we are.

But if your point is that if I don’t have answers, to not submit questions of sorts, then point, well taken.

As a point of interest in the Junias/Junia debate, here is a line from St. Chrysostom on Romans 16:7: ” ‘Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen…Who are of note among the Apostles.’ And indeed to be apostles at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is!... Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!” Homily XXXI on the Epistle to the Romans (he does hold what we would call a traditionalist view of WO in his treatise ‘On the Priesthood’—just thought it was a useful quote to see a church Father state that Junia was a woman who was actually called ‘apostle’).

Sorry—I’m new here. Not sure how the smiley got on my post.

The Orthodox have the title ‘equal to the apostles’ that can apply to saints of either sex.

There is an excellent essay on this issue by the former Dean/President of Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge,PA, Peter Moore.  Even if you occupy a rather entrenched position, take a peek:

http://www.tesm.edu/articles/moore-why-godly-women-can-have-true-calling.html

(My position is rather obvious from the title of this essay )

PS Just to be fair, the opposing point of view from Professor Rod Whitacre can be accessed at http://www.tesm.edu/articles/whitacre-women-ordination-and-bible.html

Actually I should say that my position is closer to #4 with regard to my own ministry.  I do not, however, oppose women who endorse position #5.  I find position #6 to be untenable.

This debate, to me, is as pointless as the debate over women serving in active combat roles in the military. 

There’s a sense of envy involved…grass is greener…  where instead of embracing and making the most of the obvious physical, emotional, and spiritual difference between men and women, some feel a very strong need to either deny that those differences exist, or, claim that the differences themselve constitute a form of “injustice” rather than the Father’s grand design.

Both cases are a clear rejection of His grand design.

WilliamS - the smiley generator is a little over-zealous.

Sarah Hey said:

Finally, keep in mind that there is no reason to suppose that the #1s would have any interest in having #3s, #4s, and #5s in their group.  Remember—it’s important enough to them to separate from those who believe otherwise.  Why on earth would they want to import the infection of such heresies into their own body, even were the 3s, 4s, and 5s to say “oh okay, we won’t.”

As I cradle Anglican Catholic, who lives #1, I can say that the only reason why many of us are in the Episcopal Church fighting each and every battle along the way is because we truly and deeply care about the 2’s, 3’s, 4’s, 5’s, and 6’s. Anglo-Catholicism by its nature is also evangelical and charismatic, so we view these other positions as teaching moments in the Catholic faith.

For myself (and others), we have intentionally been tolerant of 2’s and 3’s - because many of them are faithful orthodox Christians. We have limits - such as which celebrations we will attend, etc., but we want to be in communion and fellowship with every one else.

The issue of Fr. Matt’s groupings is a matter of degrees for me. I believe that position number 1 is correct. I am open to number 2 for women as deacons in the church, and am willing to work with number 3’s and 4’s for the sake of the Gospel and saving souls.

What is more troublesome is to say that camps will be divided over this issue. Whatever happened to the respect and tolerance that orthodox Christians used to show each other? It used to be that conscience was accomodated to the highest common demoninator, and not the lowest. I think the fears that evangelicals have about AC’s and the WO issue stems from an overall tendency to go to the lowest denominator first, rather than seeking the highest. To put it another way, as ChefAsa did, going to the oldest source first as a matter of deciding essentials is the best way to come to fellowship.

We certainly don’t want to import heresy, but we do want to be in communion and fellowship with all orthodox anglicans.

Dear Matt et al,

I’ve only given the postings a cursory glance, so forgive me if I repeat what others have said.

Let me just make a few comments:

1.  We often hear people talk about how the Episcopal Church’s problems and disintegration began roughly 30 years ago, or at least that things began to speed up then.  What happened roughly 30 years ago?  I know some will reject this idea.  They won’t take it seriously at all.  However, it seems to me that once you set the precedent of tampering with one of the Church’s long-standing beliefs, traditions and practices, chaos ensues.  And that ought to serve as testimony to the truth of the historical male priesthood and episcopate.

2.  Anglo-Catholics generally raise an objection to women’s ordination that takes into account Sacramental ministry.  If we question the nature of Holy Orders, the argument goes, we’re on a slippery slope to questioning the Incarnation itself.  Why did God chooses to become a human male?  If the Incarnation is male, and if by the Incarnation the Lord touches humanity and imparts His grace to us, and if the Church is the extension of the Incarantion, how could Holy Orders be anything but male?

3.  I find it interesting that almost no one on either side of the women’s ordination debate takes notice of the fact that no one has ever said that women cannot be lawyers, doctors, engineers, governors, senators, presidents, dentists, army generals and on and on.  Take Queen Elizabeth for instance: she commanded armies, ruled a nation, spent the national money, but she could not celebrate Holy Communion in her own chapel.

4.  Be honest now, doesn’t a woman serving in the role of priest wreck the whole Bride of Christ image?  How can a woman represent Christ, who is coming to take His Bride, the Church?

I suppose I fall into one of the first three categories in some way.  I state my position this way: I remain unconvinced that any break from tradition regarding Holy Orders is of God.  As best I can tell, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ revealed His plan for His Church to us, and part of that revelation is that He means for men to serve Him in Holy Orders.

In regards to Romans 16:7
“Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”
This seems to be reference to a Roman Soldier convert & his wife. I don’t see anywhere in this biblical reference any validation that Junias is an ordained Apostle, or priest, or deacon, or elder.
It’s just my limited biblical understanding, since I am not a Master of Divinity grad or a scholar, etc… just my lowly humble understanding as I read it.

As an Anglo-catholic, I would tend toward 2, perhaps three- however based on Scripture (specifically Romans 16: 1) and Tradition women would be allowed to serve as deaconesses, correct? This does not raise the question of the nature of the priesthood as the diaconate is something different and deaconesses can provide an important ministry to women in a parish. So in a sense my position would be the Catholic analogue of number 4. If I am in error, please somebody correct me.

I should note that my citing of Tradition is perhaps incorrect- however in history there is a reference in a letter from a prominent Roman citizen in Asia to the Emperor of the time somewhere in the early 2nd Century AD in which he refers to some Christian women serving as ministrae which the book translated as deaconesses. Does anyone know anymore about deaconesses in the early Catholic Church?

This does not raise the question of the nature of the priesthood as the diaconate is something different and deaconesses can provide an important ministry to women in a parish.

<u>Deaconesses</u> are NOT female <u>deacons</u>.

All the evidence we have from the early church shows that while deacons were considered a *clerical* order, like priests and bishops, deaconesses were considered a *lay* order. Explicitly.

The Scriptural and patristic evidence concerning deaconesses is discussed—at some length—in a series of exchanges in another thread on this site, to which I’ve given a link in my two previous posts.

The approval of the lay order of deaconesses is both completely catholic and in no conflict with Matt+‘s #1.

The difficulty rises with the modern innovation—in violation of both Scripture and Tradition—of female clerical deacons (which is what contemporary deacons are).

pax,
LP

I fall into the imposibilist (sic?) camp. It seems simple to me: no matter how much I yearn to conceive and give birth to children, it can never be because I am a man. No matter how talented, how much a woman feels “called” to the priesthood, this can never be also, for she is a woman. There is no such thing as a female priest- period of reception be damned.

Sodbuster:
SUGGENEIS (“fellow countrymen”) is not the word in question, as it is a noun and not a preposition, so “among” is not an optional translation. The phrase in question is HOITINES EISIN EPISEMOI EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS (“who are outstanding among the apostles”)—sorry, but I won’t even try a Greek font on this post.

No, I don’t think Junia—which is a woman’s name (regardless of attempts to invent a man’s name by adding an ‘s’ in translation) as Chrysostom, a native speaker of the Greek, acknowledges—was an apostle *in the same sense* that Paul was. Nevertheless, he calls her an apostle, again, as Chrysostom admits.

We often hear people talk about how the Episcopal Church’s problems and disintegration began roughly 30 years ago, or at least that things began to speed up then.  What happened roughly 30 years ago?

41 years ago the Bishop of California, James Pike, who repudiated the Trinity, was tried for heresy by the House of Bishops and acquitted.

Christian belief, upheld to this day on paper, became optional with that.

No, I don’t think Junia—which is a woman’s name

This is by no means definite. The inflected form of the proper name used in that passage is *identical* if it is from the male name “Junias” or the female name “Junia”. Only the accent (not given in the manuscripts) would distinguish them.

.

No one is arbitrarily “adding” an ‘s’ when they translate “Junias”, they are simply giving the nominative form of one of the two grammatical possibilities… in the same way “Petros” of “petrw” or “Petron”, all different inflected forms of the same name, are rendered into the nominative “Peter” in translation.

Origin (late 2nd - early 3rd c.) believed that the individual was a male, Junias (an abbreviated form of the name Junianus); Chrysostom (late 4th c.), cited above in this thread, believed the name to be from the female ‘Junia’. Both are grammatical possiblities.

.

The word “apostle” is not always used by Paul in the technical sense of “the Twelve”. It also often has the more general etymological meaning of “one sent”, and Paul uses it that way. For example, in Phillipians he refers to their “apostle” Epaphroditus—i.e. the messenger they sent to him.

.

The greek phrase translated in some versions as “outstanding among the apostles” may also mean “well-known to the apostles”.

.

Even Chrysostom, a native Greek speaker of the 4th century, who believed “Junia” was a woman and that the phrase should be rendered “noteworthy among the apostles” did not conclude, from this, that she held the same _clerical_ or _episcopal_ office as the Twelve did. Just as one can be a “prophet” and not thereby be a bishop, priest or deacon, so too, to judge from Chrysostom’s interpretation, one can be an “apostle” or “messenger” of the Gospel without being ordained.

.

Finally, to translate this passage as a woman Junia who was a female “apostle”, in the same sense as Paul and the Twelve, and thus who was _clerical_, is to read this ambiguous passage in contradiction to all the _unambiguous_ things Paul says elsewhere about the authority of women in the Church.

.

Accordingly, in order to use this passage to justify women’s ordination, one must:

(1) Assume it is a female “Junia” (as the 4th c. Chrysostom takes it) and not the male “Junias” or “Junianus” (as the 2nd c. Origen takes it)

(2) Translate the phrase “outstanding _among_ the apostles” in the sense of being a particularly noteworthy member of that group, rather than “well known to the apostles”

(3) Assume that the word “apostle” is being used in a _technical_ sense (as when used of the Twelve or of Paul)

(4) Assume that this, in turn, has _clerical_ implications and so this “Junia” was ordained (an assumption which even Chrysostom, who goes along with 1-3 above, doesn’t make)

(5) Decide that all these assumptions about the ambiguous text _trump_ everything else—much of it far more explicit—that Paul has to say on the subject, as well as all the explicit evidence surviving from the patristic period.

.

This is, IMHO, as tortured a set of assumptions—and as flagrant an elevating of a _possible_ reading of an _ambiguous_ text over non-ambiguous passages—as anything the pro-homosexual-activity lobby puts forward in defense of their own pet heresy.

.

pax,
LP

Two small comments:

1.)  On the question of “deaconesses” vs “female deacons,” see *Deaconesses: An Historical Study* by Aime-Georges Martimort (San Francisco, 1986, 1996: Ignatius Press; $16.95).  This book, written by one of the foremost French Patristic scholars of the 20th century, was originally published in 1982.  It insists that where deaconesses did exist in the early church—and in many parts of it, such as Rome, Egypt and Gaul, they either never existed or, beginning around 400, were simply nuns given a special title of respect—they were not female deacons, that is, not in Holy Orders as were bishops, priests and deacons.  For a contrary view (and an interesting one but one which, like so much Orthodox writing on controversial issues, ultimately attacks Martimort for having a “Western outlook” rather than proving him wrong), see the essay on “Deaconesses or Female Deacons” by Kyriake Kydonis Fitzgerald in *Women and the Priesthood* ed. Thomas Hopko (Crestwood, NY, 1999: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press).

2.)  On the fictitious “Junia the Apostle,” see:

http://trushare.com/70MAR01/MR01JUNI.htm

and also this on the more general subject of WO:

http://trushare.com/71APR01/AP01HIDD.htm

Young fogey:

I was thinking of the 1976 GC in Minnesota that approved WO.  From that point on, TEC has been in decline.  Coincidence?

I can’t claim scriptural expertise, but I guess I can put my two cents in as a single woman and as one who used to sympathize with the radical feminist position on many issues.

But first I would like to express my grudging admiration of Mrs. Kennedy as an ordained woman. Although, I do not and would not recognize the validity of her orders, she seems to have everything else right in spades, including enough humility to admit to the possibility of renouncing those orders for the good of the communion.

With the exception of allowing for ordination, I don’t think that I differ much from the Kennedys. I don’t believe that women should serve either as priests or as Eucharistic ministers. But I think that women deacons, in the sense of some kind of lay order is traditional and appropriate. Women have long been called to a special degree of service to the church, particularly among the poor and needy. I don’t see a problem with some rite, distinct from priestly ordination, which blesses that calling.

In that vein, I consider it the highest tragedy that monasticism is not really an option in our communion like it is in the Roman church. If you weren’t actively looking for Anglican monastic orders, you might never know they existed. The decimation of these orders is something we may never recover from, but these once gave women with a strong calling to serve God a viable and accessible means to do so. Absent this option, I think that women, especially married women should be encouraged to join the lay monasatic orders.

In other words, there are options to ordination for women and these options have no less dignity or value than any position a man may hold.

As for teaching, I agree with the position that a woman may teach men as long as she is under the direction of a priest or pastor. If she is married, she must be submitted to her husband as well. But by teaching, I do not mean preaching. I think there is a difference. A woman can be an evangelist and spead the Gospel through word and deed. She can teach in Sunday school. But when it comes to the authoritative position of preaching from the pulpit, I have to come down on the side that says no to that for the reason that worship is a distinct and sacred activity and so the teaching that occurs during this time should come from ordained males only. A sermon during worship is an act of formation that reaches everyone present. This should be a time reserved for the director over those souls or his duly delegated and ordained male assistants to speak to the people.

I dont know if anyone has mentioned women readers and/or other types of worship assistants. But I don’t see a problem with women being readers, ushers and even altar assistants (excepting the crucifer and thurifer) In my staunchly Anglo-Catholic parish, women read, young women serve at the altar in the above limited fashion and older women participate in the vital and honorable ministry of the Altar Guild. It is a great honor to be called to all of these ministries.

Finally, I have to put in a good word for tradition. While the Bible contains all things necessary for our salvation and is wholly trustworthy, I think that tradition carries with it the Church’s collective memory and so it is invaluable and I think irreplaceable in the interpretation of the scriptures. In this sense, the traditional understanding that those in priestly orders are icons of Christ goes a long way to describing what is permitted to both men and women. If one does not see an icon of Christ where one should be able to see Him, then something needs correcting. If there is a woman in place in cases where it is especially important to model headship, then something needs correcting. I think that tradition is correct to insist on the importance of ontological realities. It takes a more energy to ignore or overcome the image of a woman and imagine a male in her place than it is to simply behold the image of a man standing in as an icon of Jesus.

LP:

I’m not sure if your post is in response to mine. I never said that the Junia text supported WO, though there are those who certainly do.

No one said that adding the ‘s’ to Junia was arbitrary. There is strong motivation behind it. Many, many examples of names have survived from antiquity. Junia was quite common. There is not a single reference to a male Junias. So even though grammatically, it is possible, it is not very probable. As one of Mr. Tighe’s links states, “By the majority of the commentators, both patristic and modern, believe that Junia, feminine, is right.” Junianus would be a different name—I’m not familiar with Origen’s comment. It sounds like he’s taking Junia(v) as a gloss for Junianus? Quoting Origen is a funny thing anyway. According to the ANCIENT CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON SCRIPTURE (T. Oden, ed.) Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans that: “This passage [16:1] teaches that there were women ordained in the church’s ministry by the apostle’s authority…. Not only that—they ought to be ordained into the ministry, because they helped in many ways and by their good services deserved the praise even of the apostle” (NT vol VI, p. 369).

“Finally, to translate this passage as a woman Junia who was a female “apostle”, in the same sense as Paul and the Twelve….” As I noted in my last post, I do *not* think Chrysostom was doing this. And as I stated in my first post about this matter, Chrysostom takes a traditionalist view of WO in his treatise ‘On the Priesthood.’

“The greek phrase translated in some versions as ‘outstanding among the apostles’ may also mean ‘well-known to the apostles.’” Yes, it may. My only point was that Chrysostom—a native speaker—did not take it that way. In this respect, modern scholarship seems to favor Chrysostom on this one (contra Mr. Tighe’s first link).

I would say that one is right to assume #1 and 2 but not 3 or 4. I’m not convinced that the text itself is ambiguous (#5), but the application of it is debatable.

PS.

One of my most profound experiences in worship was because I could so easily imagine the young male priest at the altar as an icon of Jesus. I took several steps in understanding and appreciation of the Eucharist that day. I doubt that I would have done so if a woman had been serving. I would have been working at imagining Jesus in her place instead of just “seeing” Him.

Sodbuster wrote: “I will try to operate within the Newspeak rules though I am a cradle English-speaker. That doesn’t mean I like it.”

I have two reasons not to use “priestess” that have nothing to do with Newspeak/Political Correctness. May I post them without violating the rules of the thread?

Most people who study this issue from a point of view ofScripture and traditional Church teaching and practice come to the conclusion that women should not be ordained to any order other than deaconess.  I feel sorry for good people like Matt and his wife who were brought up in an era of very fuzzy thinking on this matter.  I don’t think they yet understand the depth of Anglo-Catholic feeling or even the their reasoning at all.  I can never accept WO, but my belief was not clearly stated in any of the six statements above.

LP,

you say in summary to the first part of your response:

“Accordingly, Matt+ has based an essential interpretation - and a dismissal of the clear meaning of 1 Tim 2 - on an “interpretive” translation of “proslambono” in Acts 18 and a reading which goes against not just the sense of the particular passage but of Luke’s vocabulary and style as a whole. “

I think you may be misreading me with regard to Acts 18. My argument with regard to that passage really has little to do with proslambono, whether it means in this context “invited to their lodging” or “took aside” makes little difference (although, as you admit, both are possible translations). I do note that the “lodging” reading would fit nicely with Romans 16:1 but it is not central or necessary to my point. The reason I compare Acts 18 with 1st Tim 2:11 has far more to do with the joint act of teaching, P and A together, which, if 1st Tim 2:11 is read in an absolute sense, is absolutely forbidden.

“outoV te hrxato parrhsiazesqai en th sunagwgh: akousanteV de autou priskilla kai akulaV proselabonto auton kai akribesteron autw exeqento thn odon [tou qeou].”

...sorry, I cannot cut and paste the Grk text properly for some reason. In any case, you see here that there is no warrant for reading P out of the instruction of Appollos. It is, plainly, something that A and P did together. This is, in fact, a violation of 1 Tim 2:11 regardless of where the teaching takes place.

LP, I think your second point with regard to 1st Cor 14 and 1st Cor 11 demonstrates one of the primary differences between evangelical and catholic minded thinkers in this debate. Your first inclination in resolving the delimma of these two passages is to turn to tradition. Whereas I would suggest that scripture interprets scripture.

That having been said, I certainly agree that 1 Cor 11 does not at all point to a woman in any sort of orders. I would rather imagine that Paul had in mind prophetess’ like perhaps Philip’s daughters. I was not at all suggesting that the women speaking in public worship were ordained pastors preaching sermons. That was not my point.

My point was that the fact that women were speaking publicly at all, in any capacity whatsoever, in the context of public worship means that 1 Cor 14 cannot be taken as an absolute proscription and thus it cannot be used to forbid women from taking part, in the context of male headship, in worship or teaching or preaching. Other texts may do that, but not this one.

So, LP, I think you might be mistaking the point of the argument. It was not to provide some percieved precendent; that there were in fact ordained women in the NT. There obviously were not. There is no precedent. It was merely to show that there is, as you say, no biblical impediment to women taking public leadership roles in the church.

the burden of my argument is simply to show that there is nothing forbidding ordination, not to show precedent for it. If there is nothing to forbid it, then, so long as biblical principles are maintained (male headship etc…) the Church has the authority to do it. This was Hooker’s point against the Puritains in EP. The Church has the authority to act within the limits of scriptural proscriptions. She does not need a biblical precedent for all that she does so long as she does not do what the scriptures forbid in principle or by explicit command. There is a dynamism to the church in other words within the limits that scripture allows.

My point has been that women’s ordination, not being forbidden in the text is within that field of ecclesial authority.

This was my objection to LKW+‘s point above. He certainly shows that men were appointed as the ordained leaders in the Church of the NT. But that does not necessarily mean that women cannot be as well.

This is an evangelical position first articulated in the 80’s by Dr. John Stott (I cannot find the reference) who suggested that ordained women serve on ministry “teams” under the direction and authority of an ordained male leader.

This statement warrants some examination.  The fact that a position is held by so-and-so does not make it evangelical.  John Stott (whom I admire greatly and use constantly) is plainly heretical in his espousal of annihilationism, the denial of hell.  It also is important that this position (his views on WO, not annihilationism) surfaced only in the 1980’s, a rather late date in Christian history. It is tempting to speculate what Bishop Ryle or Charles Spurgeon would have had to say. While a host of Biblical texts are adduced, there is a surprising unawareness of any distinction between “ministry” in the broader sense and “Ministry” as a special commission and charism of Christ to a designated few.  That oversight leads to eisegesis rather than exegesis and therefore I find Matt’s use of Scripture, to say the least, disappointing.  This is the confusion which has led to the innovation of “lay presidency” in certain areas, which resolves the problem of WO simply by abolishing the priesthood and replacing it with a newly invented special class of church professionals.

The distinction I am arguing for (between ministry and Ministry) is not necessarily Anglo-catholic or Roman.  The magisterial Reformers knew it well and insisted upon it.  This is why those denominations which are closest to Luther and Calvin and most faithful to their tradition (MO Lutherans, etc; OPC, PCA, URC) will not hear of WO.)
WO first surfaced amongst sectarian post-Reformation revivalistic Protestant denominations, deriving from the radical Reformation as distinguished from classical Protestantism.  But this was hardly the source for the WO movement of the 1980’s in ECUSA and across the AC.  Is anyone prepared to argue with a straight face that WO came about through a closer reading of Sacred Scripture?  As we all know, this came strictly and purely from an accomodation to secular culture.  The surrender to easy divorce and remarriage and the capitulation to the lesbigay movement had the same genesis, and to my way of thinking the same genes.

<blockquote> Women’s Ordination is a secondary issue subject to vigorous debate. Because the scriptures do not speak definitively, there must be provision in the Church both for those who approve of the practice and those who do not. </blockquote>

WO is certainly secondary!!  No-one to my knowledge has ranked it with the Trinity or the Incarnation.  But it has implications for almost every facet of Christian doctrine:  revelation, creation, the Incarnation itself (was Christ male or did He only appear that way?), sacramental validity, the place of the sacraments in the application of Christ’s work, right down the line.  “Secondary” can be a dismissive and disrespectful term.  But I am more concerned by some frightening implication in the statement “the Scriptures do not speak definitively.” This is definitely outside of classical Reformed theology and raises a huge question about the sufficiency of Scripture in the ordering of the Church.  The inference from this dubious premise is even worse, “there must be provision in the Church both for those who approve of the practice and those who do not.”  A lot of folks want to ride on that wagon and will surely climb aboard.

Hi kyounge1956,

Please don’t post about it.  Then there will be the need to deny your reasons and, as so often happens, we will be off topic.  Matt has made pretty clear his rules.

He certainly shows that men were appointed as the ordained leaders in the Church of the NT. But that does not necessarily mean that women cannot be as well.

“Well, you never told us not to do it!”

I wonder if we aren’t mixing lines a bit here. It seems to me that more than half this argument is about church government and structure of the institution, and the other half half about functional roles in the body of Christ. Both sides use the same Bible to justify their respective positions.

Not being a church history scholar, I ask these questions in naivet’e: When did the ordained order of priest emerge as the leadership authority for a congregation? Was authority for teaching also assumed to be part of this office? What was in place before this office was made official, permanent, and authoritative?

I recall the Councils being made up of Bishops (overseers) but no mention of priests per se.
Somebody please correct my thoughts.
Beuler, Beuler, anybody?

Hi, I m a late comer to this very erudite conversation, and what I have to offer pales in comparison to the great contributions already made by folk from both sides (or many of the 6 sides) of the issue.  Overall I would agree with Matt.  You can make Scripture-based arguments on both sides of the WO issue.  After all, the first humans who proclaimed the Risen Christ were women speaking to very timid men, an experience that was very much formational and transformational.  In practice, I could go either way on this issue; if WO is going to be a stumbling block to a strong evangelical Anglican presence here in North America, I could certainly forego it.  (In fact, if Anglicanism were to completely implode, I would likely find myself called to LCMS where WO does not happen.) Then again, this is easy for me to say, since I am not a woman, and have not been called to ordination.  I do get the sense from some that there is a feeling out there that WO was “the beginning of the end” leading inevitably to the KJS tragedy.  I would remind y’all that there are some wonderful, very faithful Anglican women clergy who are boldly preaching the Gospel.  Check out the Advent website http://www.adventbirmingham.org, and read one (or more) of Heidi Kinner’s sermons (better yet, come to Birmingham and worship with us!).  Or visit All Saints at Chevy Chase and hear Marcia Wilkinson.  Or Linda Moon in a CEEC parish here also in Birmingham.  I have never met Matt’s wife, but I am sure she is solid as well.  There are so few solid preachers in “western” Anglicanism, it is a pity to lose any of them.  If Heidi, Marcia, Linda or (I’m sure) Matt’s wife were PB, much of what we discuss on Stand Firm would not be an issue.  Anyway, to sum up, I could go either way, but ask that we be careful about silencing some very effective preachers.  This is my $0.02.

A question: are there no writings of the early church fathers we can bring into the discussion? And secondly, maybe we need to discuss ‘ordination’ and roles of office without ordination as they were acted out in the early church.

WilliamS—sorry, didn’t mean to suggest my post was taking issue with what you specifically had said; I was trying, rather, since the text had come up, merely to point out the basic facts & arguments for those who weren’t familiar with the subject, not to impute to you a particular position on the issue.

pax,
LP

...strong women are wonderful (made by God to be that way) but every healthy woman, no matter how strong and independent, in a relationship with a man wants somebody stronger she can fall back on when she needs it - who can and will take of her… and her children.

... take care of her… 

Both are correct.

I meant that ‘sufficiently irreverent’ correctly described both the Orthodox situation (with no Protestant principle of judging the church and because Orthodoxy is wholly sacramentalist the issue nearly never comes up among them) and the RC position.

I was thinking of the 1976 GC in Minnesota that approved WO.  From that point on, TEC has been in decline.  Coincidence?

DaveW, I knew what you meant. Although the three big issues now dividing Anglicanism — Modernism, WO and teaching that gay sex is not a sin — are not necessarily related in practice, meaning one can hold one or more liberal positions without holding all of them (witness our host, Fr K!), they are related in principle: when the bishops stopped insisting on orthodox Christian doctrine (while retaining it on paper) the other questions fell like dominoes. Essentially the same arguments so far are behind all of them. Also I didn’t want to come off as misogynistic — ‘Blame the women!’ — because that’s not what I believe or feel.

A Catholic can date the start of the decline to the ‘Reformation’ — although I love services in English the ‘R’ was a mistake — but talking about the Episcopal Church the Pike trial was the crossing of the Rubicon.

Dear Matt,
Given your legislation on linguistic usage, there can be no intelligent debate about prebyterixes. (A gentile, loving tease!)
As Hooker tried to explain to another generation of Puritans, church government has been given by tradition- we find it in place upon our generation’s birth. If the scriptures do not state or order something to be true, if “reason” cannot NECESSARILY conclude a point, then the force of two thousand years of tradition in catholic order stands. Hooker asserts that, in matters of order (not doctrine),-“That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.” (Laws of Ecc.etc ,Book V, VIII. 2)
The issue is alredy decided by a superior court.

Matt,

Wow, you got some cahones bringing this up.  I remember in law school when I was president of our Christian Legal Society I thought it would be good to have for one of our weekly meetings a session entitled, “If Women Can Be Supreme Court Justices, Why Can’t They Be Priests.”  Catchy title, no?

My thought was that we law students could use some of our new legal reasoning skills to discuss this thorny topic yet remain civil (and dare I say, Christ-like) in our discussion.  Whoops! Boy, did I underestimate the energy on the anti-WO side.  Not only did my Catholic brothers and sisters attack me, but my PCA-hard core Calvinists came out swinging.  And of course, that was the one meeting where some guests attended and saw us in all our humanity.

Best of luck to you.  I am in Camp #5 in case you wondered and do admit to getting frustrated at times with folks who disagree with me on this one.  I’m considered too liberal for the “true” conservatives, yet too conservative for the “true” liberals.  Ouch.  It is definitely a thorny and difficult issue, and one that we conservatives will continue to struggle with in the future (I suspect).  Peace.

To me - a matter of complete indifference—pure adiaphora.  Except for tradition, I find nothing that prohibits WO.  Nor can I understand why others find it so fundamental.  I thought the church decided long ago, vis-a-vis the Donatist heresy, that the worthiness of the minister in no way impaired the validity of the sacraments.  What am I missing?

re: “Please don’t post about it.  Then there will be the need to deny your reasons and, as so often happens, we will be off topic.”
that’s why I asked first.

Thanks, kyounge1956 . . .

soundbytes wrote:

When did the ordained order of priest emerge as the leadership authority for a congregation? Was authority for teaching also assumed to be part of this office? What was in place before this office was made official, permanent, and authoritative?

Along with that I’d like to know when the priest became the only person who could consecrate at eucharist. Was this the case in the very earliest groups that met in homes?

Matt+,

Thanks for replying to my analysis of your Scriptural interpretation.

Your initial argument dismissed 1 Tim 2 as relevant to WO because, you say, in Acts 18 a woman is teaching a man.  I argued that Acts 18 is obviously - from both context and language - <u>private</u> as opposed to <u>public</u> instruction. You replied that this is irrelevant; that because the instruction of Apollos is “something that A and P did together. This is, in fact, a violation of 1 Tim 2:11 regardless of where the teaching takes place.”

No, it is not a violation.

In an effort to undermine 1 Tim 2, you are rushing to read Scripture inconsistently with itself.

If you look at 1 Tim, you’ll see that much of that book has to do with the organization of the Church. Indeed, in the very next sentences, 1 Tim 3, Paul goes on to describe the requirements for clerical office—including being the “husband of one wife”. A reasonable conclusion is that, as in 1 Cor 14, Paul is speaking here of corporate worship and behavior.

Indeed, this is the only sensible way to read it—were one to take up this straw man & reductio ad absurdum of reading 1 Tim 2 (“she is to keep silent”) an “absolute” rule, one would actually have to conclude that 1 Tim 2 is saying that women must never speak anywhere or at all.

In fact, 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 are probably parallel statements of the apostolic Church’s code of teaching and practice—i.e. Tradition being alluded to in Scripture in much the same way that 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 both allude to what appears to be a set list of requirements for clerical office. Note the strong parallels between the passages:
** 1 Tim 2—Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
** 1 Cor 14—As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

In other words, you dismiss 1 Tim 2 based on a contradiction with Acts 18, and you find that contradiction only by making at least one of two assumptions:
* 1 Tim 2 refers to all male/female interaction, not just comportment in church
* Acts 18 refers to public instruction

Yet neither of these assumptions is warranted. The context of the passages and connotations of the Greek text make it fairly plain that 1 Tim 2 refers to public worship and Acts 18 describes private catechesis.

Further, if one does believe that Scripture is inspired by God, then apparent contradictions are an indication not that the text can be ignored, but that we’ve misread or misinterpreted it. You yourself port to this norm when you say “God’s Word is the sole infallible and inerrant source of divine revelation… There are mysteries and paradoxes in God’s Word but there are no logical contradictions.”

But in (what strikes me at least as) an effort to come up with a rationale for dismissing 1 Tim 2, I think you’ve <u>created</u> a conflict with Acts 18 which simply isn’t there.

.

Similarly, in 1 Cor 11 vs 14.

You argue that:

My point was that the fact that women were speaking publicly at all, in any capacity whatsoever, in the context of public worship means that 1 Cor 14 cannot be taken as an absolute proscription and thus it cannot be used to forbid women from taking part, in the context of male headship, in worship or teaching or preaching.

Again, you make assumptions to create an apparent contradiction—despite the fact that this is God’s Word and we ought to be reading it not by making assumptions to create contradictions but by removing such assumptions—and then deduce that we can throw out the implications of 1 Cor 14.

Look, they’re in the same epistle. Whatever resolution between the passages you come up with, you can’t just write one off because of the other. <u>Obviously</u>, the “silence” Paul discusses in 1 Cor 14 can’t include the prophesying he permits in 1 Cor 11 (assuming, of course, that 1 Cor 11 does, in fact, describe corporate worship—which is probable but not definite in context).

Furthermore, before the key passage in 1 Cor 14, Paul has been speaking about prophesy; in v.26-36 he shifts to the question of interpretation of prophesies (speaking in tongues) and instruction. It is in the context of this interpretation/instruction where he says women are to be silent—implying, thus, the same sort of regulation to which he alluded in 1 Tim 2, that, in church, no woman is “to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.”

But however you parse the “silence” in 1 Cor 14:34, the nuancing required by 1 Cor 11 doesn’t mean that you can go on—as you do—to simply throw out the whole rest of the passage: “they should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.”

It’s the <u>same epistle</u>. He wasn’t writing contradictions. But you’re arguing, in effect, that “I can come up with interpretations and assumptions to make it seem there is a contradiction between 11 and 14, therefore Paul didn’t mean what he said or what he said isn’t binding, and thus I can pick and chose which parts to believe because my imported assumptions allow me to come up with apparent contradictions.”

.

Look, let Scripture interpret Scripture. If we put together these passages to get the sense of the whole, we come up with the following Scriptural injunctions:

* Women may “prophesy” in church [a lay activity] - 1 Cor 11
* But if they have questions should keep silent and ask in private - 1 Cor 14
* A woman is not to teach or have authority over a man in church - 1 Tim 2
* But certainly may participate in private instruction - Acts 18

.

We agree that there is no precedent for WO either in these passages or in any other parts of the NT. And we agree that there is a clear theology of “headship” which is relevant.

But you go on to say: that these texts

cannot be used to forbid women from taking part, in the context of male headship, in worship or teaching or preaching.

In worship, yes—women clearly are to be part of the corporate worship.

But the Scriptural texts you cite—when removed from the assumptions you import to them which create the apparent contradictions which you then use to dismiss their implications—<u>do</u> make it clear that, in the public context, women aren’t to be preaching or teaching.

Paul is explicit—“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men.” They may pray, yes. They may prophesy, yes. But they are not to worship, instruct, or hold authority.

And to have a female priest or deacon, __even under a senior male cleric__ who is preaching or celebrating Eucharist, violates scripture, for such a woman cleric is instructing and holding authority over the *laity* who are present. The fact that she has a senior male colleague is irrelevant.

.

This, to the modern sensibility, is awkward and uncomfortable; seems, indeed, insulting and oppressive.

***But it is what scripture says***... and if we are to be faithful Biblical Christians then we must accept that authority—and not, as PECUSA’s apostates do, twist and contort it, importing assumptions, manufacturing excuses and contradictions, until we can make it appear to say what *we* want rather than what *God* wants.

.

pax,
LP

“Nor can I understand why others find it so fundamental.  I thought the church decided long ago, vis-a-vis the Donatist heresy, that the worthiness of the minister in no way impaired the validity of the sacraments.  What am I missing?”

And just how, exactly, is this relevant to the topic?  The Donatist claimed that sacraments administered by clergy who had publicly, or were known publicly, to have committed a grave sin, such as apostasy or adultery, were invalid.  It has nothing to do with the question of whether WO is possible, let alone a good thing; in other words, it has nothing to do with the requisite “qualifications” for ordination.

“A question: are there no writings of the early church fathers we can bring into the discussion?”

Of course, and they were all opposed, usually vehemently.  If someone can find the relevant passage from “The Panarion against all Heresies” (panarion = medicine chest) by Epiphanius (Bishop) of Salamis (315-405), it would be a “humdinger” of a citation (but Epiphanius does use “the p-word” that has been banned here, so I’ll let someone with more skills in bowdlerization that I expurgate it).

I thought the church decided long ago, vis-a-vis the Donatist heresy, that the worthiness of the minister in no way impaired the validity of the sacraments.

That hardly seems like a sound reason for endorsing WO.  Augustine fought the Donatists very vigorously, to the point of justifying the right of the state to suppress them.  The response of the church was not, oh well, the sacraments are valid so Donatism is just dandy. 

except for tradition

For many that is reason enough to oppose WO…

“Along with that I’d like to know when the priest became the only person who could consecrate at eucharist. Was this the case in the very earliest groups that met in homes?”

Priests (presbyters) did not become regular or frequent celebrants of the Eucharist until the late Third or perhaps Fourth Century; before that, it was the bishop alone that was the normal or regular celebrant.  St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was martyred at Rome ca. 105 AD) writes in one of his epistles “Let that Eucharist only be accounted a valid one which is celebrated by the bishops or one apponted/delegated by him to do it” —on later evidence on emight well take the “delegates” to have been presbyters (or possibly deacons—although on those occasions when, during persecutions, deacons presumed to celebrate the Eucharist, the practice was condemned in the most severe terms by subsequent synods of bishops).  As far as who celebrated for the groups who met in homes, we have no information, and the “Scriptural evidence” is so meager that we can only speculate whether the apostles delegated it to the corporate presbyterate which, on the Jewish model of the time, governed Christian congregations.

Btw, in my posting above about deacones/female deacons/deaconesses, I forgot to mention Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea which declares of deaconesses that “they must absolutely be counted among the laity” (i.e., that they are not “ordained” like deacons, priests and bishops, but merely “appointed” like catechists, exorcists, acolytes, doorkeepers and subdeacons).

I guess I’d go with #5.  WO is not endorsed in scripture, but nowhere is it expressly forbidden either.  That is, nowhere is it called an abomination, a transgression against the Spirit, a mortal sin leading to Hell, etc.  In my view it is simply not worth breaking up a church over.  There are, and will continue to be, many orthodox women who feel called to ministry.  If the church continues to decline during the post-Christian era, they may become a necessity.

That doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to accept it.  It’s ironic that TEC’s leadership is doing just that, when they are the ones who claim to respect diversity of opinion.

I have nothing to add to the excellent discussion here, (I waver between 1 and 3, and generally respect 4 insofar as it doesn’t include sacramental practice) but I wanted to say thanks to Matt+ for the timely and articulate thread. Like the earlier Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical threads, this shows the best of what Christian blogs can be. Matt’s performed a huge service by starting these irenic exchanges, and the quality of the discussion is top-notch, a graduate seminar for those of use still parsing the issues. Brilliantly done Matt!

I also agree with Position 4 on this list. However, at the same time, I can understand why orthodox Christians are wary/fearful of women’s ordination.

I am a woman who has felt a possible call (still not sure) to ordained ministry since my childhood. And I would strenuously disagree with anyone who would tell me that those promptings come to me from Satan (I have heard this argument). I believe in the Creeds. I believe that Jesus Christ is the *only* way to the Father. I believe that Jesus Christ is the *only* Son of the Father, and I believe that He rose bodily from the dead. I also believe in the moral teachings of the Church, as established by Scripture as the sole authority for living in God’s will.

From what I’ve seen, the very vast majority of ordained women do not agree. I’m not a sociologist; but it seems to me that history has shown that the spectre of secular liberalism inflitrates every single church that ordains women. I’ve been forced to admit this the more I look at the issue. Since women’s ordination in the Episcopal Church USA in the 1970s, that Church has adopted an ever more liberal identity, allowing and even encouraging all kinds of things historically forbidden by God’s will revealed in Scripture. The same thing has happened with certain branches of the Lutheran Church, and is happening now within the Presbyterian Church. All of these major denominations are currently in warfare over acceptance of gay lifestyles, emerging transgender issues, abortion, and most importantly, the authority of Scripture and the identity of Christ. All of them have accepted women’s ordination.

Is there a connection? I think there is, but it’s got nothing to do with women being naturally unsuited to the priesthood, or that God doesn’t want them ordained. It’s got everything to do with the view of social justice applied to the Church.

The 1970s were the height of the feminist movement in America. I recall TV spots pleading for people to “help pass ERA”. Now, the root of this battle was (or should have been) the issue of equal pay for equal work, as at that time women only made a small percentage on the dollar for the same jobs done by men. However, this “feminism fever” spilled over into church life. Women began to see ordination as their civil right - as the last bastion of society left unoccupied by women, and a continuing reminder that women were still oppressed minorities. Women’s ordination was therefore a “cause”, a male territory to be conquered. Once that barrier was down, women could say that they had truly overcome the patriarchal social constructs that had kept women enslaved in unwanted roles for centuries.

In short, the women’s ordination movement was rooted *not* in the theological realm, as it should have been, but was always, from the very beginning, motivated by socio-political concerns. It wasn’t about serving God. It was about proving a point.

The view of women as an oppressed minority allows for only a very short jump to the support of others also seen as oppressed minorities. Once women gained the “right” to be ordained, those same women, again motivated by a sense of social justice, began to reach out to others. I.e.: “I used to be oppressed by the Church too, but see, now I’m a bishop. You can be a bishop too.” Thus the increasing acceptance of actively gay clergy and same-sex blessings, as well as the cut-and-paste of Holy Scripture.

Granted, there are many men involved in these trends as well. But it all started with the view of ordination as a civil right; and there were a whole lot of men who jumped on that bandwagon.

Basically, the whole mess that the Western Church is now slogging through is due to a wrong approach. Ordination is not a right, it’s a privilege. The holy priesthood should never have been degraded down to an “issue” or used as a cause; but because we did just that, we now have a Church mired in secularism, falling all over itself to please the world instead of God.

Is women’s ordination valid in God’s eyes? Absolutely. I’d rather hear a woman in the pulpit preaching truth than a man preaching heresy.
But is women’s ordination a good idea in our current culture? Probably not, because you don’t find all that many ordained women preaching truth. I’m not saying they’re not out there, I’m just saying they’re not all that visible. Or common. If that ever changes, it will be interesting to see what develops.

Oh, and btw, how much nonsense about women as celebrants of early Euchaists that “met in homes” can be seen in this article

http://trushare.com/71APR01/AP01HIDD.htm

that I posted a link to earlier.  For some reason, the author of the piece does not go on to state that which seems obvious from the presence of large jars or casks, that it is really the miracle of the water turned into wine that is being depicted in that catacomb fresco.

Widening Gyre,    Nice comment, since “cahones” seem to be the issue here!    I am some where around #4 since I note the teaching in the Gospels that our Lord trusted the message of his resurrection to women…  (and I am reminded that God did “create them in my image, male and female He created them”)  I know of several godly Women Priests and Deacons two very active in our AAc Chapter…  unfortunatley more crazy feminist and issue driven female priests abound, could that be related to the seminaries that have taught them?  The levelheaded and scripturally based women seem to have come more from Nashotah and Trinity But I agree with the comment above that there are many male priests that cause one to shake heads.  I agree with Sarah’s comment and see that I may have to decide this as adiaphoric when I look to a home after the pending split.

A woman cannot serve as senior pastor or bishop. But within the limits of male headship, I believe that she can serve in an ordained role.

Just to be a wee bit controversial here: if you insist on “headship” as a universal principle, then remember that a woman is under the headship of Christ.  This is why nuns are called “brides of Christ” (and in some traditions, even wear wedding gowns at their initation ceremony, and wedding rings afterward).  In medieval times abbesses exercised considerable power and authority, not only over nunneries but even in some cases over joint convent communities of both monks and nuns.  Some were known to give advice to kings.

I don’t think God had any problem with it.

“Is women’s ordination valid in God’s eyes? Absolutely.”

I take this as the same sort of statement that a Baptist might make, viz., “Is infant Baptism valid in God’s eyes? Absolutely not” insofar as, in both cases, it exalts the judgement of the person or group making the statement above probably 75 to 80% of Christians in the world today, and likewise inverts the Vincentian Canon “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” to “quod nusque, quod numquam, quod ab nullis creditum est.”  But, hey, if that is the nature of the “Neo Orthodox Anglicanism” that is now a-borning, then good luck; you’ll need it.

And I said #4 when I meant #5.

Addendum: I didn’t mean to imply that my word is final. For all I know God’s going to send all ordained women to Hell. That’s His prerogative. I thought it would be understood that my statement was my own and reflected my opinion on the issue. I don’t intend to speak for God, or the Church, or anyone else but myself.

Sigh.  OK, disregard my last message: I thought I said 4 when I meant 5 but I said 5 so forget it…

Muinteoir has articulated the whole position much better than I could.  There is no express proscription for WO with warnings of punishment, as is the case with SS relations.  But priesthood is not a human right, either.

The problem is how to weed out militancy from those seeking orders.  Ideological leanings from SS activism to marxism will tend to be common among young female candidates, as we have already seen.  Blame feminism or blame the theological schools, but by all means apply a strict screening process.  And while you’re at it, how about screening the males for some of these tendencies too?

that the worthiness of the minister in no way impaired the validity of the sacraments.  What am I missing?

It has nothing to do with worthiness or unworthiness.  The Catholic Church teaches that a woman is unordainable in the same way (no disrespect intended) that a cat is unordainable.  This is not merely something that shouldn’t be done (as, e.g., ordaining non-celibate gay men) but something that can’t be done.
I’m no way qualified to even stick my toes in this disscussion but let me just say that, Scriptural argument aside, consider that “by their fruits you will know them.”  Jesus said to let the wheat and the tares grow together and then you could see which is which.  How many people believe that WO has been a good thing for the Episcopal church?  Is the church stronger and better for it or weaker and more divided?  Personally I believe that WO would destroy the Catholic Church, in many many ways.  Even if I felt a desire for ordination (which I definitely don’t) I would take the position that Gene Robinson SHOULD have taken, which is to forego my personal goals for the greater good of the Church.

I tend to be somewhere in the 4-5 category, but I have had some fascinating discussions with my wife, who would probably be a 3-4.  (She has problems with a woman as primary clergy, but not so much in a subordinate role.)  Some time back, <a > Touchstone published an enlightening essay</a> about the necessity of male presence in the church from a sociological perspective.  It’s food for thought.

LP,

I am not by any means trying to think up a rationale for “dismissing” 1 Tim 2:11…not at all. I am, in fact, seeking to harmonize it with Acts 18 and 1st Corinthians 11. My point is that the only way to harmonize them is to deny that 1 Tim 2:11 and 1st Cor 14 constitute absolute proscriptions. Therefore they cannot be used to forbid WO so long as WO is done within the parameters of male headship.

I agree that there is certainly a parallel between 1 Tim 2:11 and 1 Cor 14:33-35. Both do, as you note, relate to public worship. This, in itself, keeps us from a blanket absolutism with regard to this text. But it, again, leaves the problem of 1st Cor 11. In other words, even in the context of public worship, there is no blanket proscription. I say this not to dismiss 1 Cor 14 or 1 Tim 2:11 (what an odd mischaracterization of my intent) but to harmonize them with 1 Cor 11. They all must be true. But for them all to be true, the passages in question cannot represent absolute restrictions.

you say:

“Paul is explicit—“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men.” They may pray, yes. They may prophesy, yes. But they are not to worship, instruct, or hold authority. “

Yes, women must be able to prophesy in public worship within the context of male headship. But prophesy necessarily entails and involves a certain level of delegated authority and instruction.

I do not, as you suggest, throw out 1 Cor 14. That text, as well as 1 Tim 2:11, certainly points to a subordination of women in public worship and this principle must be recognized and obeyed…which is precisely why I cannot take position 5 above.

At the same time, I do no see that this subordination means that preaching or teaching publicly or even in worship is out of the question.

As far as teaching and preaching (not in an ordained capacity) go, I think, even a Roman Catholic would acknowledge these may be done by women in mixed public worship settings and is not forbidden by either of the passages in question…Mother Angelica, for example was a fantastic teacher of men. Not only did she teach mixed audiences regularly but she and her sisters led mixed worship through her daily televised rosaries.

I agree that there is a traditional and scriptural difference between ordained and non-ordained service in the church and certainly Rome would point to that traditional difference with regard to Mother Angelica.

But I do not see that the scriptures, themselves, apart from tradition teach that a woman may teach and prophesy but may not be ordained and nothing you have written suggests such a restriction. I do see a clear call to submission and subordination, but nothing that restricts the ordination of women for those limited roles described above.

I have observed that many people against WO tolerate it instead of speaking out against it or leaving TEC.  They will say they are against it, but they not yet leaving because (insert applicable excuse):
1.  She’s the assistant
2.  She’s the interim
3.  She’s a short-timer
4.  Her real job is teaching religion at the day school
5.  She and her husband came as a package
6.  She’s the supply “priest” while the rector is on vacation.
7.  She’s good with the children
8.  She’s good with the old folks

This is analogous to those battered women who tolerate abuse because (insert applicable excuse):
1.  I wasn’t hurt
2.  I didn’t have to call 911
3.  He said he was sorry
4.  I’m partly at fault
5.  He brought me flowers afterwards
If people have been paying attention they should have noticed that the water has been gradually getting hotter.

Matt+,
This is an issue that I have given a lot of thought to. I used to hold to the #4 position, so I understand where you are coming from. But that was when I was still a non-denominational evangelical. Under male headship vested in the Sr. Pastor and elders, I believed that women could serve in pastoral roles (except for preaching). But since I’ve become Anglican, I’ve changed my thought.

I had to wrestle with what ordination means from an Anglican perspective. While I am still firmly “evangelical” and not Anglo-Catholic, I have come to see holy orders as a male-only. It seems to me, from Scripture and tradition, that holy-orders carry intrinsic authority…headship authority.

Even the office of Deacon, according to the 1662 Ordinal, carries with it the authority to preach the Word of God. As with David Ould, I view the preaching ministry of prime importance.

So where am I now? I would say that I’m probably in the #3 camp. But I am still learning and wrestling through this challenging issue.

Thanks also for all of your thoughts and contributions via Stand Firm.
Shane Copeland

Matt+, you are a sneak.  You started this thread while I am in Europe teaching and in no possible position to contribute to this thread!

Foul play!  Conspiracy!

But seriously . . . when I can actually wade through all this at some point between now and August, I may try to write something substantive here, as opposed to the occasional kibbitzing.  I’m glad you brought it up, since it remains the 800 pound gorilla in the room that so many want to avoid acknowledging.  In the meantime, interested readers may wish to see:

http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/index.php?cat=4

and start from the bottom.

More later when and if I can . . .

Catholic Mom, you may intend no disrespect but comparing women to animals is not the kind of thing that will help Christianity reach out to Western society.  Catholicism in the Western world is losing members too (though admittedly not at the rate TEC is).

I myself have tremendous respect for Roman Catholicism.  But it has taught many things that it has since rescinded—most recently, the belief in Limbo.

As far as teaching and preaching (not in an ordained capacity) go, I think, even a Roman Catholic would acknowledge these may be done by women in mixed public worship settings and is not forbidden by either of the passages in question…Mother Angelica, for example was a fantastic teacher of men.

A Roman Catholic loyal to the magisterium would point out church law which restricts liturgical preaching to the sacerdotal office.  And Mother Angelica’s views on feminism are well known.  The lady is, btw, very much alive and would surely not appreciate having her name drawn into an argument pro WO.  That hurts me to read, Matt.

LKW+,

Now it seems you may be mischaracterizing my words. I know very well she would not at all support WO. I was not suggesting that. The reason I brought her in was, very specifically, as an example. LP suggested that 1 Tim 2:11 prohibits women teaching men and leading worship. I argued that they do not. I noted that even Rome would not suggest that 1 Tim 2:11 prohibits women from teaching men or leading in at least some forms of worship. Not at all misusing her name.

I agree that this is a good discussion topic.  I peg between 1 - 3 and would probably fall within the category of evangelical, though I am uncomfortable with the terms.  Although I may have missed it in the thread, I think the definition of the categories require a common definition of ‘communion.’

I have a question for implementation that relates to communion.  If, as some appear to posit, there is no scriptural basis against WO (possibly subject to headship), no scriptural requirement for WO, an acknowledgement that tradition and catholicity argue against WO, and a large portion of the body that sincerely disagrees with the premise that “there is no scriptural basis against WO,” then where does that leave us?  What does it mean to implement a (not scripturally required) change that forces division in the body, given such a context?  What does it say about how we make decisions?

BTW, I know she is still alive but I refered to her teaching and actively leading these things in the past tense due to her stroke. I am an admirer and followed her show regularly.

tired, I suspect that if your observations prove to carry through in the future as they have in the past and the process of reception works as it should, the end would find a Church ruling to at the least grandfather it out.

Matt+,

Thanks for your irenic reply—I apologize if my off-the-cuff rhetoric led me to mischaracterize your intentions. It’s easy to slip verbally from “you are dismissing the implications of this text” to “you _intend_ to be dismissive toward this text”—and I apoligize for making the slip.

.

I think we could go back and forth further on the 4 passages you have cited some more, though I think, too, we’ve made our interpretations fairly clear. But prior to doing so, I think there’s a fundamental _methodological_ difference in our approaches which has to be cleared up—which I want to highlight and then ask you to explain your rationale.

.

Before that, one clarification on the 1 Cor 11 & 14 passages. The kind of “prophesy” which Paul appears to be speaking of here is speaking in tongues. If you look at his discussion of “prophesy” in the first half of 14, he is setting down regulations for their orderly articulation—and one of these regulations is that if there is no one to _interpret_ the prophesies (interpretation being another spiritual charism) then the prophet should keep silent, since without interpretation, that prophesy will not instruct or edify.

Accordingly, the “prophesy” described in 1 Cor (and which he implies in 1 Cor 11 that women do) is _not_ the same as—in fact, is explicitly differentiated from—instruction.

Accordingly, given what he expressly understands by the activities and their place in corporate worship, there is no contradiction between saying that, in public worship, women may “prophesy” (1 Cor 11) but that they may not teach/instruct (1 Cor 14 & 1 Tim 2).

.

Now too the more general issue.

We agree that Paul proscribes women’s roles in public, corporate worship. We agree that there is a Scriptural issue of “headship”. We agree that neither 1 Cor 11 nor Acts 18—nor any other passage in Scripture—supports or condones WO. We agree that the implications of female leadership which we *do* see in the NT (prophesy, private catechesis, social patronage) are _lay_ rather than _clerical_ activities.

Now, you go on to argue that while the NT does not enjoin WO, neither does it forbid it. And that since it is not expressly forbidden, it’s permissable. As you summarize position #4: “The scriptures do not specifically approve of or forbid Women’s Ordination, therefore women may be ordained in so far as New Testament principles are not violated.”

.

Now, against this I would cite several points:

(1) Such an interpretation adds a significant caveat to what Paul says when he does talk about women’s roles in Church—“oh, teaching and preaching and sacramental actions are okay, provided that there’s a senior male cleric”—a caveat neither implicit in the text nor required to harmonize it.

Yes you can, with some contortions, argue that this reading is _consistent_ with the letter of Scripture, but only by importing foreign distinctions and qualifications. It is, in fact, *more* consistent not just with the letter but also the spirit of these passages to hold that women should not be ordained.

Thus the position that “WO is okay” is already based on a less-likely reading of the New Testament. This doesn’t make it, per se, impossible, but it _does_ mean that you had better have come compelling reasons to prefer the _prima facie_ less-likely interpretation—a reason beyond “oh, well, it’s not expressly forbidden therefor it’s okay.” To take a parallel case, abortion isn’t _expressly_ forbidden by the NT, at least if one imports the assumption/distinction that “murder” only applies to someone after birth—is abortion, therefore, also okay?

(2) Nowhere in the NT do we see any clear examples of female clerical activity. In fact, in places where we _would_ expect to find it, if the early Church practiced it (e.g. in candidates to replace Judas among the Twelve) it isn’t there. Now, this doesn’t _prove_ the issue - arguments from silence are weak - but it does make the WO-is-okay argument in need of still more support.

(3) When the NT *does* explicitly discuss ordained leadership positions - e.g. the requirements for bishop and deacon - it explicitly supposes these individuals to be male. (E.g. “husband of one wife”).

(4) We have no clear evidence from sub-apostolic times of ordained women. (A cataloging of the unreliability of those vacuous and contorted efforts feminists employ to generate such evidence from the most dubious of sources, such as the catacomb painting to which Dr. Tighe alludes in one of his links above, need not detain us—suffice, for the present, that those examples are, even in the most pro-WO arguments, ambiguous, requiring much special pleading to be turned into pro-WO examples.)

(5) Where we _do_ have clear sub-apostolic evidence about women and ordination, it is universally condemned. (C.f. the _Didascalila Apostolorum_, Epiphanius, Tertullian, etc—a number of these passages are quoted and/or linked in the thead on “deaconesses” to which I"ve provided the link in previous posts in this thread.)

.

In short, then, we have the following case:

* The NT does not explicitly approve WO
* Where the NT discusses clerical offices and where it discusses women’s roles, the most natural & self-consistent (though not the only _possible_) interpretation is that women should NOT be ordained.
* All surviving evidence from the apostolic period implies that women were _not_ ordained (though this doesn’t, per se, prove it was _impossible_ or _forbidden_, just that we have no evidence that it occured.)
* All our early evidence which is _explicit_ on the matter <u>condemns</u> the practice… and does so, moreover, with the implication that it has _always_ been forbidden, even in apostolic times. (Again, for details see the texts and discussions provided in the thread on deaconesses.)

.

In otherwords, to hold to position #4—“WO is not expressly forbidden by Scripture therefore it’s okay”—you are taking a _prima facie_ “less likely” interpretation—one might say _isogesis_—of Scripture, one which goes against the “spirit” (if not the letter) of the NT as a whole, one which finds no historical support, and one which is expressly forbidden by the teaching and practice of the early Church.

You wind up, in fact, saying that “the apostles didn’t do it and the early Church condemned it, but because a possible interpretation of Scripture considered apart from Tradition is that Scripture doesn’t *forbid* it, therefore WO is okay.”

(As you yourself say, “I do not see that the scriptures, themselves, apart from tradition teach that a woman ... may not be ordained.)

.

I have, therefore, two questions for you:

(1) Given that WO is implicitly rejected by Scripture (though not, as you argue, unequivocally considered and rejected as such), that there is no good evidence that it was practiced by the apostolic or sub-apostolic Church, and that it is _explicitly_ rejected by the early Church, what grounds/basis/consideration do you have to approve it?

What consideration is weighty enought to justify taking the more unlikely Scriptural interpretation—the one expressly contrary to Tradition—in order to permit the practice?

.

(2) How does your answer to (1), and your approach to the subject as a whole, differ from that of those who promote homosexual marriage?

After all, they argue that when the NT addresses “homosexual activity”, it does so ambiguously and incompletely—and that what it forbids is pagan and licentious interactions, not a monogamous (okay, monoandrous) married relationship—precisely the same kind of isogesis that you use when you argue that when Paul says that women should not teach or have authority over men in a Church context he didn’t actually mean that women shouldn’t teach or have authority over men, just that they shouldn’t be the “senior” cleric in a parish.

In fact, it’s actually _easier_ to “argue away” the anti-homosexual-activity passages of the NT than it is to “argue away” the WO-relevant passages, since the former are both fewer and less explicit than passages such as “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.”

Furthermore, when confronted with the clear teaching of Tradition—and its normative understanding of Scripture—which _expressly_ condemns homosexual activity, they dismiss that Tradition as irrelevant, or culturally conditioned, or out of date… just as you reject the clear teaching of Tradition that WO is forbidden.

In brief, it certainly seems that your approach to justify WO—i.e. “there’s a possible interpretation of Scripture which doesn’t expressly forbid it (even though it doesn’t enjoin it) and we can ignore the fact that Tradition _does_ expressly forbid it… therefore WO is okay”—is exactly the same theological approach as that of the pro-homosexual-activity revisionists: they provide a “possible” reading of the NT to argue that homosexual activity is not forbidden and they reject or ignore the unequivocal voice of Tradition which _does_ condemn it.

Since you are pro-WO but anti-homosexual marriage, on what grounds do you permit for yourself a hermeneutical approach to Scripture and Tradition that you deny to the revisionists?

.

pax,
LP

How many people believe that WO has been a good thing for the Episcopal church?  Is the church stronger and better for it or weaker and more divided?

Catholic Mom is getting at the question I was asking: since GC 1976, what has become of the Episcopal Church?  Is it stronger, more unified, is membership up, or not?  If the answer is no, does this fact have anything to do with women’s ordination being approved at that GC, or is it coincidence that the Episcopal Church has been in sharp decline ever since that time?  Would the Episcopal Church be in the position it now finds itself in had it not approved WO at CG 1976?

I know that some will say that’s not a fair question.  They’ll say that the two have nothing to do with each other.  Really?

This is not to lay the blame on women.  The question has always been: does any generation have the right, or have we been authorized by God to make these kinds of changes?

IMHO, it appears not, and it seems rather obvious.

Catholic Mom, you may intend no disrespect but comparing women to animals is not the kind of thing that will help Christianity reach out to Western society.

Luckily I don’t think Western society is reading this.
However, even if they were I would point out that:
1.  Woman actually are animals (so are men)
2.  IMHO A lot of women wouldn’t mind being compared to a cat.

On another note, it’s interesting that one argument I have not seen here—although it is regularly brought up when Catholics discuss this subject—is that, if Jesus wanted women to be disciples/leaders in his Church, wouldn’t he, of all women, have appointed his mother?  In fact, her role is clearly not in any way inferior to that of the disciples—indeed it is far superior:  Mother of God, the one to stand at the foot of the cross, the one to whom the Resurrection was first revealed (hope I am not confusing my Mary’s here ). 

But her role IS different.

if Jesus wanted women to be disciples/leaders in his Church, 

Sorry—I meant to say “apostles” not “disciples.”  I realize that women were disciples—and still are today.

Matt:  In what way have I “mischaracterized” your rather plain words?
1.  Does Mother Angelica oppose or support WO?
2.  Did you or did you not bring up her name as a supportive illustration of a pro-WO argument?
3.  Do you grasp the disconnect in this phase of your argument?

This is a style of argument which I would describe as name-dropping.  Just as you bring up the position of John Stott and describe it as “evangelical,” stealthily implying that all evangelicals hold to it when we both know that is not the case.  Care to quote J.I. Packer on the matter?

I’m with LP, Sodbuster and Alfonso—agus i mo thuairim, tá an ceart ag Múinteoir freisin. The OP’s reasoning appears strained to me—and, as LP says, if admitted as a precedent, can be used just as effectively to make all manner of inconvenient restraints upon our conduct disappear.

Glad to see this topic being given space to be explored, Fr Matt.

I’d guess I’d have to count myself as a #1 in your groupings.  I have never found that I could accept the possibility of a woman holding valid priestly or episcopal orders.  A woman cannot be an icon of Christ in the way that a man can when exercising sacramental duties.  God gave His only begotten Son, not His only begotten gender-neutral offspring. 

I think the matter of “adiaphora” has been answered, somewhat, in the consequences of allowing this innovation to exist, as evidenced by the great upheaval and spiritual illness in our own Communion.  The disorders within the Body of Christ have been a result of the sin of Pride, in the first place - the pride of thinking that ECUSA could do whatever it wanted, “legally” or “illegally”, without reference to the Mind of the whole One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  I can’t see where there’s an upside to this innovation being shoved down the throats of those who could not accept it, or those who were talked into accepting it.  (More “listening” process dysfunction.)

At that time and in the years following (until incapicated by stroke), Bp. Robert L. Terwiller, Suffragan of Dallas, indicated in his words, oral and written, where this would lead (gender neutralization of Scripture, etc.), and his prophecies have come about. 

The elevation of women to the episcopate has introduced more uncertaintly into the apostolic succession.  If one believes this is impossible, also, the validity of male orders (when priested by a woman) comes into question.

WO has been used as a club to introduce more and more non-Christian elements into TE"C”.  It’s time to call a halt to this unsuccessful experiment - individual women’s good work and intentions not withstanding, God bless them.

This brings to mind an interesting discussion I had with a priest who served on a Windsor Report committee with me.  He was supportive (to a degree) of the current TEC leadership position although he personally would not perform SSBs.  I had tried to point out that to me, the human sexuality issue is different from WO because a rational argument could be made with respect to WO based on Scripture (Lawrence, just let that one pass for the moment and you’ll see where this is heading).  Much to my surprise, he replied that the two issues were in fact quite similar because in his mind there were no scriptural grounds to support EITHER WO OR gay clergy and since he (and the rest of TEC) had accepted WO against scripture, he (and the rest of TEC) was simply doing it again.  Wow.  That certainly cast him in a different light and not one I had expected.  For those who were active during the WO movement back in the 70s, were the proponents trying to make arguments “within” scripture or without?  I had always assumed they were arguing from within scripture but perhaps I am mistaken.  Any help?

LKW, being way to prickly as usual…
1. Did Mother Angelica teach men?  Yes.
2. Did Mother Angelica lead men in worship via her televised broadcasts?  Yes.
3.  Did Matt Kennedy say Mother Angelica endorsed WO?  No.
4.  Did Matt Kennedy even imply that Mother Angelcia endorsed WO?  No.
5. Did Matt Kennedy use Mother Angelica as an example of the type of teaching that even RC’s say is acceptable by women?  Yes.
LKW, you have much great stuff to add to this blog and I don’t understand why you are so often hostile to Matt?

Thanks nevin, I was going to clarify, but you saved me the trouble.

Also, wrt, Dr. Stott. I did not say that it is evangelical because Stott holds to it. Nor did I say it is good because Stott holds to it. I said it was articulated by Stott because as far as I know he was the first to articulate it. I said it was an evangelical position because, as opposed to the three previous positions that may be held by both evangelicals and Catholics of one persuasion or another, only evangelicals hold to it.

matt

LP, I’m on the run most of the rest of the day. I’ll come back to your argument. But as you can guess, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the argument for limited WO and for SSB’s is in any way analagous. Even you admit that position #4 is a possible reading of the text. Those who support blessing homosexual sex have no support whatsoever in the text…as Wink acknowledges The most common arguments rely on somethign like a “well if Paul knew then what we know now about homosexual relationships then he would have approved of them.” ...when in fact the text is speaking of physical homosexual relationships of any sort regardless of the origin of the impulse or the closeness of the lovers.

While there is some ambiguity to the scriptures with regard to the role of women in the Church, there is none when it comes to sex outside of marriage. Big difference.

Fellas,
The argument for WO to the order of priest is not a scriptural issue. The argument for “priestly” ordination is not based on scripture..It arose in church tradition. To accept the idea of “priest” (as an ordained function—not in terms of priesthood of all believers) is to accept “Tradition”.
The issue of the
inistry of women IS a scriptural issue and I agree with most of the arguments which have been advanced for WO as, in fact, demanding such ministry.

Matt+—two clarifications:

Even you admit that position #4 is a possible reading of the text.

No I don’t.

That is to say, while I can see that one may make the #4 reading against the “spirit” of the NT as a whole and against the _explicit_ teaching and practice of Tradition—and, if you wish, could call it “possible” in that sense, I do not believe that such a reading is a “possible” reading of the text if one wishes to be a faithful apostolic & catholic Christian.

In the same way I can look at the SSB “readings” of Scripture and say that while it is a “possible” interpretation if one accepts their Biblical hermenutic, rejection of Tradition, and postmodern subjective historical approach, I do not believe it is a “possible” interpretation of anyone who wishes to remain faithful to a Biblical and patristic Christianity (as well to logical and historical objectivity and common sense) rather than modern anti-Tradition revisionism.

Just as, for example, one could argue that a reading of the NT which denies the full divinity of the Holy Spirit is a “possible” reading (i.e. if one grants certain presuppositions & methodologies and a dismissal of Tradition) but not a “possible” reading if one wishes to remain true to the _logos_ of Scripture as a whole and the normative interpretation of that Scripture by Tradition.

While there is some ambiguity to the scriptures with regard to the role of women in the Church, there is none when it comes to sex outside of marriage.

This is not the point.

The analogy is not between “should women be ordained” and “is sex outside marriage okay”—rather, it is between “should women be ordained” and “can same-sex couples marry”.

Scripture does not *explicitly* approve of WO, it *implicitly* disapproves of it (arguing away the implications of passages such as 1 Tim 2 requiring importing distinctions and assumptions first to create an apparent contradiction and then to resolve it in the way of ones choice), and Tradition *explicitly* disapproves of it.

Similarly, Scripture does not *explicitly* condone any homosexual activity (obviously), it *implicitly* disapproves of it (since arguing away its clear anti-homosexual-activity implications requiring importing “distinctions” and assumptions into the text which aren’t actually there), and Tradition *explicitly* disapproves of it.

But just as a certain hermenutic and dismissal of Tradition allows one to make a case for WO as not “contrary” to Scripture and thus “possible”, the same approach allows one to make a case for SSBs as not “contrary” to Scripture and thus “possible.”

.

Finally, the SSB advocates would - and do - respond to your rejoinder that “there is [no ambiguity in Scripture] when it comes to sex outside of marriage” by saying that this is one of the reasons the church should perform same-sex blessings and that, anyway, (again importing a distinction) it is only heterosexual sex that is being talked about in those passages anyway.

They argue that, because Scripture (in their hermenutic) does not condemn ‘faithful’ homosexual interaction between individuals in a commited relationship, and because Tradition condemning it may be ignored, therefore not only is it okay, but the church has a responsibility to administer SSBs so that they can openly live out Scripture’s “sex in marriage” ideals (for heterosexual couples)—just as you argue that because Scripture (in your hermenutic) does not condemn WO, and because the clear statements of the early Church which *do* condemn it may be ignored, that the church has a responsibility to ordain women so that they can live out their “vocation” according to the clerical ideals (for men) that Scripture articulates.

Again, an identical hermenutic and dismissal of clear Tradition in both cases—just with a different agenda for the isogesis.

.

And one one can make (and people have made) cases, with this same methodology, to defend other elements of modern revisionism such as pro-abortion and permissive divorce & remarriage… and the revisionists argue, with merit, that those who accept any of those revisionist positions (WO, abortion, permissive divorce & remarriage) but forbid SSBs are acting not out of a consistent logical approach to Scripture and history, but out of a prejudiced or socially-conditioned double-standard, approving the revisionist elements they like while rejecting the equally-defensible elements they don’t.

.

pax,
LP

LP, the difference is that I do not have to “import” any distinctions. The ambiguity of women’s roles in the Church lies in the text itself and I would disagree about an implicit negativity toward women in ordained role. It is simply not addressed. Whereas by contrast, with ssb’s importation is necessary because there is explicit consistent condemnation of homosexual behavior and every sexual act beyond marriage wherever one turns. gotta run, sorry I can’t give more at the moment.

M

To accept the idea of “priest” (as an ordained function—not in terms of priesthood of all believers) is to accept “Tradition”.

What then do you make of the passages in the Pauline epistles - dating from the apostolic period itself - speaks of the requirements for the office of “bishop” and “deacon”.

Yes, the _order_ of the presbyter, priest, was the last of the 3-fold ordained ministry to crystalize in the early church. But the distinction between the ordained/clerical ministries and laity is already there in the NT.

Yes, the _ministry_ of women is Scriptural, as is the _ministry_ of all believers, each according to their several gifts and callings. And the NT is full of examples of these various ministries.

But the distinction of what we now call “clerical” orders is _also_ Scriptural—one which Scripture nowhere conceives of as including women and which Tradition expressly defines as male only. This is why Matt+ and others who are pro-WO rightly turn to the question of Scriptural interpretation as part of their defense of their position.

To say that Scripture doesn’t know of what we descirbe as the “lay vs cleric” distinction, or to argue that any “ministry” described in the NT is equivalent to—and a justification for—what we call “ordained ministry” is to grossly misread the NT and ignore all we know of its historical context. Not to mention that it is to dismiss Tradition - the teaching & practice of the early Church - as having any normative or authoritative voice in our own interpretation and understanding of Scripture.

pax,
LP

RE: “Catholic Mom, you may intend no disrespect but comparing women to animals is not the kind of thing that will help Christianity reach out to Western society.”

St. Anonymous, I don’t think Catholic Mom was meaning to compare the woman to the cat, but rather the “state of being unordainable” of the woman to the “state of being unordainable” of the cat.  To an Anglocatholic or Roman Catholic, a woman is—like a chair—ontologically unable to be ordained.  One may lay hands on a woman or a bird or a fireplace mantel, but that does not make the fireplace mantel able to administer the sacraments.

This brings me to the common way that these threads seem to divide out.  The arguments against WO may be Anglo-Catholic or evangelical.  But neither are particularly acceptable to the other.

For instance, when an Anglo-Catholic says “women may not be ordained—why, how can a woman represent Christ at the altar of the mass?” that argument has no bearing on my arguments opposed to WO . . . because I do not [as has been pointed out before over and over] acknowledge the salvific efficacy of the sacraments, nor do I believe that the man/priest represents Christ Jesus, nor do I believe that the Eucharist is a re-creation of the atoning work of Christ on the cross more than 2000 years ago.

So in response to Widening Gyre’s great question . . . my understanding is that NEITHER SIDE of the issue made their arguments at various GCs from scripture. 

What I understand to have happened is that the progressives bleated about how unfair it all was, how women were “just as spiritual as men”, how “hurtful” it was, how women would never be able to climb the chuch corporate ladder if denied ordination, and then proceeded to shared their experiences and feelings.  The responders [and I’ve asked and discovered the sad truth] made opposing arguments based on their Anglo-Catholic theology.

Two ships, passing in the night.

Sure would have been nice to have some evangelicals make the case from scripture—for EITHER SIDE—but it was not to be.  In reality, most evangelical Anglicans seem to support WO, based on their interpretation of scripture. 

The case that many of them made to me, though I considered it to be flawed, led me to take the #3 position—it was clear that, unlike Wink, Griswold, Chane, Robinson, Russell, Kaeton, Bennison, and [insert progressive Episcopal name here], they were not saying “scripture, schmipture—the church wrote the Bible and we can rewrite it”.  In fact, the evangelical Anglicans that supported WO were making a good [but not perfect] case, that involved respectful handling of scripture, and in acknowledgement of Holy Scripture’s complete authority.

Matt+—

I’ll refrain from a further exchange in the discussion, since I know you’re heading offline, save to reply to your one latest statement:

LP, the difference is that I do not have to “import” any distinctions.

I think you do.

You read where Scripture says “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent” or “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says”... and then you ‘import’ the distinction of “female cleric serving under a male cleric.”

Thus you change “No woman to teach or to have authority over men” to become “No woman _who is herself not under a male superior_ to teach or have authority over men.”

Similarly, you read that a bishop or deacon must be “the husband of one wife… keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?” and reinterpret it to be “the husband [or wife] of one wife [or husband]... keeping his [or her] children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man [or woman] does not know how to manage his [or her] own household, how can he [or she] care for God’s church?”

This strikes me to be as much an “importation” and “interpolation” as those who would read “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” and rewrite it to be “every man should have his own wife [or husband] and each woman her own husband [or wife]”... or who read “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” and rewrite it to be “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife [or husband… or a woman shall leave her father and mother and be joined to her wife], and the two shall become one flesh.”

In both cases, the ‘reinterpretation’ is defended by a particular reading of other passages of Scripture to create the impression of a contradiction or absence, and then to use this impression to justify the importing into the key texts a distinction which is not natively there.

That’s why I see an analogy between the two cases/positions. But I’ll await your further clarifications/answers to the two “methodological” questions I posed in that previous post.

pax,
LP

I have a practical question then for everyone.  Given the speed with which ECUSA is hardening itself against orthodoxy, and thus the speed at which we seem to be headed toward a realigned Anglicanism in North America:
If you are for WO, if you are a woman who is an ordained Anglican clergy, are you willing to give it up if that is what it takes to have a strong unified orthodox Anglican presence here?  Conversely, if you are against WO, are you willing for a parish somewhere in a realigned Anglican church (presumably not your own parish) to have a female member of the clergy?  How much compromise is possible on this issue? 
I ask this because I get the sense that we as orthodox are slowly being edged out of ECUSA and as realignment takes shape, we may have to face this sooner rather than later.

With respect to 1 Cor 14:33-34, 1881 Westcott-Hort breaks the verses like this:

33 ου γαρ εστιν ακαταστασιας ο θεος αλλα ειρηνης ως εν πασαις ταις εκκλησιαις των αγιων

34 αι γυναικες εν ταις εκκλησιαις σιγατωσαν ου γαρ επιτρεπεται αυταις λαλειν αλλα υποτασσεσθωσαν καθως και ο νομος λεγει

... which my beloved KJV translates like this:

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

—that is, as separate sentences.  Yes, indeed, the verse divisions are not in the original texts but the verse divisions indicate at least how the text was understood in the late Patristic period.  Moreover, the context here seems to be largely concerned with seemliness and order during worship, rather than Christian morality and theology.

All this for me lends some weight to NT Wright’s exegesis of the passage which came to him as he attended a Christian service in the Middle East where—as has been the tradition for thousands of years—the men and the women sat on different sides of the aisle.  The sermon was given in perfect Classical Arabic, which most of the men but few of the women understood; bored, the women began to whisper among themselves, and soon their volume made it difficult to hear the sermon.

That said, though, I class myself as an opponent of WO but not of the fullest possible use of the order of deaconesses, not to mention nuns.  I should also add that in the small town where I grew up, between the Altar Guild, the Women’s Auxiliary, the church secretary, and the wives of the vestry and rector, the parish was pretty much run by women anyway…

Thank you Sarah! I understood what Catholic Mom meant but could not figure out how to explain it, I do think there is different understanding of what ordination means between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals which really plays into this discussion. The “state of being unordainable” in succession of priest (like a King Saul [tribe of Benjamin] was not suppose to do Samuel’s job of offer the sacrifice—Uzi was probably a fine man, but it was Levites’ job to carry the Ark with poles not on a cart) so it’s in that line of reasoning.

Boy Matt, you are brave!! We have David’s BCP and your WO threads on SF at one time!

Uza! ... correct nation, but a tad different

As an observer to the discussion that is unfolding, I think there are multiple points where one is jumping in to defend his/her position - sometimes the points intersect, sometimes they do not. The reason I mentioned the writings of the early church fathers is that, (1) we can find historical point(s) of practice(s), (2) find references that set future practice, and also (3) point back to origin and context. I think this is important in that we can often find ambiguity that can lead divergent opinions, but when set in church history, provides a context(s) forward. And yes, (s) is there for a reason. Maybe I’ll add more later.

I must confess that I have not read the entire thread in detail, but I have read all of Matt’s+ discussion and have skimmed the thread.  I find myself between the numbered positions—probably due to mental laziness??  I truly have not arrived at a conclusion about WO as far as scriptures go.  I am inclined to believe that female deacons are supported by scripture, but female priests are not.  My bias is:  Where there is serious question, don’t do it.  When I look at the devastation that has been visited upon TEC since the papering over of the original female ordinations, I think wisdom would dictate an indefinite halt until consensus can be reached.  Even if that takes decades or centuries.  Ordination is not a “right”.

I was at L’abri (Fancis Schaeffer’s home of theological study) when I was deliberating whether to become a priest and needed to be sure that what I had been feeling called to since a young person was indeed not mandated against in scripture.  I listened to a tape on the subject by Mardi Keyes who teaches at the L’Abri in Massachusettes. 
What did I learn and what finally encouraged me?

First, Mardi began in Genesis as others have reiterated on this thread that the curse was redeemed by the action of Christ, and that the ruling of a husband over a wife as well as her desire to control the husband were neither an original part of the plan of the Kingdom of God.  Instead, we pray (as often as possible) Your Kingdom Come…redeem the natural tendencies we have to control and rule over eachother.

Second, it was the stories of Deborah, of Priscilla and Aquilla (her name often comes first which indicates leadership) and of the Apostle Junia in Romans (Apostolia is never used lightly by Paul, who had to fiught for the title himself since he converted after the ascension) who gave me enough courage to agree to be ordained as a priest. 

Third, my father’s gift of logic gave me a much-needed affirmation.  If it is true that women are given the same spiritual gifts as men and if it is a cultural issue that women did not usually lead congregations, wouldn’t it be just like the evil one to keep 50% of those who are called from ministering in the ways God had called them?  How many people would he keep from ministering to because the women were supposed to stay silent?  How many would not have a chance to hear the gospel from that preacher?  How many would not receive the gift of wine and bread that flows so naturally from a woman’s serving hand? etc.

My husband and I have the privilege of working together and we love ministering at the altar together.  He is the rector and I am the assistant because it just plain works for us.  We have two little ones and I am part time preaching once a month, leading Bible studies and doing pastoral care and outreach.  Our church is growing spiritually and many have said that seeing a husband/wife team led them to the church and having a female perspective enriches the life of our local Body of Christ.

<blockquote>If Anglicanism’s assertion about itself is true, then how can it act alone?  It seems to me that any change in an unbroken, 2000-year-old tradition of the church can be legitimate if and only if there is consensus within the larger church.  In other words, until and unless all three branches of the church agree that the ordination of women can be supported by scripture, then no one branch should engage in this practice. </blockquote>

I guess this puts me in the #1 position.  This is ironic because before I became Anglican I was very much in favor of WO.  It appears to me, though, that WO was the beginning of the proverbial slippery slope.  Methinks the RC’s and the Orthodox have it right.  At least neither of those branches is sitting on the precipice of a major schism.

Hey Summer Gross,  it was while at a Labri conference that I observed both opponents and supporters of WO in communion together!  So what a coincidence.

It was then that I realized that the clusters of 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be able to do just fine [at least, with the WO issue] together.

LP,
I agree. My point is that arguing for or against priestly ordination from NT texts without acknowledging that “tradition” in the form of the church having already decided what these passages mean is a waste of time.

Sarah,
I believe that our churches should find a similar stance to that of the Christian Reformed church who as we know have some fabulous theologians and take Scripture extremely seriously.  Each area or perhaps each church should decide if this is right for them.  I am not power hungry in any way and live very comfortable along people who do not believe that I should be a priest.  I don’t need to prove myself in order to minister.

Sarah, the crux of the evangelical argument against WO lies in the creation order. As an evangelical, I disagree with Rev. Summer Gross’ analysis of the creation order when she wrote
“First, Mardi began in Genesis as others have reiterated on this thread that the curse was redeemed by the action of Christ, and that the ruling of a husband over a wife as well as her desire to control the husband were neither an original part of the plan of the Kingdom of God.  Instead, we pray (as often as possible) Your Kingdom Come…redeem the natural tendencies we have to control and rule over eachother. “

On the contrary, I believe scripture teaches that male headship is part of the original creation order and NOT a result of the fall. The fall is what brought animosity to the order so that men now seek to rule/dominate women and women seek to control men. What Jesus has redeemed us from is that.

Paul’s instructions to husbands to love their wives and for wives to respect their husbands in Ephesians 5 is the return to the creation order. Also, Paul bases his arguement for not permitting a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man on the creation order in 1 Tim 2:12-13.

For Evangelicals who hold to male headship in creation order I recommend looking at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: http://cbmw.org/index.php

Lastly, I am in agreement with much of how Matt+ intreprets the Scripture on this, just not on its application.

Not trying to stir the pot, but

Each area or perhaps each church should decide if this is right for them

seems an unsatisfactory way of determining what Sacred Scripture calls upon us to do: a way, in fact, of redefining the problem out of existence (you do your thing; I’ll do my thing; we’ll find out on the Last Day which one of us was right). For the reasons set out by LP and William Tighe above (which Summer Gross neither addresses nor answers), it’s impossible for me to see that it mandates women’s ordination: rather the reverse. Arguments per contra based neither on Scripture nor on the tradition and practice of the Christian church, but rather on propositions that theologically and historically are far from self-evident (at least to me), like

If it is true that women are given the same spiritual gifts as men and if it is a cultural issue that women did not usually lead congregations…

don’t seem to get over the fundamental obstacles.

Conversely, if you are against WO, are you willing for a parish somewhere in a realigned Anglican church (presumably not your own parish) to have a female member of the clergy?  How much compromise is possible on this issue?

To those who take the apostolic and catholic position—that practiced for nearly 2 millenia by the whole Church and still practiced and taught by the Roman Catholics and Orthodox—i.e. #1 above, such a compromise is not possible.

The reason is not misogyny, nor a selfish egocentricism about Scriptural interpretation, nor an outmoded historical nostalgia.

The reason is a love for the Church, for the Bride of Christ.

Those who recognize that Scripture and Tradition clearly forbid the ordination of women (though just as clearly support the _lay ministry_ of women, including as deaconesses, monastics, etc), understand the importance of the Church and the sacraments. Christ and, at His instruction, the apostles set up the Church the way He intended—under the headship of the episcopacy, for the continuinty of the grace of sound teaching and valid sacraments.

The Church is not something *we* created, it’s something *God* did. The Church is not up to *us* to define or organize, in its essentials—those essentials were laid down by the apostles according to Christ’s instructions. And we can no more “rewrite” the Church in our own image than we can “rewrite” the Bible. That authority is not ours.

Those who hold position #1 understand that the ordination of women—no matter how well-intentioned its advocates; no matter how orthodox the Trinitarian theology of its practitioners; no matter how pious and charitable and saintly the women so ordained—is the rejection of the Church as Christ gave it to us, is inappropirately usurping an authority to “redefine” the Church just as surely as the Bennisons of this world usurp an authority to “rewrite” the Bible.

.

The ordination of women, in effect, the rejection of God’s gift to us—the Church—and the throwing out of the _guaranteed_ grace of the sacraments.

The reasoning is this: Christ and His apostles established the Church; they established it with the bishops, successors of the apostles, along with their diaconal and presbyteral assistants, to lead it; they established these orders to be male only; Christ has promised what we call “sacramental grace” to be present in the acts of this Church.

Since the Church has no power to do what God does not permit, and since we have no authority to “redefine” the essential nature of the Church, a woman _cannot_ be ordained. Not _should_ not, *cannot*. You can go through the motions, you can say the words - she remains a laywoman. The clerical activities - such as Eucharist or ordination - performed by a lay person, man or woman, are devoid of the assurance of sacramental grace. And if the 1st century axiom holds true, “where the bishop is, there the Church is”, then where there is no bishop—only a laywoman dressed like and acting as one—there is no guarantee that the Church is there either. God is there, surely; He is everywhere. And He shall give His grace as He sees fit. But the _Church_, as given by Christ through His apostles, and the _guarantee_ of sacramental grace is not there.

.

Accordingly, to say to those in position #1 “cant’ you just team up in the same jurisdiction with the #2s-#4s against the common enemy?” is to say, in essence “can’t you just give up the Church to avoid giving up the Church?”

It is, to put it bluntly, one group of heretics asking you to surrender to them and accept their heresy so that you can help them fight *another* group of heretics.

To those who are faithful to Scripture and Tradition, who hold to the apostolic and catholic faith as given by the Word and Spirit, this suggestion is a non-starter.

.

pax,
LP

I would ask the following questions of those vehemently opposed to WO:
1.  Whatever your general experience of it within TEC, are you convinced there are no godly women whose ordained ministries have been a blessing to the church and to the world?  Don’t forget to consider women ordained outside our own tradition.
2.  Given the good faith differences that exist, is this a ground breaker?  Should the reformation of Anglicanism in the US embrace only one answer to WO and if so, what will that mean for its prospects, remembering that several of the GS provinces to whom we look for support embrace WO?  (And Nigeria is not completely closed to the prospect either.  When I asked AB Peter about it, he said it was not an issue at present since there was no push within Nigeria to effect a change.)

DaveG:

By what are you appealing to? Can I substitute the other words for ‘godly women’ and would this argument still remain the same. It seems to me that you two premises I’ve seen somewhere else for advocating other ordinations.

Widening Gyre wrote:

“For those who were active during the WO movement back in the 70s, were the proponents trying to make arguments “within” scripture or without?  I had always assumed they were arguing from within scripture but perhaps I am mistaken.  Any help?”

I read most of the material that I could get my hands on in the period 1974 to 1979 on that subject, much of it Anglican (and some of that Episcopalian, other bits Church of England).  My impression, then and now, was that the overwhelming majority of Anglican attempts to make the case for WO were arguing from “without” Scripture, although occasionally making nods in its direction, as by grasping at particular verses, wrested out of any historical or interpretive context, to make their point.  I have been constantly struck by a sense of deja vu when reading Anglicans who are putting the case for SS about how it is merely a reprise of the case for WO.  Of course, some Evangelical Anglicans favored WO at the time, but those of them who were not recycling standard liberal protestant boilerplate garnished with Evangelical rhetoric were few in number.  One of the few was John Rodgers who has since recanted his earlier support of WO to the priesthood and even told me (when I met him in person 3 years ago) that he believed that the time had come for the AMiA and others to reconsider their support for the ordination of women to the diaconate.

I recall, vaguely, Evangelical arguments, sich as those advanced in the Church of England like one Canon Harold Wilson in the 70s: the rhetoric was Evangelical (occasionally descending into polemic against “Catholic ideas” about ordination), but the substance was “liberal;” and so it remains.  I think that I still have somewhere the first collection of essays against WO put together in 1973 (revised 1975) in response to the sudden eruption of this issue in ECUSA: *Why Not?* by Duffield & Gordon.  This largely Evangelical collection (with a Swedish Lutheran contribution and another fro that man of God, the Anglo-Catholic theologian and philosopher Eric Mascall) had a least one essay pointing out the “pseudo-Evangelical nature” of many of the arguments against WO, and I think that some of these erstwhile “pseudo-Evangelical arguments” have now become standard arguments of those who would now defend WO, even on this thread.

While I would recommend this book, *Why Not,* to interested readers, if they can find a copy, I would recommend much more highly *Man, Woman and Priesthood* ed. Peter Moore (London, 1978: SPCK) or *Women and the Priesthood* ed. Thomas Hopko (Crestwood, NY, 1999: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press) or even *Man, woman and Priesthood* ed. James Tolhurst (Leominster, UK, 1989: Gracewing)—the same title as the 1978 book but a comp[letely different one in fact.  The 1978 book contains very good essays by Mascall and Roger Beckwith; the 1990 homonymous volume by Graham Leonard and a Scottish Presbyterian Calvinist named MacGowan.  Both titles can occasionally be found online, through Alibris or abebooks.com.

And are those opposed to WO in all and every form (not just sacerdotal) also opposed to female altar servers?  Because that was also church “tradition” until relatively recently.  And, interestingly, it was usually opposed by the very same people who were against WO.  Would you turn the clock all the way back if you had the chance?

Summer Gross writes a personal and moving statement about what led her to seek ordination. I have no reason to doubt either her piety or her conviction.

But all her arguments which “justify” WO—no matter how devoutly and genuinely intended—simply mean the rejection of Scripture and Tradition by elevating “experience” and “emotion” to be our doctrinal norms.

Her four reasons are, respectively:
(1) An argument that the “headship” in Genesis, being a result of the Fall, can thus be ignored by rejecting any “headship” issues in ordination
(2) The so-called “Apostle Junia”
(3) Various “logical”—though I think a better word would be “affective”—generalizations
(4) Her own experience

All of these “reasons” have flaws, when considered objectively, and none of them justify overthrowing the clear implications of Scripture when it speaks about ordination, nor justify rejecting the clear teaching of Tradition which expressly forbids WO.

(1) First off, “headship” is rooted not in the fall but—according to the NT—in the image of the relationshp of Christ to His Church. Is this relationshp a result of the fall? Would we, as the Church, be *equal* to Christ, Second Person of the Trinity, God Himself, had there been no Fall?

Secondly, we are *still* in the fallen world. The Fall *happened*. We are _still_ fallen and mortal humanity, even though we are being and shall be redeemed. _EVEN_ if “headship” were merely a result of the Fall, it can’t simply be ignored because the Fall was a Bad Thing. And, in fact, Paul never suggests that headship has been abrogated by Christ and our redemption—in fact, he continues to _emphasize_ headship as the proper order in this life for both Church and family.

Frankly, it’s this same willful dismissal of the consequences of the Fall which characterizes much of the pro-homosexual-activity rhetoric—I have these urges, they are “natural”, therefore they are “good”, therefor God intended them, therefore the Church should advocate and bless them. No recognition at all of fallen & mortal human nature in such rhetoric. No recognition, in fact, that the _same_ arguments might be made for the equally “natural” urges toward homicide, or spousal abuse, or bestiality, or adultery. But to the Christian, is God’s Word, not our fallen urges, which should guide our ethics and morality.

(2) Some very serious problems with calling this ‘Junia’ an “apostle” and “ordained”, as listed in a previous post in this thread. Certainly it is a very tenuous and uncertain foundation for rejecting the far weightier and less ambiguous evidence provided by clearer statements of Scripture and the explicit witness of Tradition.

Once again, this priviledging of the “pet” verse of Scripture—or, rather, of a particular interpretation/contortion of a pet version of Scripture—over the rest of Scripture and Tradition is a traditional characteristic of heresy, and is the kind of methodology also employed by those who find their “pet” verses of Scripture (e.g. John the “beloved” disciple) and use it to dismiss Scripture and Tradition’s teaching on homosexual activity.

(3) Human ‘reasoning’ or ‘rationalization’ and “special pleading” to simply bypass Scripture and Tradition to argue for the particular innovation.

Look how easily changing a few words turns this into precisely the same argument used by the pro-homosexual-activity lobby—for it _is_, at heart, the same argument:
...wouldn’t it be just like the evil one to keep [10%] of those who are called from ministering in the ways God had called them?  How many people would he keep from ministering to because the [homosexually active] were supposed to stay silent?  How many would not have a chance to hear the gospel from that preacher?  How many would not receive the gift of wine and bread that flows so naturally from [such an individual’s] serving hand? etc.

But once you’ve rejected the non-negotiable authority of Scripture, and of Tradition as the normative interpretation of that authority, then all such “special pleading” which simply ignores or reinterprets Scripture and Tradition to support the particular agenda [abortion, permissive divorce & remarriage, WO, SSBs etc] starts to become an acceptable justification.

(4) Arguments from experience to trump or ignore Scripture and Tradition. We all know where that leads.

.

Again, I know nothing of Summer Gross or her ministry. I have no reason to assume anything other than that she does her work piously and with honest conviction and devotion.

But the “reasons” she gives for her decisions to accept WO are reasons which implicitly reject the normative authority of Scripture and Tradition, replacing them with dubious rationalizations and appeals to ‘experience’, and are precisely the kinds of “reasons” for rejecting the norms of Scripture and Tradition now being advocated by the pro-homosexual activity crowd.

Of course, if you _accept_ the latter as well as the former, no one can fault you for inconsistency. Just as if you reject the revisionism _both_ of WO and of SSB.

It’s those who approve of _WO_ but reject other revisionism who find themselves in danger of logical & theological incoherence.

.

pax,
LP

I sure would, st. anonymous.

St. Anonymous, I don’t think Catholic Mom was meaning to compare the woman to the cat, but rather the “state of being unordainable” of the woman to the “state of being unordainable” of the cat.

Right…and the major advantage of phrasing it like this is so that we’ll never wake up to any “irregular” ordinations of women, as happened in the Episcopal church, which given our numbers would just statistically be bound to happen somewhere sometime.  Such ordinations would not be “irregular”—they would be “non-existant” in the same way they would be if some wacko bishop announced he had just ordained a cat.

In fact, you can find copies of both “Man, woman and Priesthood” books here:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?tn=man,+woman+and+priesthood&sortby=2&sts=t&bi=0&bx=off&y=14&ds=30&x=69

or else simply enter the title in at:

http://www.abebooks.com

Comparing the ordination of women to that of homosexuals never struck me as having much logic.  No one doubts that the church has ordained and continues to ordain homosexuals, celibate and not celibate.  VGR presented the unique circumstance of being one who publicly embraced his sin and tried to make of it a virtue.  No one I know argues that orientation (alone) would disqualify a homosexual from ordination.  So why compare the two cases? 
How does anyone know God’s will?  Presumably through Scripture, prayer, godly counsel, etc.  Why is the question “what is God blessing?” a valid means of discerning where His Spirit is moving, but not when it comes to WO?  That is not an argument based exclusively upon experience.  It has its roots deep within tradition.  If we are to be known by the fruit we bear, why isn’t that a legitimate way to also analyze WO?  Look to their various ministries and to their fruit - isn’t that what the process of reception was intended to be?  Now it may be that the final verdict will be that WO is not of God but a woman at the altar will not knock God off His throne.  I am not convinced it matters in the slightest to Him.

So my choice, as an alienated Anglican, is between oppressive institutionalized misogyny on the one hand and radical lunatic activism on the other.

Thanks, but no thanks.  If there’s to be no moderation, no middle way at all, then I’ll go be a church of one. 

My God forgives remorseful sinners, loves His Creation, and devalues no one. 

You’re more than welcome to yours.

On the eight day man returned the favor and created god in h__ [chose one] image.

My the last few posting felt more like a reappraiser blog ... hmmm, I wonder what is similar?

While I admit to having been edified by all of the arguments put forth on this thread, it is certainly clear that the “muddiness” of Anglicanism is evident (even among allies in the battles facing our Communion) to the point where I question whether we will all be able to live together for long in whatever form the Anglican reallignment takes.  As a priest of the Anglo-Catholic tradition, the question of Holy Orders is one that is foundational and I would place myself firmly in Camp #1 (with pastoral concern and love for my sisters and brothers who would fall into other groupings).
For me, and I daresay anyone with a catholic ecclesiology, the primary issue is not headship or whether or not Holy Scripture allows or forbids it, or even ability (I know lots of females who would be better, more effective priests than I am!). Instead, this is a question of Sacramental surety.  If the sacraments are, as our catechism defines them, “sure and certain” means of the grace of Christ…and if Holy Orders are the sacrament upon which all of the others (save baptism and matrimony) hang, then we cannot but take seriously 2000 years of consistent Christian teaching (both Scripture and Sacred Tradition) that only men may be admitted to Holy Orders. 
I guess, at the end of the day, the question is: Can a woman be a priest? 
I think that if we are honest the best answer we can give is “maybe”. 
Is “maybe” good enough when we’re talking about the “sure and certain” nature of the sacraments.  I would have to answer “no”

Hosea - Matt supports WO, but to a limited extent.  Is he a reappraiser in your book?  What hope is there for any kind of unified Anglican witness in this country?

Since my opposition to WO can fairly be characterized as “vehement” (although I would prefer the word “intractable”) I will undertake to answer DaveG’s questions.  I have had no experience at all with clerical women in ECUSA or elsewhere until recently.  In the last year I have had the pleasure of meeting with a number of clergy, ladies amongst them, of the Anglican Alliance of North Florida.  These women are committed Christians, orthodox in faith, blessed with many charisms which certainly ought not to be wasted in the service of our Lord and Saviour.  While we have not even bothered to discuss the issue of WO (they know my position and I know theirs), they have by example convinced me that there is indeed a place in professional ministry for women.
Earlier in my life, in my Presbyterian youth, I had the privilege and joy of knowing many fine women who served the church as “Directors of Christian Education.”  They were a blessing and I owe them much.
They did not aspire to become Ministers of Word and Sacrament, and when the Presbyterian Church opened up its ordination process to females, they did not take that route.
My own priesthood has been upheld, strengthened and enhanced by my wife Olga, who originally twisted my arm to become ordained, and has been my best sermon critic and parish adviser for 26 years.  Every mistake I have made as a parish priest (and the number is not small) was when I disregarded her advice.  Every good idea I have had originated over our supper table. She has truly been a companion in ministry.  She has a strong ministry of her own, as Bible teacher, pastoral visitor, and parish leader.  I could gladly compare her effectiveness and charisms with any female clergyperson.  Her view of WO is that it was an anti-feminist conspiracy:  “The Episcopal Church is only looking for cheap labor.”  When I once broached the subject with her of becoming a deaconess, her response was, “I don’t need a title to be effective.”

But apart from all that, I do happen to believe the non-WO churches need to explore ministries outside of sacramental Holy Orders where women can use the gifts God lavishly gives them, on the roles of deaconess, catechist, pastoral visitors, etc.  As someone pointed out above, this is already happening in parishes like mine, blessed with highly gifted women who do all manner of wonderful things.

The more I read and reflect on this thread, I more I believe that we are not really talking about women at all.  We are debating whether there really is a Biblically grounded distinction between Ministry and ministry.  Catholics and Classical Protestants say emphatically yes; those who advocate WO or consider it an adiaphoron seem to be saying no, it’s all just ministry.  We may all be orthodox, in terms of adherence to the Nicene Creed, but I do not see how we can possibly live together in one Church.

Nevin:  if you think I am hostile to Matt, you simply haven’t read very many of my comments.  He surely knows I have been quite supportive on many topics.  Even if I differ sharply on this particular issue, if I were truly hostile I would say adios.  But in my own porcupinish way, I’m still here, until warned or silenced.

And are those opposed to WO in all and every form (not just sacerdotal) also opposed to female altar servers?

Female acolytes and layreaders are an adiaphoron.  Personally, I consider the idea inexpedient and do not permit it.  When I had a lady recently attempt to volunteer as lay-reader, it was the ladies of the parish who told her “no, no, and hell no,” saving me a difficult explanation.  This question, btw, illustrates the failure to distinguish Ministry and ministry.

St. A,

So my choice, as an alienated Anglican, is between oppressive institutionalized misogyny on the one hand and radical lunatic activism on the other.

I think some would argue (and I would agree) that cultures that encourage women to have spiritual authority over men (even some of the time) are inherantly misogynistic.  Furthermore, since the sexes are different from one another in their respective roles (NOT in their onthological same-ness, in Christ), I believe that promoting women to have authority over men sometimes, encourages weaker men, thus eventually necessitating a culture of stronger women ... all of the time. 

“Smashing the Patriarchy,” leads to a culture of matriarchy - which is unsupportable from anthropology derived from Scripture.  We have child labor laws for the same reason.  Children are not meant to work as if they are adults. 

Can we at least acknowledge that onthological same-ness does not negate differences in our roles?

Matt+ is making appeals to other thing than sympathy, such as making reasoning from Scripture. However Matt+ was not involved in the last few exchanges, thus dragging his name into this does not seem to make much sense!

However the “my god” comments I’ve seen before (usually it’s “my god is a god of love”), so when people (who may very well may be orthodox) make arguments based on emotion or other things that sound very much like reappraiser blogs, those individuals may desire to look there line of reasoning. (Especially that jumping to conclusion part about what the other is saying, you, DaveG was the one who connected the dots to non-celibate-homosexuals, I merely pointed out the argument is the same {actually it’s very close to how WO was pushed through in ECUSA—it was more of a political not a theological debate, now trying to justify the action, history does seem to be repeating itself in the US—the UK at least attempted a theological justification}).

There is yet another position, which is the one I hold.  I call this the Universal Ecclesial position. Women’s ordination is such an important issue, since it has never been done before, that it must be decided by the living Tradition of the whole church.  Consequently, women should not be ordained unless or until the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches both decide to do it. At this late stage in history, to make decisions that separate us even further from age-old standards of the Universal Catholic Church is unwise and anti-Christian -John Perkins, Princeton, NJ

I made no argument based upon sympathy, Hosea.  Obviously, there is room to debate what the NT references mean.  If not, people of good will would not come to differing conclusions.  I asked then how we were to discern God’s will.  I do not reject the church’s tradition.  But unless we fairly assess the experience of WO in other denominations and within Anglicanism, how will we really know?  Is God blessing the ministry and the Ministry of women.  Is that an unfair question or one that is the offering of a reappraiser?  From a purely personal perspective, I believe in the priesthood of all believers and don’t like the idea of a separated “priesthood.”  But it is not what defines my faith and I can as easily worship with Anglo Catholics as with snake belly low churchmen.  Anglicanism embraces both.  Do you want to kick them (us)  to the curb?

I am sensing then that we have irrecocilable differences on the issue of WO.  Superimposed on this, we have an Anglo Catholic/Evangelical divide.  Superimposed on this we have folk who swear by the 1979 BCP and others who favor the 1662, and among the 1662 we have folk who insist on the original modern English, others who insist on contemporary modern English.  Furthermore there are those who argue to reorder or entirely drop certain prayers in the Communion service (Agnus Dei, Benedictus, prayers for the dead, etc, some of this falls along Catholic vs. Evangelical lines).  I have learned alot from listening to all sides.  What I am seeing though is alot of seemingly irreconcilable differences along alot of different issues, potentially resulting in many permutations and combinations of irreconcilable viewpoints, and thus an equal number of splinter denominations after we are all driven out of TEC!  Is this truly where we are heading?

OrthoJohn has an interesting idea, but it might be a long wait. In the Roman Mass it is Christ himself, with the priest standing in for Our Lord, who says “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood.” Only a man can stand in for the Son of God, and only men were selected by Jesus to carry on the faith. This does not denigrate the role of women—after all, a woman was the Mother of Jesus, mother of the church, and mother of us all since we are church.

Heavy stuff.

The ordination of women is proof of the basic Protestantism of Anglicanism.That Lambeth 1948 condemned it…should make all those who refer to Lambeth 1998 as the benchmark on sexuality less than complacent

There are so many sincere good people ( including women clergy) that one must ask how does God preserve his truth from sincere interpretation which is wrong?

Has he left a living force to interpret his word, and stamped it with infallible interpretation?

DaveG:

The structure of your post has a VERY familiar ring to it and yes, it is the non-celibate-homosexual man that I was implying to easily fit into same structure. Thus why I asked you the question on what basis do you make your appeal?

Open:
I made no argument based upon sympathy, Hosea.
Close:
Do you want to kick them (us) to the curb?

Hmmm ... ah ... right ... then what basis are you trying to make a valid argument? I’m seeing extremism in presentation of your view, calling on the name of Matt+ when he was not involved then claiming this big tent idea of Anglicanism ... all is just so familiar ...

First, a semantic bit. The consensus among those who have engaged in long-term dialogue on this issue is that the better phrase is “ordination of women,” abbreviated OW. I will not rehash all the arguments here. I just want to preempt any possible confusion about my use of that abbreviation.

If you look at the Roman Catholic Church, where OW has been definitively ruled out, feminists are all about lay empowerment. I think the clerical hierarchy of ECUSA saw what was happening there and decided they didn’t want any part of it. In order to maintain clerical privilege, they coopted the feminists by agreeing to ordain them. In Anglican provinces that ordain women as priests and bishops, therefore, feminists are the most vocal advocates of authoritarian clerical hierarchy, in contrast to their RC sisters.

The clergy in ECUSA have often tended to reserve jobs for clergy, or at least to favor clergy in hiring decisions, even for jobs that could be done by a layman. Therefore, women who are called to ministry often find themselves under pressure to get ordained in order to fulfill their callings.

Several years ago, one friend of mine thought she might be called to the permanent diaconate. But she found that the politics of our diocese required women to aspire to the priesthood. She ended up skipping the ordination process and going off to do foreign mission work as a layman.

In summary, if we want to reduce tensions on the issue of OW, we first need to deal with the problem of clericalism. In a church where one can do non-priestly ministry without being a priest, there will be less reason for conflict on this issue. I think one part of the solution is to properly define priesthood as a sacramental status, rather than a “leadership position.”

Ah, for the “old Anglican spirit:”
*******************************
Acts of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, 1921-1960 published by SPCK in 1961, edited by A F Smethurst and H R Wilson.
page 148
Ordination in Hong Kong (Lee Tim Oi)
YORK
On 27th May, 1948, the Lower House of the York Convocation agreed:
“That this House re-affirms the principle declared in the letter sent by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Bishop of Hong Kong and reported to the Upper House of Convocation in May, 1945, that the ordination of women to the priesthood is ‘most certainly contrary to all the laws and precedents of the Church’.”

Roland, that is precisely what has happened in some RC parishes, where deacons or even laymen and laywomen are parish directors. Usually, this is because of a critical shortage in the priesthood.

In such parishes, priests are referred to as sacramental ministers. Some are on loan from an order, while others come from elsewhere. All say Mass and hear confessions, but that’s about it.

Roland writes,

... if we want to reduce tensions on the issue of OW, we first need to deal with the problem of clericalism. In a church where one can do non-priestly ministry without being a priest, there will be less reason for conflict on this issue. I think one part of the solution is to properly define priesthood as a sacramental status, rather than a “leadership position.”

This is one of the most penetrating insights on the subject I’ve seen.  Many thanks.

(Of course, it will cut no ice for those who regard anything short of total interchangeability between male and female as unspeakable injustice.  But then, no rational or theological argument would.)

Dr Tighe, that was another era, another Church, another religion.
That was when Anglicans believed their Church was an authentic branch of the Una Sancta and not just another Protestant denomination, believing that Ordination is a sacrament instituted by Christ Himself and therefore unalterable in matter, form, intention and minister, and took seriously the dictum, “It is evident unto all men,  diligently reading Holy Scripture an ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time….”  And in certain remote corners, that old Faith is far from dead.  It is not for nothing they call us Continuing Churchmen.

<blockquote>“Smashing the Patriarchy,” leads to a culture of matriarchy - which is unsupportable from anthropology derived from scripture.  We have child labor laws for the same reason.  Children are not meant to work as if they are adults.</blockquote>

First women are likened to “cats”, now “children”.  Have we exhausted all the insulting similes yet, or are there a few more to trot out?

This is the exact same attitude that had Christians of a former era declaring the “children of Ham”—ie Africans and other black people —to be subordinate to the white man by God’s decree, and that it was therefore justifiable to enslave them.

Believe in that kind of a god if you like.  Personally I don’t believe anyone is created sub-human.  I believe that all are one in Christ.  (That’s in the scriptures, too.)

RE: “. . . seems an unsatisfactory way of determining what Sacred Scripture calls upon us to do: a way, in fact, of redefining the problem out of existence (you do your thing; I’ll do my thing; we’ll find out on the Last Day which one of us was right).”

Hi Blind Squirrel—it’s actually done all the time . . . about adiaphora, that is.  That’s the problem.  Some think WO is adiaphora, and of course, they’re just fine with “we’ll see how it all comes out with the wash”; but for those who do not believe it to be adiaphora . . . of course, it is “an unsatisfactory way”.

RE: “And are those opposed to WO in all and every form (not just sacerdotal) also opposed to female altar servers?”

Yep.  And female lay readers.  And any female being up out of their seats in the service doing anything at all in the front of the congregation.  And “artificial” contraception.  Along with hosts of other things.
; > )

Hmm.  Why not have all the wimmen-folks sit at the back too, like in them Muslim mosque-things.  Keeps ‘em from distracting the men from their Important Spiritual Thoughts, y’know…
;>)

I fear that discussing this subject under the rubric ordination tends to trap us in some unspoken assumptions that lend a Roman Catholic bias to the discussion. It is implied by RC sacramental numerology (the sacraments are precisely seven in number) that ordination is a single sacrament. This has even led some RC theologians to ask the question of which level of ordination - deacon, priest, or bishop - is the “real” ordination, of which the other two are subsets or supplements!

I would argue that ordination is not a thing in and of itself, but is defined by the office to which one is being ordained. The real issue is whether women can or should hold the offices of deacon, priest, and bishop. And, contrary to the typical RC approach, these might be three separate questions.

I do not think we can even discuss the subject of OW in more than a tentative and provisional way without a consensus on the obvious preliminary questions, 1) What does it mean to be female and male? and 2) What does it mean to be a deacon, a priest, or a bishop? I do not expect such a consensus to arise anytime soon. (Note: Question 1 is also a key preliminary to any discussion of same-sex marriage.)

The Anglican Communion has proceeded with OW without such a consensus. In fact, it has really not even discussed these questions on a theological level, but has simply pushed ahead on a political basis. In 1992, Abp. Carey essentially said it was “a most serious heresy” to insist that this was even a theological issue, thus suppressing the theological debate that should have preceded this innovation in the C. of E.

Since we don’t really know whether women can be priests or not (or deacons or bishops), the “process of reception” essentially makes all Anglicans guinea pigs in a grand experiment. It also undermines the sacraments: How can they be “sure and certain means” of grace when we are uncertain as to the priestly status of those who administer them? (I know of one Anglican monk who reportedly became RC because he was afraid he might be ordained by a female bishop and then would not know for sure whether he was really a priest or not.)

Prudence would suggest that such an innovation should never have been introduced into the church without 1) a consensus that it was correct, and 2) a theological understanding of what it meant. Doing so has not only introduced a cause of disunity into the church, but has also undermined the status of theological reasoning in the church’s decision-making processes.

P.S. A number of years ago, I participated in the Canon 1024 List, whose participants discussed “the ordination of women in the liturgical churches.” I recently dug up my final post to that list, which addresses OW in terms of iconic theology, and posted it on my blog. You can read it here.

Sodbuster,

I am not sure you read a thing I wrote because most of the points you argue against are not mine.

The first, I suppose, I can address since LP brought it up, but I have not yet addressed it.

You ask:

“What ambiguity do you see in the teaching passages on who may be an elder or a bishop, namely 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3?”

None at all. It is at this point that LP suggests I am importing “or if the presbyter is a woman, she must be the wife of one husband” which I am not. The text is what the text is. The text provides a postive description of what sort of men are eligible for ministry as overseers and deacons. It says nothing at all about whether a female may be a deacon or overseer. It doesn’t even address the issue.

Certainly, I think other texts may be introduced to prohibit a woman from taking the office of bishop or rector…texts that have to do with male headship. But these texts say nothing about it.

“Or the matter that it isn’t about abiility, but God’s right to call and not call (Numbers 16)?”

HEre is where I get the sense that you have not read anything I have written. I fully concur. No one is worthy to be ordained and it certainly has nothing to do with ability. I NEVER suggested otherwise.

“I suppose if you presuppose SSB, then you -could- twist Scripture to allow SIOICPAKAWO as “husband of one wife” might then in some twisted way, apply.”

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about here.

“But that is as bad as your proposing that the elect angels of God are temporally and geographically bound by culture, and that an appeal to the order of creation is also not a reference to all creation and all salvation history, but to just a specific local time and place in the first century A.D. in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire.”

Sodbuster, please, I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I suggest this. Of course, women are always to submit to their husbands and always to serve under the authority of male leaders in the Church…I NEVER suggested otherwise.

“That doesn’t even rise to the level of eisogesis.”

But your reading of my argument certainly does.

“If you have an exegetical argument concerning the teaching passages of Scripture, and concerning the elect angels and creation, please produce it.”

I never “produced” such an argument in the first place.

“If you don’t have such an argument, will you follow through and change your opinion?”

About what?

RE: “Given the good faith differences that exist, is this a ground breaker?”

Hey Dave G, I think for those in Group #1, mostly Continuers, it is a ground breaker.  I think it’s a matter of integrity.  If 1) men re-present Christ at the altar of the mass, and 2) if the sacraments are salvific, and 3) if women are ontologically unable to become priests, then surely you have to see how deeply deeply important it is to actually perform valid sacraments.

But I don’t think it is a ground breaker for those in groups #2-5.

RE: “So my choice, as an alienated Anglican, is between oppressive institutionalized misogyny on the one hand and radical lunatic activism on the other.

Thanks, but no thanks.  If there’s to be no moderation, no middle way at all, then I’ll go be a church of one.”

St. Anonymous—while I personally would not characterize the holders of Position #1 as oppressive institutionalized misogyny—[I believe that women and men rightly have different roles, just as the members of the Trinity have different roles, but are in no way inferior to the other]—I think that the option that will arise from the fracture of the Communion will be that there will be protection for both those who support and those who oppose WO, including separate ordination tracks, etc.

I also believe that if that option does not arise, those in groups one and two will be together, and those in groups 3-5 will rapidly discern that they do not wish to remain with group 2, in that case, for other reasons, and we’ll end up with three groups.  In fact, my suspicion is that for folks like me in Group #3, and those in 4 and 5 [with perhaps the exceptions being folks like the Kennedy’s], if there is ever a suspicion that there will simply be a church that holds exclusively to Position #1, they will simply not join that alternate Anglican entity, and will drift away to other entities. That’s only in regards to the WO issue, though. 

All that being the case, if the Anglican fracture were to take that position on WO, you might want to look into the EPC—Evangelical Presbyterian Church—which will probably be my resting place in the event of an Anglican Communion fracture.

Hope this helps!

RE: “Mardi was forbidden to teach on that subject in the name of L’Abri.”

Well, she certainly taught on it at the Labri conference I attended.  Of course, none of the speakers [about a dozen or so, and it was fantastic] were speaking “in the name of L’Abri” . . .

The text provides a postive description of what sort of men are eligible for ministry as overseers and deacons. It says nothing at all about whether a female may be a deacon or overseer. It doesn’t even address the issue.

This seems like an odd way of looking at this passage.  The question immediately arises, why are the qualifications for female overseers and deacons never outlined?  I think the most reasonable answer is that it wasn’t an option.

I think “the Rev. Summer Gross” *may* be a nom de plume.  When I wondered about her location/diocese, I used the “Clergy Finder” feature at the Episcopal Church website.  I found no one by that name, although I found 6 male clergy by that last name. 

Rev. Gross, are you an Episcopalian woman in orders, or from some other organization?

Hi Connie,
I am an Episcopal woman in orders in the Diocese of Western Michigan.  I am an assistant at The Church of the Epiphany in South Haven, Michigan who is paid quarter time.  Summer may sound like a nom de plume but is not, and no, my parents were not hippies
Summer

It’s an open and shut case, really, WO has been a disaster and will continue to be a stumbling block.

LP has the theology nailed, while DaveW asks “[has the church] become stronger, more unified, is membership up, or not[, since WO]?”

Judging by the fruit on the vine, this tree has withered significantly—some might even call it accursed!

Godly women will always have a crucial ministry in the Church, but when it comes to WO—which not coincidentally follows the rise of ‘feminism’ in the same way that GLBT-O (for lack of a better acronym) follows WO—is far more effective as a stumbling block that inevitably results in a smaller harvest (and more chaff for the fire).

Judge by the fruit.  What denominations/religions have grown as a result of women’s ordination?  How many have failed miserably?  (ahem).

MK is busted by LP—the justification for WO (his own godly wife notwithstanding) is the exact same justification for same sex blessings and GLBT-O.  His refusal to accept this fact is not different than the homosexualist claims that “SSM will not lead to polygamy, and worse, and the eventual breakdown of marriage altogether”.  Nevermind that the logic they have already accepted leads down an obvious and slippery slope.  Deny it all you want for now—but call me in 20 years for your dinner of crow.  Did not the activism for the ERA (on which rode in WO in progressive churches) also usher in the activism of SSM/SSB?  Despite all protests to the contrary at the time?

In fact it did.  Some of us (okay, not me but my parents—who I foolishly thought were crazy at the time) knew, and were proven correct.  The slippery slope is still sliding, and those who think it stops at SSM are only fooling themselves.  They too have embraced the slide…

It’s no accident that MK prohibited the use of the term “p-s” from the very beginning.  The negative and pagan connotations it carries are no accident.  The damage caused by WO has been known for thousands of years…

This is just one of many stumbling blocks Satan likes to use against us.  You’d think we’d have learned our lesson by now, but no—human nature doesn’t change.  We always want what we are forbidden from having.

Being a “nice person” doesn’t make you any different than the rest of us wicked sinners.

Hello all,
I must say up front that I believe that WO is a serious deviation from Scriptural faith and practice of the Church. And going to the referenced passages—the references to women “prophesying” in 1 Cor 11 by no means contradicts the perspicuous meaning of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 (i.e. that women are to keep silence in the Sacred Assembly). The passage of 1 Cor 14:27-33 (which immediately precedes the command in vs. 34, 35 for women to be silent and under submission in the Church) makes very clear how “prophesying” was to be practiced in the Public Assembly and the prohibition against women speaking, which immediately follows the instructions on how to “prophesy,” shows that 1 Cor 11 can not be referring to women prophesying in any authoritative or leading position in the Public Assembly. Rather, women could only prophesy in the Public Assembly in submission and “silence.” [i.e. “silence” in the sense in which it was commanded not only in 1 Cor 14:34,35 for all women in the Public Assembly (whether they “prophesied” or not),  but also as it is commanded in 1 Cor 14:28 to those who spoke in tongues but did not have an interpreter “...let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” So, the woman could “prophesy” in the Public Assembly but only in silence, “speaking to herself and to God” as must be concluded from the command of 1 Cor 14:34, 35. This is confirmed by the Historic faith and practice of the Church (which shows all women, according to the command of the Apostles, “keeping silence” in the Public Assembly)].

Here is a post on this topic written on another blog:

Going now to the main topic—the statement of St. Paul regarding the role of women in the Church is summarized here:
1 Tim 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1 Cor 11:34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

Clearly, the focus of St. Paul’s Command (and Christ’s Command, as St. Paul makes clear) is that women are not to have a role of authority over men in the Church.

In answer to one of your questions, the vocal affirmation of Christian vows and the vocal involvement of women in the unison saying of common prayer and singing of praise, etc. is not in view here (because these are not taking a “vocal lead” in the Church), but rather what is in view is the God-ordained, non-authoritative and submissive role of women in the Church. This is borne out by 2000 years of Tradition in our Lord’s Church (that is, until the feminist revolution of the 20th century).

Again, it is not the God-given role for women to have rule or authority in the Church, and thus it is likewise not the role of women to take a “vocal leading” in the Sacred Assembly (and asking questions in Sacred Assembly is affirmed by St. Paul to be taking an improper “vocal lead,” which shows how serious he is on this issue–and if even this is going beyond the Command of God regarding the role of women in the Church, how much worse is the Ordaining of women).

Finally, St. Paul does not contradict himself on this matter in Gal 3:28, rather he is speaking in this passage of the spiritual and mystical union that we all have in Christ through our faith and Baptism into His Mystical Body–this passage has no bearing on removing the distinct, God-given roles of men and women in the Body of Christ.

I should note that the authoritative role of the ancient, catholic faith of the Church (though this authority is, of course, subject to the higher authority of the infallible Word of the Living God in Sacred Scripture) is not only a high anglo-catholic position but is the traditional Anglican position (though Anglicans have frequently been less than faithful to this position).  Thus, appealing to the witness of the Historic Christian faith as an authority on this matter is valid regardless of whether one is anglo-catholic or not (and I believe regarding the catholic and evangelical aspects of Anglicanism that the traditional Prayer Book Anglican position is “both/and” not “either/or”) 

Blessings to all in Christ,
William

p.s. Based on the perspicuous testimony of Scripture and 2000 years of Tradition I also believe that novel practices such as women lay readers in the Church (which naturally lends itself to Women’s Ordination) should likewise be discarded as unscriptural innovations. All this said—I certainly believe that women should have an active role in the Church’s life (including through the Scriptural lay positions of “Deaconess”, “Widow”, etc) as the Rev. Lawrence noted well earlier. I apologize for any repition of previously noted points in this post (in looking at the thread it appears that LP in his excellent comments has already touched on most if not all of the points I have mentioned here).

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Caught one of the typos in my last post:

In the p.s.—it should be “repetition” in the not “repition”

I hear you, Sarah Hey. And I suppose I tipped my own hand in the very way I posed the question: if it’s indeed “what Sacred Scripture calls upon us to do” (as I believe it to be) then it’s not, by definition, adiaphora.

And without wandering off-topic (all right, I am, but indulge me), I think Summer is an excellent name. If we can have April, May and June as girls’ names—and August, in German-speaking countries at least, for the boys—why not Summer?

For the record I would like to disassociate myself from the type of argument that Marty has engaged in.  It is purely emotional and rather illogical.  Example:  the AOG denomination has had explosive growth and is a decently conservative denomination- about 18% of its clergy are female.  This denomination is in no danger of allowing any sort LGBT agenda in its pulpits or elsewhere.  If all we have to argue against WO is Marty’s slippery slope tripe then we just lost the debate.  The problem in TEC is not female clergy but the theological agenda that brought them into the church.

RE: “if it’s indeed “what Sacred Scripture calls upon us to do” (as I believe it to be) then it’s not, by definition, adiaphora.”

Not true.  Every Christian has determined that he or she may be in communion with other Christians who practice something that the former believes is “what Sacred Scripture” forbids.

Therefore, by definition, adiaphora is something that 1) some Christians believe is opposed to Scripture but 2) remain in communion with those whom they believe to be violating said Scripture.

Robert asks,

Has [God] left a living force to interpret his word, and stamped it with infallible interpretation?

Why of course; the Holy Spirit. Not a force but a person.

I do agree that we are all wicked sinners Marty…but that is about all I agree to. Your post was full of assertions and short on argument.

William,
I am not sure how you “prophesy” in silence. Please explain again. Perhaps I am dense. I certainly agree that women must prophesy in full submission.

LP, I’ve been away most of the afternoon and evening so I believe I’m right in say that your last argument was that the two positons, pro limited WO and pro SSB are essentially the same because both import something into the text of Scripture. By way of explication you suggested that I must read women into 1 Tim 3 and titus.

I responded briefly above in my post to Sodbuster, but just to reiterate, I do not at all suggest such a reading of 1 Tim 3 or Titus. But neither text has much to do with whether or not women can be ordained. They certainly provide decriptive or prescriptive principles and rules for bishops and deacons. But they say nothing about whether women might ever be ordained to such roles. I suppose you might say that they assume males occupy these offices… but that possible assumption does not carry any proscriptive weight. It in no way establishes a universal principle unless you are arguing that that these texts were purposefully intended to limit these roles to men…which is something of a stretch to say the least.

Marty the Baptist—are you caricaturing in your comment?  Or being funny?  Or are you serious.

If serious, then your comment is replete with bizarre inconsistencies and irrational statements.

First of all, correlation does not imply causality in the least.  Those who claim that WO has caused the church to decline, thus detecting a “causality” where there is a correlation in timing, might just as well point to the acceptance of artificial contraception.  Or hosts of other decisions made PRIOR TO the acceptance of WO.

Second, as has been pointed out numerous times on this blog—ad nauseum—many denominations have purported to ordain women and done just fine.  So when you say “What denominations/religions have grown as a result of women’s ordination?” I answer the Church of the Nazarene [1919], the Assemblies of God [1914], and the Church of God [1909]?

It’s embarrassing to find allies who oppose WO based [I assume] on scriptural considerations using such illogical, emotion-filled rants as the basis for their “argument” . . . rants that are easily and rationally countered.

To repeat what I said over on another thread:

“. . . there’s a simple way to prevent folks like me from bringing up the various Protestant entities that have done WO without sinking to the depths of misery of ECUSA [and the reason why they haven’t so devolved is because the mere act of WO doesn’t lead to that devolution, not even to a “more sectarian form of Protestantism”, but that’s another debate].

They can say something rational, rather than something broad and sweeping and irrational and so easily challenged by alternative examples.

They can say “The examples of some Anglican provinces like ECUSA and Canada lead me to believe that when an Anglican province offers WO they will end up as pagan as Caananite baal worshipers.  We will have to closely observe Uganda, Burundi, Kenya, Korea, Rwanda, South India, and the West Indies over the next 100 years to see what happens to them.”

They could *even say* something broader, like: “The examples of some Anglican provinces like ECUSA and Canada, along with other sacramental churches, lead me to believe that when sacramental Christian churches offer WO they will end up as pagan as Caananite baal worshipers.  We will have to closely observe Uganda, Burundi, Kenya, Korea, Rwanda, South India, and the West Indies, as well as any other sacramental Christian churches who are foolish enough to purport to ordain women over the next 100 years to see what happens to them.”

Of course, they won’t.  Why?  Because so many are so filled with rage at that action that they simply cannot be rational and say something so careful.  They have to say something broad, and sweeping, and grandiose . . . that applies to all churches everywhere, ever.

In other words, they speak out of emotion and and an urge to say something as dramatic as possible.

And as a result . . . people like me will always be able to pour cold water on their overdramatic generalizations, in part because such generalizations are flat-out wrong, and in part because the generalizers are so ruled by emotion that they are unable to carefully articulate a statement that is actually truthful.”

Just to follow up . . . I can only imagine such screeds being proclaimed in the General Conventions of the 70s . . . no wonder we failed at convincing anyone.

With allies like this, I don’t need revisionists attacking me.  We’ll do just fine making our “arguments” for them to knock down easily [as long as they can be pried away from their singing songs about their “feelings”, that is . . . ]

that possible assumption does not carry any proscriptive weight

No?  It seems that it did carry proscriptive weight for the Christian church for at least 1800 years.  I can see where you coming from but, as I stated earlier, it is not so convincing to me.

Sarah, that’s my fear—that the fracturing will just go on, and on, and on until there’s really nothing left but tiny alienated splinters.

I really can’t stomach either theological extreme—the one that oppresses women and other minorities, or the one that replaces religion with radical activism (in which case why have a church at all?).  But I do think the revisionists are more to blame for the schism.  Simply put, they started it by gong too far with their “reforms”—with the unhappy result that conservative Christians are reacting against them by going just as far in the opposite direction.  And now people like me have nowhere to turn.  Things fly apart, the center cannot hold…

With over 203 entries and not reading all of them, I run the risk of repeating but here goes with two reasons; one in the vein of reason and the other, tradition.

Reason: “altar christus”.  If a priest is to be the altar christus to his congregation then being male is important.  Why?  Because if a male is not standing in the place of Christ, but a female is standing in that place then it is about a relationship not ordained by God.  Let me be more specific.  Jesus, the bridegroom; His Church, the bride.  If a female stands in that place, it is a same-sex relationship, which is what all the fuss is about these days.  Isn’t it?  Same theology folks.

Reason #2: not original to me but I hear that Jesus was hesitant to turn things around and even upside down!  Wrong.  He did just that in His day in all areas with Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, Women, etc., etc.  So why did He pick twelve men to call as apostles?  Why He could have called one of the Mary’s.  But He didn’t, so, was it just an accident or mistake on His part?  I don’t believe it was.  There was intention there and it is for us to try and figure out.

Right relationships in the Church is what each of us is called to whether it be in a Forward in Faith parish or Diocese, evangelical, carismatic or one in New Hampshire.  Right relationships ordained by God.  Try it on.  You will love it!

William,
I am not sure how you “prophesy” in silence. Please explain again. Perhaps I am dense. I certainly agree that women must prophesy in full submission.

Hello Rev. Kennedy,

I would ask in response can someone speak in tongues (which is prophesying but in an unknown tongue) while keeping silent?—(St. Paul answers this question as I noted in my post).

Blessings in Christ,
William

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

William, I think your resolution is a bit tortured. A much better harmonization is: People speak in tongues publicly when there is an interpreter is present and women prophesy in church so long as they are operating under the headship and authoriity of a male.

I don’t dispute either point.

Dallas Priest: I would find the whole “sacerdotal” argument understandable (while still not accepting it myself) were it not for the fact that so many who make it also oppose women as deacons (a non-sacerdotal ministry), as lay assistants, or even as altar servers.  They do not want females in the sanctuary, period.

If this isn’t misogyny, it’s certainly a damn fine imitation of it.

St. Anonymous:  I have no problem with the minor order of Deaconess as it should not have been butchered by GC years ago.  What if GC made acolytes, of which I have several females, Deacons, by a resolution?  Or ushers, etc., etc.

I have chalice bearers in the sanctuary but they are not sacerdotal either.  As Bishop Terwilliger, of blessed memory, said many years ago, “it is as natural for a man to have a baby as it is for a woman to be a priest!”  As you know, he was not a theological lightweight and could we ever use him today.

Not true.  Every Christian has determined that he or she may be in communion with other Christians who practice something that the former believes is “what Sacred Scripture” forbids.

Therefore, by definition, adiaphora is something that 1) some Christians believe is opposed to Scripture but 2) remain in communion with those whom they believe to be violating said Scripture.

Hmm. I suspect we may be at cross purposes with our respective definitions of “adiaphora” and “communion.” I understand the first from its Greek origins: “things indifferent.” If, for the sake of argument, one holds that the ordination of women is something that Christians are enjoined by Scripture not to do, then it is hardly a matter of indifference whether it be done or not. And while one may continue to regard those who nevertheless do it as fellow-Christians (albeit in error to a greater or lesser degree) differences like these will inevitably have an impact on the extent to which proponents of the first position can be said to be “in [full] communion” with those of the second.

To be sure, I come to these questions from a non-Anglican perspective, as you’ll certainly already have guessed.

[Off home now. ‘Night, all, and my sincerest thanks for an exceptionally interesting and thought-provoking discussion.]

This thread is so long that you might consider a downloadable .pdf version.

I don’t really want to get into personalities, but because she was brave enough to post here under her own name and there seemed to draw a certain amount of question from LP and other….

Again, I know nothing of Summer Gross or her ministry. I have no reason to assume anything other than that she does her work piously and with honest conviction and devotion.

I will attest to the fact that Summer is indeed a pious and devoted minister of our Lord (as is her husband).  Their ministry in this diocese is highly respected, and I have heard positive comment on them from liberals as well as orthodox in the diocese.  I am not a theologian, and have no proficiency in Greek to develop an argument for or against women’s ordination (not to mention a certain personal confusion- see below).  But I will witness that many of us in this diocese have benefited from Summer’s ministry, and there is no question in my mind that she is called by the Lord.

I was brought up in what Matt labels as position #1.  I am reasonably certain that my father would have signed the Affirmation of St. Louis, had he lived that long (a number of his close friends and colleagues were among the signatories).  I was raised as an AngloCatholic, emphasis on the Catholic.  Some decades back, I left the church, not over WO per se, but over the general idea that doctrine was, if you will, “fluid.”  In coming back into the church, I found WO to be the accepted status quo.  In the intervening time, I had come to terms with it in my own mind, although I continue to question it on the basis that “greater minds than mine” remain firm in opposition.  So, I thank Matt for this thread, like his previous ones on AngloCatholic/Evangelical doctrine, I am learning a great deal here that will help me develop a deeper understanding of the issue and the theological arguments on both sides.
TJ

As Bishop Terwilliger, of blessed memory, said many years ago, “it is as natural for a man to have a baby as it is for a woman to be a priest!”

Well, with God all things are possible. 

I think I would call myself a 3-1/2: I am not completely convinced that the Scriptures utterly rule out ordination of women, especially as deacons. I am convinced that tradition has never allowed it. In a possible Anglican future in NA, I would advocate not having WO, because it is a stumbling block to many of my fellow-believers. In 1 Cor 8:13 Paul writes that he would never eat meat again if it caused his brother to stumble, even though elsewhere in the letter he says it’s OK to eat meat even if it did come out of an idol temple. I am reminded of <u>The Screwtape Letters (XV)</u>, in which Screwtape writes to his nephew:

We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials—namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low” churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high” brother shoulld be moved to irrevence, and the “high” one should be refraining from these excercises lest he should betray his “low” brother into idolatry. And so it should have been but for our ceaseless labor. Without that the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility,
Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

I don’t mean to argue from this that WO is an adiaphoron, but rather that for those who see it as such there is a scriptural basis for deferring to those who do not. But I really wonder if those who are vehement opponents of WO, chafing at rule #1 of this thread, are willing to meet the 2-5’s halfway. I don’t mean limited WO or local option or a “grandmother clause”. What I mean is that I would like to see us seek out the maximum range of ministry for women allowable within the boundaries of Scripture and tradition, rather than an attempt at “turning back the clock”. I would advocate that all lay ministries, including acolytes, lay readers, LEM’s, and other people who “stand in front”, be open to all of the laity, women included. I’d like to see some real thought, effort, and resources put into this. If we just say, “well, women can be Deaconesses” (or whatever other forms of ministry are said to be open to us), but there’s no way for women to get the necessary training, and nobody who is willing and/or able to help us discern whether God is calling us to a particular form of ministry, it’s just lip service.

And for starters, I’d like to see adoption of Thread Rule #1 for everyone, on a permanent basis, not just for pr*****ss, but also for whatever other snide names you may be in the habit of using or are in the process of thinking up. Even if they’ve been deeply in error, women who have sought ordination were and are seeking to serve God, and they don’t deserve to be sneered at.

“so many who make it also oppose women as deacons (a non-sacerdotal ministry), as lay assistants, or even as altar servers.  They do not want females in the sanctuary, period.”

Yep, that’s right.

“If this isn’t misogyny, it’s certainly a damn fine imitation of it.’

Only those who know little about the early church and care less could say this.  see above, in this thread my citation of Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea which numbers deaconesses among the laity, not among the clergy, like deacons, priests and bishops.  And as I also mentioned above, that minority of posters on this thread who are not prepared to yield up the Fathers and the Early Church generally to Catholics and Orthodox (which if you do would not surprise me in the least) might well profitably fill the evident void in their knowledge of the subject by perusing *Deaconesses: An Historical Study* by Aime-Georges Martimort (San Francisco, 1986, 1996: Ignatius Press).

Festivus wrote:(quoting someone else):

This seems to be the pattern in use in Asia. David Virtue wrote in Virtue on Line, on July 3, 2006 “The truth is the Asians have worked out a wonderful way to allow women in ministry. They call them ‘pastors’ and they plant churches, become missionaries, evangelize, teach catechism, but the bishop comes around once a month to baptize, dispense Eucharist and perform all other sacramental acts. And the churches are growing like crazy.” In other words, these women ministers function under the headship of their male bishops.

I find this so encouraging! It sounds like they have some new wineskins and some new wine to put in them as well. Is this kind of ministry for women acceptable to you #1’s?

William, I think your resolution is a bit tortured. A much better harmonization is: People speak in tongues publicly when there is an interpreter is present and women prophesy in church so long as they are operating under the headship and authoriity of a male.

I don’t dispute either point.

Hello Rev. Kennedy,
I must respectfully disagree. The idea that St. Paul actually meant to say women must keep silence unless they are “operating under the headship or authority of a male” is directly contradicted by his words in 1 Cor 14:34, 35—i.e. women who St. Paul notes as “operating under the headship and authority of a male”—that is, their husband (not to mention their Ordained leaders) are not to even speak out/“lead” in asking questions in the Public Assembly.

How then can a woman (who is not even allowed to lead in Public Worship by asking questions while “operating under the headship and authority of a male”) be allowed to prophesy or teach, etc while “operating under the headship and authority of a male”?

Besides, as I noted in my first post St. Paul gives the command for women to keep silence in the Public Assembly in the very passage where he is giving direct instructions on how prophesying is to be performed in the Public Assembly. Thus, the context leaves no room for seperating his command for women to remain silent from his instruction on how to conduct prophesying in the Public Assembly.

Also, the point of my last post still stands—if a man can “speak in tongues” (that is, prophesy in an unknown tongue) but remain silent in the Public Assembly then a woman can likewise prophesy (including in an unknown tongue) but remain silent in the Public Assembly.

Again, if it is impossible for a woman who prophesies (including in an unknown tongue) to remain silent in the Public Assembly then it is also impossible for a man who prophesies in an unknown tongue to remain silent in the Public Assembly (in which case St. Paul’s commands on this point are worthless in both situations).

Blessings in Christ
William

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

It is stunning that WO has been characterized in this discussion as the source of the current disaster which is TEC.  Although the irregular ordination of the Philadelphia 11 contributed to the situation which exists today (decision making without godly consultation throughout the catholic body), can we agree that our problems could be traced back to Pike’s acquittal of heresy, not just WO?

A few more thoughts from a female priest and Trinity graduate:

The idea that only a man can represent Christ at the altar is remarkable.  Why must this be so?  I realize Jesus was incarnated as a man but there is no re-sacrifice during the Eucharist.  Why would there be an ontological reason for the priest to be male?  We are all made in the image of God.

There is no comparison of WO to ordination of a non-celibate gay person.  None.  It is not a sin to be a woman.  Although there are Pauline statements referenced here which can support early church female leadership, the most important example is Jesus Himself.  No, there were no women among the 12.  How could there be?  But Jesus was totally counter-cultural in His treatment of women.  The most important exemplar of the change in the station of females is that the first proclamation of the good news came from the women. For an excellent analysis of the evolution of how women are regarded, read Peter Moore’s exposition on the trajectory of Scripture. http://www.tesm.edu/articles/moore-why-godly-women-can-have-true-calling.html

There are probably fewer than 300 orthodox female priests in TEC. We have wrestled with the issues presented here. Over and over.  While it is true that some women in the priesthood felt “called” in order to make some sort of feminist statement, there are godly women who, like the early church leaders (early tradition!) are called by God to this ministry. 

All of this said, however, in the big picture of TEC’s problems, WO is adiaphora.  There are too many other more important, essential matters and we should not allow ourselves to continue to be fragmented over this issue. 

PS Thanks for your comments above, Summer Gross and St. Anonymous!

I am of the belief that Paul’s view of women in the spiritual roles in the Church was based on what he saw in pagan Rome as well as the “fortune tellers”, et al.  Being a Jew I am sure he must have been appalled at female leadership in spiritual things.  Paganism, witchcraft and other assorted darkness remain today and are often led by women for reasons of their “theology”.  Can the Christian Church get past that?  Probably for some people, but certainly a stumbling block for others.  “Mother Jesus” screams paganism.  But so does much of TEC.

Matt+—

Hullo again!

My point about the Tim & Titus passages on requirements of clergy is not “these _explicitly_ forbid women to be priests” but, rather, “these demonstrate that the apostolic church always assumed that all clergy were men.”

You’re saying that because the text isn’t _proscriptive_, WO is okay. I’m saying that it is _descriptive_ of apostolic practice, and that Scripture and apostolic practice describes ordination in terms of men, just as Scripture and apostolic practice describes marriage in terms of a man and a woman. To _change_ the teaching of Scripture and Tradition on ordination, just as on marriage, requires importing a new understanding/definition to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition on the grounds that it isn’t expressly forbidden by them. It was, in this instance, to that parallel which I was drawing attention.

The pro-SSB folks could look at the texts on marriage I introduced and respond, just as you responded to the texts on bishops and deacons:

neither text has much to do with whether or not [same sex couples] can be [married]. They certainly provide decriptive or prescriptive principles and rules for [spouses]. But they say nothing about whether [same sex couples] might ever be [married]. I suppose you might say that they assume [heterosexual couples] occupy these offices… but that possible assumption does not carry any proscriptive weight. It in no way establishes a universal principle unless you are arguing that that these texts were purposefully intended to limit these roles to [heterosexual couples]...which is something of a stretch to say the least.

.

This, as well as several comments by susequent posters, such as Marty, bring us back to what I think is the central “methodological” issue which needs to be addressed.

Several of us have asked how you can approve of WO but not of SSB without having a double standard. I think it would greatly help this discussion along if you, as a spokesman for position #4, could comprehensively answer that question. As a point of reference (especially given how long this thread already has become), I c/p a portion of my relevant post from this afternoon below.

(1) Given that WO is implicitly rejected by Scripture (though not, as you argue, unequivocally considered and rejected as such), that there is no good evidence that it was practiced by the apostolic or sub-apostolic Church, and that it is _explicitly_ rejected by the early Church, what grounds/basis/consideration do you have to approve it?

What consideration is weighty enought to justify taking the more unlikely Scriptural interpretation—the one expressly contrary to Tradition—in order to permit the practice?

.

(2) How does your answer to (1), and your approach to the subject as a whole, differ from that of those who promote homosexual marriage?

pax,
LP

First women are likened to “cats”, now “children”.  Have we exhausted all the insulting similes yet, or are there a few more to trot out?

Quite the contrary.  Child labor, at its worst, destroys the mystery of childhood.  Similarly, thrusting something on women for which they were not created, destroys the mystery of womanhood. 

Perhaps the perceived offense has something to do with views imposed upon us by our unisex culture? 

This is the exact same attitude that had Christians of a former era declaring the “children of Ham”—ie Africans and other black people —to be subordinate to the white man by God’s decree, and that it was therefore justifiable to enslave them.

Clearly, you have no idea on what I think about authority;  because if you did, you wouldn’t have trotted out that analogy.  What I think about authority is that it is actually servitude in the face of a world where everyday life can be brutal. 

<blockquote>Believe in that kind of a god if you like.  Personally I don’t believe anyone is created sub-human.  I believe that all are one in Christ.  (That’s in the scriptures, too.) </blockquote>

a)  Where did I say that women or children were sub-human?
b)  Where did I say that believers in Christ were not equal in Christ?

Again, can we make a distinction between equality in the roles of men and women, vs their equality of “being” before God?  The text you cite (Gal 3:28,) does not, if you look at the context, speak of authority or even requirements for ecclesiastical leaders.

Dallas Priest wrote:

Reason: “altar christus”.  If a priest is to be the altar christus to his congregation then being male is important.  Why?  Because if a male is not standing in the place of Christ, but a female is standing in that place then it is about a relationship not ordained by God.  Let me be more specific. 
Jesus, the bridegroom; His Church, the bride.  If a female stands in that place, it is a same-sex relationship, which is what all the fuss is about these days.  Isn’t it?  Same theology folks.

It is, however, a big “if”. I just don’t see that sort of sacerdotal role laid out in scripture - it seems to be much more of a teaching eldership.

Reason #2: not original to me but I hear that Jesus was hesitant to turn things around and even upside down!  Wrong.  He did just that in His day in all areas with Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, Women, etc., etc.  So why did He pick twelve men to call as apostles?  Why He could have called one of the Mary’s.  But He didn’t, so, was it just an accident or mistake on His part?  I don’t believe it was.  There was intention there and it is for us to try and figure out. 

Not withstanding what I wrote about, this is an excellent point which I regularly reiterate.

William Tighe wrote:

Only those who know little about the early church and care less could say this.  see above, in this thread my citation of Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea which numbers deaconesses among the laity, not among the clergy, like deacons, priests and bishops.

Granting that Deaconesses are among the laity, how does that argue against women (whether Deaconesses or not) being readers, acolytes, or altar servers? Is there a rule about only clergy in the sanctuary? I ask sincerely—I really don’t know. I thought those listed by st. anonymous were lay ministries.

the most important example is Jesus Himself.  No, there were no women among the 12.  How could there be?  But Jesus was totally counter-cultural in His treatment of women.  The most important exemplar of the change in the station of females is that the first proclamation of the good news came from the women.

This seems to me a rather weak argument.  In fact, it goes even stronger the other way.  Would not choosing women as part of the twelve have been a rather decisive example of the role women should play in the church?  That Jesus did not speaks volumes.  Which is not to say that He didn’t have many important female disciples who carried out crucial support roles.  But I see nothing in the earthly ministry of Jesus that would contradict the accepted practice of the Christian church for the next two centuries with regard to ordaining women.

Regarding the idea that women are not supposed to teach men…

Does this apply only to church settings, or beyond?

For example: A woman earns an advanced degree in biblical studies/theology. She gets a job teaching a Bible course at a secular college, teaching classes of both men and women. She also wishes to begin an adult Bible study, for a mixed group of both men and women, at her church. She is clearly equipped to expound the Scriptures, and she is an orthodox believer.

Now - is it okay for her to teach at the college but not at the church? If not, *why* not? Shall we bar women from receiving theological degrees? Or prevent them from getting teaching jobs once they have those degrees?

Or, if it *is* okay for her to teach in the college but not in the church - why is that?

See the discrepancy? She should either be able to teach in both places, or not at all.

I think we need to be careful when we start saying that women have nothing to teach to men. As far as Paul’s dictum that women not teach in the church, we need to look at the context in which he was writing: an infant Church increasingly filling with pagans who brought their pagan practices into the Christian churches. These practices included women having prominent roles in public worship. By barring these women from exercising their former authority, Paul was setting the Christian church over against paganism, creating a separation from all that was not Christ.

I’m not trying to rationalize away the Scriptures; the fact is, context is crucial if we’re to discover how to apply Scripture to our own lives today. If the same situation does not exist today, we need to re-think.

<blockquote>It is, however, a big “if”. I just don’t see that sort of sacerdotal role laid out in scripture - it seems to be much more of a teaching eldership.</blockquote>

Hello David Ould,
The Reformers affirmed (on good Scriptural grounds I might add) that the Minister of Word and Sacrament administered the Sacraments, preached the Word, and declared the Absolution in the “stead of Christ” (being the undershepherd in the Good Shepherd’s stead)—though of course they wouldn’t call it a “Sacredotal” relationship. So, the argument that the Ordained Ministers of Christ’s Church must be male based on their standing in the stead of Christ to His Bride the Church is a valid point from a Reformational stand point as well (though one may not desire to get as “realistic” on the point as our brother Dallas Priest has).

God Bless,
William

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

LP,

I believe I answered at least part of your question above. WO within the limitation of male headship is not explicitly or implicity proscribed in the NT. Homosexual acts are both implicitly and explicitly condemned there.

So, to take your questions:

“(1) Given that WO is implicitly rejected by Scripture…”

I do not buy the “given”. In other words, your premise begs the entire question of this debate. I will not grant it because I do not think you have demonstrated it to be the case. Perhaps you posted something I missed and you assumed my failure to respond was something of an aquiescence? Otherwise, I believe the question is very much in play. 

“that there is no good evidence that it was practiced by the apostolic or sub-apostolic Church, and that it is _explicitly_ rejected by the early Church, what grounds/basis/consideration do you have to approve it?”

I will agree that there is no evidence that it was practiced in the early church apostolic or otherwise. But that is no reason to reject a practice. There are many things that the Church does now that the church did not do then. The question is not, “has the church ever done this…” but rather “does this violate the scriptures”.

“What consideration is weighty enought to justify taking the more unlikely Scriptural interpretation”

Again, a premise I am not prepared to grant

“—the one expressly contrary to Tradition—”

A premise I acknowledge

“in order to permit the practice?”

I do believe that there is a definite dynamism within the church. She can change or act and make decisions that have not been made before…even that contradict earlier decisions…so long as she does not act in a way that contradicts or does violence to the scriptures.

I believe this dynamism is where we find another point of disagreemnet.
.
“(2) How does your answer to (1), and your approach to the subject as a whole, differ from that of those who promote homosexual marriage?”

In just about every way. We are forbidden to act in violation of the clear proscriptions of scripture. Blessing homosexual sex is scripturally impossible.

Thanks, Summer.

There is no comparison of WO to ordination of a non-celibate gay person.  None.  It is not a sin to be a woman.

This is a common red herring thrown out into these discussions, and it’s best to dismiss it quickly.

Yes, absolutely, it is not sinful to be a woman. In fact, it’s “not sinful” even in a way that being a celebate individual tempted toward homosexuality is “not sinful”—for the latter is “not sinful” in not giving in to a “disordered”/“fallen” temptation, while there’s nothing disordered/fallen about being a woman [Aristotle notwithstanding], at least not any more than everything is disordered in a fallen world.

That’s irrelevant. It’s not the issue.

The problem with SSB, even with homosexually-active priests, is not that their acts are “sinful”. Heck, if sinful actions prevented folks from being ordained, we’d <u>have</u> no priests.

The problem with SSB and homosexually-active priests is that homosexual activity is condemned by Scripture and Tradition. SSB and the endorsement of homosexually-active clergy is a problem because it ***rejects the authority of Scripture and Tradition.***

By them, the church publicly and officially turns away from submission to Scripture and Tradition and replaces the Christian faith with a often-Christian-like human invention, a secular religion of “enlightenment” or “humanism” or “rationalism” or “subjective experientialism”. It’s one thing for an individual, even for a church, to fall into sin, repent, and return to the Christian faith. It’s quite another to *change* that faith by saying that sin is not sin.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables

Similarly, the problem with WO is not a question of “sinfulness” - not of women or of any ordinands, but of the abandonment of the norms of Scripture and Tradition.

Whether or not women, or clergy, or the homosexually active, or _anyone_ is “sinful” or not is irrelevant to that point. It’s a red herring.

I’ve never heard anyone argue on this or any list, or in any Continuing church, argue that women shouldn’t be ordained because it is “sinful” to be a woman. I’ve only ever heard that argument put forward as a straw man by those who support WO, thus mischaracterizing their opposition and distracting from the actual, substantive issues.

pax,
LP

LP, I just knew you would be tireless on this thread if it ever came about

I think we need to be careful when we start saying that women have nothing to teach to men.

I think that’s confusing the issue. To say that a woman should not teach nor be in authority over a man is not to say that she has nothing to teach - only that there a limits to the contexts in which she can teach.

adiaphora is something

Sarah, since your prose is normally “a well of English undefiled,” I fear that some of your readers might be misled by this little mistake.
“Adiaphora” is a plural noun, like phenomena or data, requiring a plural verb.  You meant to write, “Adiaphora are things which.”

Hi Summer—welcome to the blog.

RE: “I understand the first from its Greek origins: “things indifferent.” If, for the sake of argument, one holds that the ordination of women is something that Christians are enjoined by Scripture not to do, then it is hardly a matter of indifference whether it be done or not. And while one may continue to regard those who nevertheless do it as fellow-Christians (albeit in error to a greater or lesser degree) differences like these will inevitably have an impact on the extent to which proponents of the first position can be said to be “in [full] communion” with those of the second.”

Well, if I am only to be in full communion with fellow Christians who scrupulously follow what I deem scripture to say, then I will indeed be a church of one.  Would that everybody believed as I did in all respects regarding scripture and its commands.

I do not believe that scripture supports a host of things that my fellow Anglicans might do, but I am in full communion with them. 

No, the difference is only that you believe that WO is an very important issue, and I do not.  But we agree that it is not supported by scripture.

Matt+—

“(2) How does your answer to (1), and your approach to the subject as a whole, differ from that of those who promote homosexual marriage?”

In just about every way. We are forbidden to act in violation of the clear proscriptions of scripture. Blessing homosexual sex is scripturally impossible.

Show me where this is *explicitly proscribed* by Scripture, where “explicitly proscribed” is held to the same kind of hermenutic norm as you take for yourself in saying that it doesn’t reject WO.

.

(1) Discussions of marriage

When Scripture talks about marriage it talks about a man and a woman—just as when it talks about ordained orders (bishop and deacon) it talks about men. But it never says a same sex couple *shouldn’t* be married any more than it says, by your lights, that a woman *shouldn’t* be ordained.

If you say that the passages on ordination don’t *prohibit* WO because they don’t address the subject one way or the other, you can’t say the passages on marriage *prohibit* SSB because, by the same rationale, _they_ don’t address _that_ subject either… they’re addressing heterosexual couples not homosexual couples, just as 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 address male clergy not female clergy.

I’m not arguing one side or the other here—I’m pointing out that if you accept the one argument—that Scriptural passages about clerics don’t forbid WO, then you, logically, have to accept the other—that Scriptural passages about heterosexual couples don’t forbid SSB.

.

(2) Passages proscribing homosexual acts.

You turn to the passages already cited—e.g. 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 - and come up with an argument for how, contrary to some interpretations, these present no obstacle to a woman taking a clerical role. You read “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” and “Let your women keep silent in the churches” and, by arguments about the social context of those passages and implications of various other passages, they don’t mean what they seem to mean.

When others challenge you on these interpretations, you simply say that you stand by your arguments and do not accept their interpretations - that you think these passages are irrelevant to WO. When Tradition—the teaching and practice of the early Church revealing how it understood and lived out these instructions—is presented, you say that Tradition is irrelevant, appealing to a “dynamism” which permits the change.

This is exactly what the LGBT lobby does. They look at the relevant Scriptural passages, those concerning homosexual activity, and make arguments such as:

* Romans 1 condemns Christian apostates who apparently had a heterosexual orientation and who engaged in what was for them unnatural sex: engaging in sex with members of the same sex.
* 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 are ambiguous. They might possibly relate to homosexual behavior; but they might well refer to men who sexually abuse boys, or to male gigolos, or to male temple prostitutes. We just don’t know. If these passages actually referred to persons with a homosexual orientation, they probably would not refer to loving, consensual same-sex behavior in a committed relationship. Paul was writing before the existence of a homosexual orientation was known. The only forms of homosexual behavior of which he was probably aware would have been males sexually abusing boys, and men engaging in of same-sex orgies during Pagan worship.
* Jude 1:7 appears to refers to the desire by the men of Sodom to engage in bestiality with another species—angels. There is none of this going on in by either homosexuals or heterosexuals today. ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm )

They on homosexual activity, like you on WO, come up with interpretations of the given passages which differentiates between what _is_ being described in those passages and what is _not_, and throw SSB into the “is not” category, just as you place WO into the “is not” category with your passages & interpretation.

.

Thus, when you argue that “We are forbidden to act in violation of the clear proscriptions of scripture. Blessing homosexual sex is scripturally impossible”, they would reply—just as you reply to those who argue against WO—that they disagree with your interpretation of these Scriptures and that they will stick to their interpretation.

Were you to cite Tradition—the understanding, teaching, and practice of the Church down through the ages in how it’s understood these texts—they can and do reply, as you reply to those who reject WO, by rejecting the normative authority of Tradition and appealing to a “dynamism” or the activity of the “Spirit” to justify the innovation.

.

So I’m afraid I really just don’t see how the two cases are not hermenutically and theologically parallel.

Could you provide more of a clarification of how you understand the methodoloical difference being beyond a bare assertion that the two cases are different “in just about every way.”

pax,
LP

RE: “So why did He pick twelve men to call as apostles?”

Because He knew that men would only listen to male apostles?  And He worked within culture, rather than against it, as with even the Babylonians???

That’s sort of an easy answer, so thankfully not many people are using this argument from neglect as a real argument.

It seems to me that some of the pros and cons on WO hinge on the role of tradition, and also on whether ordination is a sacrament or not.

So, when did tradition (the way things have habitually been done in the past) become Tradition (which one can cite to clinch an argument)? What is included in Tradition-with-a capital-T? How and when did ordination start to be viewed as a sacrament? The 39 Articles refer to 2 Sacraments ordained by Christ (baptism & Holy Communion) and others “commonly called sacraments”, which suggests to me that both views (2 Sacraments or 7) are within the pale of orthodoxy for Anglicans. Is this another of those “Anglo-catholic vs Evangelical” contrasts, and if so, when can we expect the article to come out ?

I think the question is close enough to topic to ask here, and it would certainly help clarify things for me, but perhaps since the thread is so long a reply by private message would be better, if you have a link or book to suggest. Moderators, what say you—replies here, or offline?

WO within the limitation of male headship is not explicitly or implicity proscribed in the NT.

“WO within the limitation of male headship” is simply a contradiction in terms.  If a women stands at the Altar and says “Let us pray,” she has assumed the role of what the Church Fathers called proestws, praeses, what modern liturgists call “president of the assembly.”  She is taking on the role of head as soon as she presumes to lead the Church’s corporate worship.  So this notion is illogical and disingenuous.  This is a limitation without limits, susceptible of endless re-interpretation.  Starting with “a woman may be a priest but not a rector,” we will move on to a “a woman may be a diocesan bishop but not an archbishop” to “a woman may be a cardinal but not the pope.”  Where is the line drawn which sets this imaginary limitation?

The fact that it is not proscribed in the NT also proves very little, other than its proponent’s tendency toward special pleading.  The NT does not proscribe a vast number of things, including the invention of a new sacrament, or baptizing with rose petals, or writing five more commandments in addition to the first ten.

Matt: across the great distance I salute you. You have unleashed a flood of comments, many quite interesting to read and your rules of engagement helped. While not interested in becoming part of the arguments of this thread I do want to say that as an outsider I find it amazing to read the passionate engagement with a question I have long ago put to rest.  I am an outsider, of course, because I do not agree with the method of argument that cites scriptural texts - short ones at that - and bases decisions on the meaning they are determined to have.

You have done a service to your readers who seem to have a considerable number of things to say on the matter.

Glad to be a reader.

RE: “Sarah, since your prose is normally “a well of English undefiled,” I fear that some of your readers might be misled by this little mistake.  “Adiaphora” is a plural noun, like phenomena or data, requiring a plural verb.  You meant to write, “Adiaphora are things which.”

So, now you compare women to wells???? 

[just kidding]  ; > )

I think of adiophora as a “flock of birds”, thus . . . “A flock of birds in flight is like an arrow pointing to the heavens.”

How depressing that I now cannot think of adiaphora as a flock of things-which-I-deem-unscriptural, but rather as unconnected and random plurals.  ; < (

Oh well . . .

It is stunning that WO has been characterized in this discussion as the source of the current disaster which is TEC.  Although the irregular ordination of the Philadelphia 11 contributed to the situation which exists today (decision making without godly consultation throughout the catholic body), can we agree that our problems could be traced back to Pike’s acquittal of heresy, not just WO?

Actually, yes.  The ordination of women grew out of a heretical precedent.  That is true.

But what may also be true is that many people both within the Episcopal Church and outside it didn’t know much about the Pike affair.  A women in collars standing at altars was much more visible matter, and it drove people away.

I would argue that once you make a change, you’ve set a precedent and more changes will follow.  Wherever that first change was is the true starting point.

Having waited for the opportunity to express my views about WO, I waited as patiently as any Chef could. Work keeps me very busy with very strange hours. So late yesterday evening before heading back to work I posted a brief “hello” (06.18.07 at 08:17), saying that I would return later with a more substantial comment.

Well I did, I wrote a rather lengthly comment (essay) on my desktop at work, as time permitted. Big mistake, I happen to live in the not-so-sunny south and today was very tropical - and by that I mean torrential downpours, with severe lightning! All else I have to say is -Power Surge - in a restaurant = not fried food, but a very fried desktop.

Kudos to Matt, I feel it was Divine Intervention.  Anyway I got to thinking about this whole WO ordeal and how divisive an issue it is, and on top of all the other divisive issues that we face within Anglicanism. So why add more, talk, talk, talk. Only to resolve nothing, except for maybe move divisiveness.

Briefly, I want to re-visit a comment that Fr. Ed Monk made earlier,

“What is more troublesome is to say that camps will be divided over this issue. Whatever happened to the respect and tolerance that orthodox Christians used to show each other? It used to be that conscience was accomodated to the highest common demoninator, and not the lowest. I think the fears that evangelicals have about AC’s and the WO issue stems from an overall tendency to go to the lowest denominator first, rather than seeking the highest. To put it another way, as ChefAsa did, going to the oldest source first as a matter of deciding essentials is the best way to come to fellowship.”

What we must do if we are to hold Anglicanism together, is all parties affected, need to sit down under the auspices of an “ecumenical world-wide Anglican council” and find some overarching common ground to work from, to accomodate all parties from both a perspective of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

What we as Anglicans face now is a very divided conflageration, a hodge-podge of many differing and ‘warring’ sub-groups. In a best-case scenario in several years, if we all don’t self-destruct, is we will end of with 3 or 4 “Anglican” groups.“United We Stand, Divided We Fall.”

I have decided not to comment further on this thread, as I feel it only leads to more confusion and animosity, something we just don’t need.

At some point in the very near future I will post on my Blog, an article dealing with what I feel we must do in order to accomodate all on this WO issue. But first I have several projects that I must finish before I try and tackle the WO thing.
http://www.deepsouthanglican.blogspot.com

<blockquote>  Oh well . . .  </blockquote>

Thanks for not saying, “Oh, Wells!” 
I have written too much today.  I am going to bed.

So, when did tradition (the way things have habitually been done in the past) become Tradition (which one can cite to clinch an argument)?

Christian “Tradition”—as cited by catholic (Anglo, Orthodox or Roman) is not “tradition” in the sense of “stuff we’ve habitually done.”

Rather, “Tradition”, in the Christian context, refers to the normative understanding and practice of the early Church “handed down” (Latin: tra + dono; Greek: para+lambano) by the apostles and their disciples. It’s to that Tradition that Paul appeals in Scripture when he writes “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” or “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” or “we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” To which John refers when he says “and there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

In other words, Tradition, in this sense, is described by Scripture itself as the normative teaching and preaching and practice of the early Church—to which Scripture itself appeals as the norm of its own interpretation.

This normative teaching and practice is most expressly and divinely—by the grace of the Holy Spirit—recorded in those books chosen to compose the Scriptures, but it also is, secondarily, preserved in such other documents of the teaching and practice of the early Church as survive.

.

Accordingly, when the apostolic and catholic Christian has questions about the proper interpretation of Scripture, he or she turns first not to human reason, or to the local Bible study group, or to the latest pop scholar, or to contemporary social norms, but rather to the teaching and practice of the early Church.

And, in doing so, such a Christian follows the hermenutic enjoined by Scripture itself.

This is why, for example, you’ll recall that in that discussion some time ago on this site about what was meant by “deaconess” (here), I turned to the surviving testimony of the early Church’s teaching and practice to illuminate the issue.

.

You’re right that this is a central issue in debates over WO.

You’ll notice that Matt+‘s argument is, essentially that “though Tradition forbids it, Scripture is ambiguous - it doesn’t (or at least may be interpreted not to) forbid WO, and since Scripture doesn’t forbid it, WO is okay” whereas my argument - like that of other #1s—is “Scripture seems to forbid it, though an interpretation can be advanced to get around this, and it certainly doesn’t positively support or enjoin it, but Tradition, giving the normative interpretation of Scripture in teaching and practice, expressly forbids it, therefore it is not okay (and not just because Tradition forbids it, but because Tradition supports the interpretation that Scripture forbids it as well).”

.

For some reading on what “Tradition” in this Christian context means, and how it is something qualitatively different from the “traditionalism” of habit or repetition, you could read G.K.Chesterton’s _Orthodoxy_ or, if you want something both longer and more specifically devoted to the subject, The Vindication of Tradition by J. Pelikan.

.

pax,
LP

The 39 Articles refer to 2 Sacraments ordained by Christ (baptism & Holy Communion) and others “commonly called sacraments”, which suggests to me that both views (2 Sacraments or 7) are within the pale of orthodoxy for Anglicans.

This is true, but anyone who accepts the doctrinal authority of the 39 Articles would (presumably) also accept the doctrinal authority of the Ordinal, which restricts ordination—sacrament or not—to men.

Sarah:

And [Jesus] worked within culture, rather than against it,

I don’t think that’s totally accurate. As others have pointed out Jesus talked to a Samaritan, a woman at that. He also hung out with sinners. He touched lepers and so forth. He was very happy to push right against the culture when it suited Him.

Re: No, the difference is only that you believe that WO is an very important issue, and I do not.

Somehow is what “I” believe more important than a consensus of the Church Catholic?  Check and see if Roman and the Orthodox don’t believe it is important to who they are.  I believe it has interfered in some of our joint discussions.  AMIA also thought it was important enough to do a two year study by some respected scholars and I believe they thought it to be important as well.  Just the facts.

allergic_to_fudge wrote:

anyone who accepts the doctrinal authority of the 39 Articles would (presumably) also accept the doctrinal authority of the Ordinal, which restricts ordination—sacrament or not—to men.

I’m not arguing in favor of WO. I personally am ambivalent about whether the Bible permits it, but think there is scriptural basis for not ordaining women even if permitted (see my post today at 7:54 PM).

I’m curious about the word Ordinal. Somehow I’ve gotten the idea that this refers to which Bible readings go with which liturgical seasons. That doesn’t fit how you’ve used it above, so I’m thinking I am confusing it with something else. What does the word Ordinal refer to?

thanks LP. Would it be correct to say that Tradition arose out of “the way the Apostles and the early church habitually did things”? How early is early? I seem to remember that some of the items on that Deaconess thread went up into the 4th century or even later. What’s the cutoff date?

Fr. Matt wrote:
<blockquote>If these two passages, 1st Timothy 2:11 and 1st Cor 14:33-35 are not read as universally proscriptive, and according to my argument they cannot be, then arguments against the ordination of women (within the described limits of male headship) are deprived of their two chief texts.</blockquote>

I’ve been following this thread all day and pondering what you have written, Fr. Matt.  I have a difficulty with your interpretation which seems to indicate that certain scriptural texts should be disregarded because they don’t harmonize with other texts, but rather seem to contradict.

My difficulty comes from the view that we as catholic Christians (being part of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) do not have the liberty or authority to pick and choose what parts of the Bible we like or agree with and what parts we don’t.  That’s a dangerous invitation to “cafeteria”-style Christianity.  I agree whole heartedly that it seems contradictory, but as catholics, we must interpret any part of Holy Scripture against the WHOLE of Holy Scripture.  We may not like it; we may not understand it fully, but there it is. 

Now, I happen to also believe that Tradition is the other part of how we should test judgments or evaluate what Holy Scripture is telling us.  Tradition, with a capital “T”, the practice and teaching over the last two millenia, gives us more context against which to consider what is allowable.  When we deviate from the combined wisdom of the Scriptures and the test of time as reflected in Tradition, we are in danger of starting through the cafeteria line, rather than sitting down at the banquet and eating what we have been served.  Therefore, Fr. Matt, I must respectfully state that your reasoning, in my opinion, is suspect, with regards to WO.

I appreciate very much LP’s very good (IMHO) apologetics along this line.

My last point, at this time, is to acknowledge that TE"C”‘s ills did not start with WO.  It didn’t even start with the failure to discipline Bps. Pike or Righter or Spong.  It started earlier in the 20th century, or even before, when the “good” of the individual became the guiding ethos for “charitable” Christian thinking, and anything that interfered with individual expression became politically incorrect.  Our communities survive best when what’s best for the community outweighs what’s seemingly “best” for individuals.  The pioneer spirit helped build our country, but rugged individualism can be a curse as well as a blessing. 

Which takes me back to “Connie Sandlin’s basic view of Sin”, all ultimately deriving from the sin of Pride:
I’m special;
I have a special understanding;
the rules don’t apply to me;
I can do what I want. 

The Episcopal Church has demonstrated this kind of thinking in spades, in 1975 & 1976 (introduction of WO without agreement by the whole Church) and in 2003 (consecration of VGR, ditto).

Thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion to this point.  This has been one of the best discussions I have ever seen on Stand Firm or on any other blog.

In His Love…

I’m losing track of who said what but I think it was Connie Sandlin who said this:
“WO has been used as a club to introduce more and more non-Christian elements into TE"C”.  It’s time to call a halt to this unsuccessful experiment - individual women’s good work and intentions not withstanding, God bless them.”
I absolutely diagree.  WO stands alone as a doctrinal issues as do most all issues.  I agree that WO has been used as a ‘club’ to (therefore) justify this and that ‘new thing’ but that is primarily a revisionist tactic and is illogical.  I’m still working through this thread and need to reread Matt’s wonderful and provocvative essay and the comments that follow (many of which deserve multiple readings themselves.  The only thing I really do believe with regard to WO is that it MUSTN’T be a dividig point bewteeen the oerthodox who are leaving ECUSA.  Isn’t it enough that we are crossing the Red Sea right now. We are not on the other side, sacrificing to a golden calf while Moses is up a mountain receiving the Ten Commandments, we are still crossing the Red Sea, mountains of water being held back by the hands of the Lord, Pharoah’s armies on the other side consulting with Attorney Beers as to whether or not to sue or pursue!
I am not absolutely not denying the importance of this post and I don’t think that I am off thread but I worry about the larger picture.  I’ll shut up now. ...anyway it is waaaaay past my bedtime.   

Bill C -
It was indeed I who said that WO had been used as a club, but it might be more accurate to say that pagan aspects of goddess worship, for instance, have had an opportunity for surreptitious entry into the life of TE"C” since the introduction of WO in the 1970s.

John Stott can see women’s ordination in Scripture….but Wayne Grudem canot.

David Ould can see infant baptism…but Billy Graham can’t.

Some accept divorce and re-marrraige..others regard it is as adultery.

All illustrate perfectly the subjective nature of a system which claims the Bible is their sole authoriity.

Would the Lord Jesus Christ have left such an unstable system?

“For there is a way that seems right to a man and the end thereof is death.”

but it might be more accurate to say that pagan aspects of goddess worship, for instance, have had an opportunity for surreptitious entry into the life of TE"C” since the introduction of WO in the 1970s

Any who think that this characterization is either excessive or hyperbolic should read the variety of reports and quotes of pagan goddess worship officially condoned and practiced in various parts of PECUSA. A few examples are collected here.

pax,
LP

Whatever way you look at it, your new province is going to have to make a decision - do you have women priests, or not - or is there are ‘halfway house’ as the CofE have temporarily adopted?

Because you are certainly not united on the issue

“John Stott can see women’s ordination in Scripture….but Wayne Grudem canot. David Ould can see infant baptism…but Billy Graham can’t. Some accept divorce and re-marrraige..others regard it is as adultery. All illustrate perfectly the subjective nature of a system which claims the Bible is their sole authoriity.”

And yet, Stott, Grudem, Ould and graham would all consider one another brothers in the Lord because for the broad majority swath of evangelicals, these are issues we can debate vigorously but do not need to divide over. See this:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2832

Your assertion is based on your own imposition of a Roman institutionalist ecclesiology onto or into an evangelical context. In other words, you are simply begging the question of the nature of the Church.

Robert does have a point, though. Although I disagree with much of their position, the RC system works and it has maintained a relatively high level of lasting and sustained unity.

How many different evangelical church groupings exist? Do they have that same level of unity, or do they reflect more the squabblings of the typical sectarian?

From this thread, the likelihood of a single, united, conservative province appears marginal. If an issue as basic as ‘are we going to ordain women’ is going to bring forth such passion…..More broadly, open evangelicals are enthusiastically pro-WO in the UK - probably either 5 or 6, position-wise.

Although I disagree with much of their position, the RC system works and it has maintained a relatively high level of lasting and sustained unity.

Hardly. Roman Catholicism has it’s fair share of breaks and factions. And there’s hardly a consistent dogma, either.

Limbo?
Is the reformed Protestant anathematised or not?
Are the heathen saved or not?
What is the status of Mary?

Whether one lives today or in the 17th century could vary the official answers to all those questions.

I don’t think anyone’s going to have much of an argument if they point to the unity and consistency of the RCC.

Sodbuster:

you say:

“On the contrary, I read what you wrote, and responded to it. I discussed why you could not dismiss those passages as local and cultural…”

NO, in fact you didn’t…or you did not take the time to understand what I wrote before you started writing. I did not “dismiss” them as local or cultural. I am fully prepared to acknowledge that 1 Cor 14 and 2 Tim 11 etc are as true today as they were then. Again, you have not read my argument or you have not understood it.

“Those passages -do- rule out everyone who doesn’t meet those requirements. How can you say that that isn’t the case from the text? Please show us.”

This, in fact is one of the points I make. I argue that they do not in fact rule out the possibility of women in orders. And I have “shown you” in the numerous arguments I’ve posted above.

If you disagree with what I have written, then the proper response is not “show me” because I have already shown you but: you say this___________ and here is why I disagree with your point____________ its called “argument” rather than assertion. Take a look at the way LP has engaged in this discussion if you need any hints. Otherwise, you have simply asked me to re-state what I have argued above.

“How can you say that you don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m specifically talking about the two passages you brought up in order to dismiss. One cites “and because of the angels” and the other cites creation. I’m saying that you can’t dismiss them as being local and cultural, which you did, because they include those rather universal transtemporal qualifications.”

And I’m saying “no” I did not dismiss them. Moreover, I certainly grant their transtemporal and universal quality. When I say they do not constitute an “absolute proscription” or “universal proscription” to WO, I do not mean that they are not eternal and universal and transtemporal principles. I simply mean that they do not forbid WO.

“You most certainly did dismiss them,”

No I didn’t…maybe you should come back with a “yes you did” to make this “argument” complete…

“thus by default, arguing that the elect angels are culturally conditioned, and that creation was somehow only referring to the local situation. Perhaps you didn’t read my posts carefully?”

I did, I read it several times and understood the reference, but I will repeat…what on earth are you talking about?

“How can you say “about what” when the issue is the legitimacy of WO, which you had in your original article suggested that you would submit to Scripture in the matter?”

And I will. But you have yet to reason from the scriptures or argue from the scriptures or demonstrate anything from the scriptures beyond assertions and accusations.

“Matt+ how do you propose that 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 allow for women to be ordained? The first requirement is that they be husbands of one wife. That isn’t an oversight, that is a qualification that candidates for ordination must meet.”

Your first sentence is a mischaracterization. I did not say they “allow” for WO. I said they do not mention or even deal with it. Big difference. And your second assertion is one with which I fully agree, namely, that this: ” husband of one wife.”

“You seem to be dismissing the teaching passages in the NT on the matter without much thought. Along with your claiming that you didn’t understand what I wrote, you seem to be disingenuous, which isn’t like you.”

And you seemed incredibly accusatory and especially rude in your initial post, which is why I did not take your post as seriously as LP’s or others who take your position.

Connie,

I am not at all saying that any text ought to be “disregarded” or “dismissed”, I am simply arguing that they cannot be applied proscriptively in the way some have applied them.

kyounge1956 wrote:

I’m curious about the word Ordinal. Somehow I’ve gotten the idea that this refers to which Bible readings go with which liturgical seasons. That doesn’t fit how you’ve used it above, so I’m thinking I am confusing it with something else. What does the word Ordinal refer to?

You are probably thinking of the lectionary. The Ordinal contains the texts of the services for making deacons, ordaining priests, and consescrating bishops.

“Show me where this is *explicitly proscribed* by Scripture, where “explicitly proscribed” is held to the same kind of hermenutic norm as you take for yourself in saying that it doesn’t reject WO.”

Leviticus 18:22, 20:18
Matthew 15, Mark 7
Acts 15
Romans 1:18-32
1st corinthians 6:9

Dear Matt, it’s pretty incredible the numbers of postings. To be honest, I have been pretty busy with the practice and not been able to follow this VERY LONG thread. If you recall what started it, ChefAsa said that WO was insurmountable and I thought otherwise. After all of this, what’s your thoughts on insurmountability? Is the Common Cause meeting in September going to sputter to a stop before it starts? Thanks again!

RR
You are right it is a long thread, but it is interesting to see what themes are coming out of the threads and I am finding as with so many such discussions on SF it is very educational.

David ; if you compare Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, are you seriously trying to argue that the RC system hasn’t produced far more organisational unity? There may be disagreements: but they deal with them differently and do a lot less fighting in public!

Consistency is another matter, but they are agreed on the method of their inconsistency….the point is, that Protestantism is essentially individualistic in a way that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is not. So, whilst there are fissures in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, they are marginal compared to the huge number of separate organisations which Protestant individualism has created.

Given the history, is there any reason to believe that there will not be future divides over just this sort of issue - which clearly arouses huge passion amongst reasserters?

MM
Yet another issue for us to divide on MM - is that your solution for every argument?  I like the Via Media, accepting that one can accomodate differences of opinion on matters like WO within one church but preferably not changing one’s position without consensus within and between churches where so much else is held in common.  I do not regard WO as essential for salvation or a sin or something that will separate me from Christ and do not think it falls within the category of matters which could invalidate this part of His church in God’s eyes although there are matters and actions we could take which would clearly anger him.  I also accept that this may be a matter where I do not have all the answers.

Of course there will be those who think that these matters are essential to salvation and one has to respect that position.

If the concensus of the church catholic is the touchstone, why married priests?

LP,

cont…
For each of these texts above, the revisionist will, as you say, import some new data into the text to acheive his or her desired outcome. Generally it is the, “well these texts do not address homosexual relationships as we know them today”

And they are generally correct. None of the texts specifically address the question of biological or genetic impulses (although I think Romans 1 does address the concept generally) and none seem to discuss life-long loving unions.

But this is the problem for the revisionist. The texts don’t have to acknowledge these concepts because they explicitly forbid the behavior involved. In the same way Jesus did not explicitly mention modern studies demonstrating the biologically inherent male desire for heterosexual promiscuity but his explicit condemnation of the act of lust covers all bases regardless of modern “discoveries”. There is simply no way to get around these condemnations.

When it comes to WO the same methodology is not in fact employed. If, for example, 1 Cor 2:11 or Acts 18 did not exist, I would certainly grant that 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2:11 forbid not only women’s ordination but all public ministry for women in the church. But because they do exist, they must be harmonized with 1 cor 14 and 1 Tim 2:11 in such a way that there is no harm done to the text. These texts carve out space for women to perform some form of public ministry under the headbship of men. And this, without importing a thing into the text.

So, when faced with issues like WO, we need to ask, “Is that space large enough for women serving in ordained roles”.

You would say “no”, but at this point, you must turn to 1 Tim 3 and Titus and argue that these not represent positive description but that the positive description necessarily implies a negative proscription.

And this is, I would suggest, just as much, if not more of an imposition onto the text as the revisionists make.

I can make my argument, namely that the scriptures do not implicitly or explicitly forbid the ordination of women within the limits of male headship, easily without importing a thing to the text.

If one took the final position that W/O is totally unacceptable in a church I do find it strange if the result of that is to say that it invalidates the ministry of the male priesthood in that church and perhaps even the church being its members itself.

wrt Roman Catholic consistency.  All those priests who had carried on with Latin masses for centuries were told after Vatican II that they could no longer do so and for a period were punished if they did so [remember Cardinal Lefevre].  Now apparently under the new Pope all change back to something like the old rite is on the cards.

I appreciate that is your view, PM, and being aware of the CofE stance which favours such an approach, know many like yourself.

But read the thread. Can you see its occupants being able to co-exist? I’m not so much making a recommendation, more an observation as to what inevitably happens.

MerseyMike,

David ; if you compare Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, are you seriously trying to argue that the RC system hasn’t produced far more organisational unity? There may be disagreements: but they deal with them differently and do a lot less fighting in public! 

Just not true, MM. Disagreements are disagreements and roll on over to any RC board to see how public the disagreements are - just like here.

Consistency is another matter, but they are agreed on the method of their inconsistency….the point is, that Protestantism is essentially individualistic in a way that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is not. So, whilst there are fissures in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, they are marginal compared to the huge number of separate organisations which Protestant individualism has created. 

Again, this is just not true. Rome has massive fissures. See the ongoing debate about the Tridentine mass, for instance. That’s a huge problem. Then you have a large segment who oppose Vatican II.

Given the history, is there any reason to believe that there will not be future divides over just this sort of issue - which clearly arouses huge passion amongst reasserters?

Well, there may be disagreements. But what is interesting is that, as Matt has already noted, we agree on fundamentals. So, for example, I disagree with Matt on this issue but I don’t see it as an issue over which to divide.

As you know, MM when W/O came into the CofE some years ago it was backed by some surprisingly conservative members.  A via media compromise was brought in to allow alternative oversight and ministry for those who found it unacceptable and this compromise respectful of Christians deep convictions remains in place and permits all of us to continue to share in those other things we all have in common and gives us the benefit of the rich cultural diversity in liturgy that we have. 

Notwithstanding that a number of vicars were so upset that they decided that they could not remain in the CofE.  Some retired and some [along with their wives and some of their flock] headed off for the warm embrace of the Roman Catholic Church who dropped [in their case] their opposition to married clergy and welcomed them into RC ministry.  Reports on how this have worked are mixed.  The RC Church is very different and some of those who had taken this step have retired or returned to the CofE I understand.

Similarly views in the RC Church were mixed on taking on these married clergy.

The trouble with such things is that if you are not careful on the ground and compassionate that Christians get very hurt.  Dividing churches like families is rarely the best solution to difference.

Regards.

I have also mentioned this before, but when W/O came in to our church and I mentioned it to a relative who is a RC priest, far from the rather superior reaction I expected at our troubles, he told me that many in that church considered that this was a debate that they would have to address in the future. [I should mention that this was before the current papacy which appears to be turning back the clock].

Matt+—

In the same way Jesus did not explicitly mention modern studies demonstrating the biologically inherent male desire for heterosexual promiscuity but his explicit condemnation of the act of lust covers all bases regardless of modern “discoveries”. There is simply no way to get around these condemnations.

Ah, but the LBGT-advocates *do* get “around” these condemnations by saying that what is condemned is not _all_ homosexual interaction, but simply certain kinds. They bring forward various definitions of ‘porneia’ and observations on contemporary social and religious behavior, etc etc. I’m sure you’re familiar with the arguments.

I’m not saying I agree with them—I don’t. I _am_ saying that your assertion that the NT expressly forbids homosexual activity can be dismissed by them in very much the same way as the anglocatholic’s assertion that the NT forbids WO. And without any sort of normative Tradition as a secondary authority and norm of interpretation—with Scripture being allowed to ‘mean’ whatever the individual agenda can interpret it to make it mean—there’s as much merit in their “interpretation” to allow SSB as there is in yours to allow WO. Sure, you disagree with their interpretation on SSB, just as anglocatholics disagree with your interpretation on WO. Without Tradition—which you’ve rejected because it explicitly forbids WO—how do we judge which interpretation is correct? On what authority, other than your say-so, is your interpretation right and theirs and anglocatholics’ wrong? And what makes your say-so the normative one?

.

If, for example, 1 Cor 2:11 or Acts 18 did not exist, I would certainly grant that 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2:11 forbid not only women’s ordination but all public ministry for women in the church. But because they do exist, they must be harmonized with 1 cor 14 and 1 Tim 2:11 in such a way that there is no harm done to the text.

But as we’ve already discussed—and as you have expressly admitted—neither 1 Cor 11 nor 1 Tim 2 are examples (to use the modern terminology) of a _clerical_ activity, but of lay. Just as the patronage of Lydia in Acts is lay “leadership”, not clerical.

So when you harmonize these passages, there’s nothing in them per se which requires saying “WO is okay”. And you’re _still_ left with the NT saying that, in public worship, a woman shouldn’t have “authority” over men, and _still_ left with the NT, when it discusses ordained orders, talking about them as male-only.

.

You’ve already said that you agree with the historical facts that the NT does not enjoin WO, that the apostolic and patristic church didn’t practice it, and that the patristic church expressly forbade it.

Accordingly, you still haven’t answered my question (1) from a few posts ago—on what grounds do you defend this innovation. Saying that it comes from “harmonizing” your interpretation of 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18 doesn’t answer that question—you yourself have said that the NT isn’t positively supporting or exemplifying WO. Therefore, that harmonization says nothing about WO, and thus the anti-WO implications of 1 Cor 14, 1 Tim 2, 1 Tim 3, Titus 3, etc all remain—as does the historical fact that the early Church expressly considered and rejected the practice.

So on what grounds do you advocate it?

.

pax,
LP

“Ah, but the LBGT-advocates *do* get “around” these condemnations by saying that what is condemned is not _all_ homosexual interaction, but simply certain kinds. They bring forward various definitions of ‘porneia’ and observations on contemporary social and religious behavior, etc etc. I’m sure you’re familiar with the arguments.”

Yes, but all of them must import something foreign into the text. The text itself does not allow their revisions.

“your assertion that the NT expressly forbids homosexual activity can be dismissed by them in very much the same way as the anglocatholic’s assertion that the NT forbids WO.”

No, it can’t. I am sensing you have not read my most recent post where I explain why this is impossible…my argument imports nothing.

Ah, no, I see you did. But in your response you did not seem to address the points I made. There is nothing necessary to import into the text.

This section of your last response I think might get to the core of our differences:

“But as we’ve already discussed—and as you have expressly admitted—neither 1 Cor 11 nor 1 Tim 2 are examples (to use the modern terminology) of a _clerical_ activity, but of lay. Just as the patronage of Lydia in Acts is lay “leadership”, not clerical.  So when you harmonize these passages, there’s nothing in them per se which requires saying “WO is okay”. And you’re _still_ left with the NT saying that, in public worship, a woman shouldn’t have “authority” over men, and _still_ left with the NT, when it discusses ordained orders, talking about them as male-only.”

You seem to argue that the Church must have positive precedent or warrant in the scriptures before acting. This is like the regulative principle of Scripture adopted by many Reformed churches and the English puritains.

I am arguing, that the Church does not need positive warrant. That she can act in so far as her actions do not violate or contradict scriptural proscriptions.

So I do not need to read a positive spin on women in orders into 1 Cor 11 or Acts 18. I simply need to demonstrate that there is no condemnation or proscription in the scriptures that would forbid women in orders under male authority. I have not argued that the two verses above provide positive precedent for that. I have argued that they provide the space necessary for the church to ordain women without violating 1 Cor 14 or 1 Tim 2:11. That is all I have to show in order to provide the warrant

But I think what you want me to show is that there is some positive descriptive or prescriptive element to the texts of 1 Cor 11 or 1 Tim 2. There is not. And my argument doesn’t hinge on it.

I do not need to import a thing into the text or make any acrobatic moves nor do I need to provide positive warrant.

I simply need to show it is not forbidden and that acting in this way would not do violence to the text.

So, in other words, I think at least one argument underlying our current one on WO has to do with some form of the regulative principle and whether it is applicable. I believe Hooker answered that question in the negative.

Yes, but all of them must import something foreign into the text. The text itself does not allow their revisions.

According to you… but not according to them. Their claim is that, without importing anything into the text, SSBs, as they understand them, aren’t prohibited. Just as your interpretation of other passages—such as “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over man; she should be silent”—claims that WO isn’t prohibited.

No, it can’t. I am sensing you have not read my most recent post where I explain why this is impossible…my argument imports nothing.

But it does.

You’ve just argued that 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 would, if unalloyed, forbid WO, but that 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18 contradict an anti-WO interpretation, therefore 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 do *not* forbid WO, therefor WO is okay.

But you’ve already agreed that 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18 do not describe *clerical* activities by women—rather they give examples (as do various other passages, e.g. Lydia’s patronage) of _lay_ activities. Thus, whatever the “harmonization” of the various passages, if 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 do, indeed, in themselves, prohibit WO (as you’ve agreed), there’s nothing in 1 Cor 11 or Acts 18, which don’t address ordained functions (as you’ve also agreed) that requires “editing out” or “explaining away” the anti-WO implications of the former passages.

So you *have* added something—you’ve imported a “ordained woman serving under male cleric” category which isn’t in either 1 Cor 14 or 1 Tim 2 (which, in themselves, prohibit WO), nor in 1 Cor 11 or Acts 18 (which don’t discuss ordained activities at all), nor, for that matter, anywhere in Scripture—and which isn’t required to harmonize the texts.

.

And which is, also, a rather incoate concept anyways—as LKW+ points out, how is a senior woman priest under a male bishop or a female bishop under a male presiding/arch- bishop, etc, not also an example of such “subordination”?

.

Add to this the assumption of male ordination in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 etc—the male-only ordination practice of the NT, which you’ve acknowledges—plus the explicit anti-WO interpretation, practice and policies of the early Church, which you’ve also acknowledged—and one is still left with the “why, then, do you support the innovation” question that I previously posed.

.

pax,
LP

FWIW, I hold to #4.  I also agree with Sarah that 2,3,4 & 5 should be able to remain in communion with one anoher.

Matt,
God bless you and Anne, both for your theological study and for the faithful witness that both of you bring to the church.

“According to you… but not according to them.Their claim is that, without importing anything into the text, SSBs, as they understand them, aren’t prohibited.”

No, and here is what you are missing. They create space in the text by suggesting that the sort of same sex behavior condemned is same sex behavior between two people who are heterosexual but that it does not address sexual behavior between two who are “naturally” homosexual. The problem of course is that the text doesn’t make distinctions of any kind. It simply condemns homosexual behavior in a general way and, here is the key, no other text of scripture modifies or qualifies what is said in the condemnatory passages.

In other words they must create space by bringing foreign concepts into the text.

I don’t have to do that at all. I just need to turn to 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18. The text creates all the space I need

But, PM, the current compromise it not one which will last long-term - hence FiF’s call for a separate , WO-free province. They certainly don’t feel they can live, long-term, within a province which ordains women. However, conservative evangelicals are split on the issue, and have quite different reasoning behind their conclusions in any case - as this thread indicates.

Fair enough, David. I think that evangelicals may well be able to agree to differ as they don;t see it as fundamental. However, reasserter Anglo-Catholics definitely do - far more so than the Gay issue if the UK FiF-ers are anything to go by.

I said to you that there are disagreements. But despite those disagreements, the Roman Catholic Church has stayed remarkably united in an organisational sense. How many Protestant denominations are there? How many evangelical Protestant denominations are there? I think it is far more likely that protestants will divide simply because it is the Catholic ecclesiology which holds them together, as much as their doctrine. As you say, they have huge differences - but their view of the Church holds them to the central organisation in a way which protestants by dint of their theology and their emergence cannot.

I don;t know why I’m suddenly defending Rome but from a sociological perspective, they are a very successful model of organisational unity.

RE: “I don’t think that’s totally accurate. As others have pointed out Jesus talked to a Samaritan, a woman at that. He also hung out with sinners. He touched lepers and so forth. He was very happy to push right against the culture when it suited Him.”

Hi David Ould, one can certainly make a case for both working within culture and working against culture, at differing times.  But one of the most shocking things about scripture, for me, is that by and large, God did not “change” the culture to something more pure and holy, except perhaps very very slowly, with the exception being the Hebrew people.  By all accounts, Babylon—where a Hebrew served as third in command—remained Babylon, Egypt remained Egypt, Rome remained Rome.  So much so that even today, progressives rant about how “scripture supported slavery” without acknowledging that scripture actually merely addresses how the players are to behave within a very corrupt and wicked system called slavery. 

Again, for me, the shocking thing about scripture is just how little of the culture God [and God through Jesus in the case of the gospels] actually addressed or confronted.

So I stand behind my theory about why Jesus did not have women as apostles.  I think that he chose not to confront the “patriarchal” system, knowing that the Christian gospel, down through the centuries, would necessarily bring justice to the plight of women.

Of course, it’s merely theory.  And as I said, it does not have much to do with what I believe are scriptural passages concerning ordained leadership, which opposes WO.

But regardless, the “Jesus had only 12 apostles and they were all men” is a dreadfully silly “argument” to advance opposed to WO, arguing from the negative or missing practice [never very sure and consistent] and thankfully very few use it.

I do not need to import a thing into the text or make any acrobatic moves nor do I need to provide positive warrant.  I simply need to show it is not forbidden and that acting in this way would not do violence to the text.

As LKW+ has already pointed out, this hermenutic can be pushed to absurdity.

Where does the NT forbid baptising with rose petals? Where does it forbid celebrating Eucharist with coffee and doughnuts—or paint-thinner and cannabis? It doesn’t; it gives a descriptive norm of the sacraments (baptise with water in the name of the Trinity; celebrate Eucharist with bread and wine)—and authority is given to the Church to continue such actions in that way. In the same way the Church is given authority to ordain men to clerical offices but is not given, by the absence (if absence there is) of explicit proscriptions, authority to *change* this practice (to ordain women or cats or fireplace mantels) any more than the Church is given authority to baptize with salad dressing or in the name of Larry, Curly and Moe.

Similarly, the absence of an _explicit_ prohibition doesn’t per se make a certain activity acceptable if the general sense of the Scriptures is against it—abortion, for example, is not prohibited, as such, in the NT, but the implication of Scripture, taken as a whole—like the teaching and practice of the early Church—is that it is to be understood as murder and forbidden.

.

Now, concerning ordination, the NT only explicitly considers it for men; it nowhere gives examples or ordained women (as you’ve agreed); it says that women should not teach or have authority in public worship; its examples of women’s roles and leadership are only those of _lay_ activity (as you’ve agreed is even the case in 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18).

All of which, I believe, makes it clear that the Church has been given authority to ordain men but not women—just as she has been given authority to baptize with water in the name of the Trinity but not in oatmeal in the name of the Three Stooges.

And the “sense” of Scripture as a whole—including the theology of ‘headship’ which you cite, not to mention the clear prohibitions in 1 Tim 2 etc—make it clear that “ordination” should be understood, reading Scripture as a whole and letting Scripture interpret Scripture, _not_ to include WO, just as reading Scripture as a whole leads us to underestand that murder _does_ include abortion.

And add to all of this—though I realize that Tradition has, for you, no normative authority for interpretation or practice—the fact that the early Church clearly understood Scripture this way, clearly understood ordination this way, and, therefore, expressly forbade WO.

.

I agree that it is a sensible hermenutic to say that, for some issues—e.g. moral behavior, diet, etc—if something is not expressly or implicitly forbidden by Scripture (and, I would add, Tradition) then it is arguably innocent, pace Hooker.

But it’s quite a different case when the Church is being defined—where her identity and authority is being established and depicted: in Eucharist, in baptism, in episcopal structure—there, I believe, one cannot argue permissiveness on an issue from silence or ambiguity, and especially not (though, again, I acknowledge that this holds no weight for you) when Tradition has expressly forbidden it.

,

pax,
LP

A PS on the previous comment—this is one area where Matt and I agree, I notice, on this thread.  I don’t—and Anglicans in general don’t—adhere to the Presbyterian Regulative principle that if something is not affirmed in scripture, one should not do it.  I am more “Lutheran” in my reformed sense of that.

MM - I think this thread has been fascinating.  There are occasions in a family when divorce is necessary e.g. for the safety of a partner or children but in many cases it is undertaken too lightly based on one issue.  As the Pope has said we should consider the vast amount that we share not just the issues which divide including W/O.  Frankly in the broad CofE W/O is not an issue because diversity of view operates alongside.  I don’t know enough about FiF to understand why they might consider that having operated under this system they might no longer continue any more than I understand why Reform occassionally get hot under the collar about some other issues to the extent of looking at other oversight.  W/O may become an issue again in relation to the Episcopate but that may be another jump ahead.

RE: “What we must do if we are to hold Anglicanism together, is all parties affected, need to sit down under the auspices of an “ecumenical world-wide Anglican council” and find some overarching common ground to work from, to accomodate all parties from both a perspective of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.”

Hi Chef Asa, I appreciated your “final” comments on this thread.  I need to point out, though, that the Anglican Communion as a whole has already found “some overarching common ground to work from”.  They agreed that the matter of WO is adiaphora.

This means that provinces in Africa—like Uganda, for instance—are just fine being in communion with Nigeria [opposed to WO].  In fact, one of the highlights of one of the last Network conferences was seeing a number of Primates on a stage together, both pro and anti WO and all of them stating quite clearly that this is not a dividing issue at all.

Granted, if the Anglican Communion fractures, then a new decision would have to be reached.  My suspicion is that the same decision would be reached as before the communion breakup.

<blockquote>It simply condemns homosexual behavior in a general way and, here is the key, no other text of scripture modifies or qualifies what is said in the condemnatory passages.  In other words they must create space by bringing foreign concepts into the text. </blockquote>

We probably crossed-posts here? I think you _are_ introducing a foreign concept.

* 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2, as you agree, considered in themselves prohibit WO
* 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18, as you’ve also agreed, only show _lay_ activities of women.

You can’t claim, therefore, that the “harmonization” of the two sets of passage requires “editing out” the anti-WO force of the former—especially given the complete lack of any support of WO in any NT texts, particularly in those which deal with bishops and deacons—because the latter say nothing about “ordained” activities or authority and so don’t require pro-WO assumptions to “harmonize” them.

Nor can you justify, therefore, the addition of the non-Scriptural concept/addition/distinction of “female cleric serving under a male superior” any more than the LGBT crowd can justify introducing _their_ not-Scripturally-present concepts/additions/distinctions for _their_ eisogesis.

In both cases, a distinction/concept/category not present in Scripture and not required by the text to harmonize different passages is being unnecessarily introduced for the sake of supporting the particular deviation from traditional Christian teaching, practice and behavior.

pax,
LP

RE: “Somehow is what “I” believe more important than a consensus of the Church Catholic?  Check and see if Roman and the Orthodox don’t believe it is important to who they are.”

Well, when we are talking about which Christians will be in communion with one another over what disagreements, yes it is.  We are not talking about ecumenical disagreements—unless you wish to be a priestly celibate. 

In my conversation with you, I merely stated that some people believe that the issue of WO is adiaphora and others do not.  You then responded that one should never be in communion with those who are in defiance of “sacred scripture” and I then responded that it would be an awfully small church if that were so.

Your entry of the church catholic into the discussion is not applicable to the discussion, but as you have introduced it, of course I am not at all Roman Catholic, nor do I believe it to be the true church, nor am I interested in simply having all Anglicans “do what the Roman Catholics do”, otherwise I would just simply convert to Rome.

To do what the “church catholic” would do, would be to follow scripture—that is what the true church catholic does.  But the question before the house is, should Anglicans who believe one thing about the scripture pertaining to WO and Anglicans who believe another be in communion with one another.

My answer is yes, all other things being equal.  But then, that’s why I belong in Group #3.

To repeat what I said earlier, that’s why I suspect that once all of it shakes out, those in Group #1 will continue to be together as Continuers, and those in Groups #2-5 will be together.  By definition, those who sincerely hold to Position #1 will be unable to be in a body of people who hold to Positions 3-5, I assume.

It would be interesting to discover who, among those who hold to Position #1, still remain in ECUSA, which is an inherently contradictory place for them.  Hopefully, those who do hold to Position #1—WO is a salvific matter—are not still in ECUSA, which would be a position horribly lacking in integrity and principle, since they are in communion with people who are practicing WO around the globe.

RE: “That is disturbing . . . “

Well, only for those whose position on WO is not adiaphora for them.  ; > )

For me it is just fine, though I did not find her arguments compelling.

RE: “Jesus -often- acted against the culture, and was eventually crucified, He upset people so. He talked to an immoral woman, without anyone else around, and a Samaritan at that! He discussed theology with women! He touched lepers! And on and on. Jesus didn’t give two figs for the culture.”

Please see my comment to David Ould above about this matter. Of course, Jesus cared about the culture—otherwise he wouldn’t have participated in temple ceremonies, nor would he have participated in the rabbinic culture.  Nor would he have paid Roman taxes, and on and on and on.  As I said to David:

” . . . one can certainly make a case for both working within culture and working against culture, at differing times.  But one of the most shocking things about scripture, for me, is that by and large, God did not “change” the culture to something more pure and holy, except perhaps very very slowly, with the exception being the Hebrew people.  By all accounts, Babylon—where a Hebrew served as third in command—remained Babylon, Egypt remained Egypt, Rome remained Rome.  So much so that even today, progressives rant about how “scripture supported slavery” without acknowledging that scripture actually merely addresses how the players are to behave within a very corrupt and wicked system called slavery.

Again, for me, the shocking thing about scripture is just how little of the culture God [and God through Jesus in the case of the gospels] actually addressed or confronted.

So I stand behind my theory about why Jesus did not have women as apostles.  I think that he chose not to confront the “patriarchal” system, knowing that the Christian gospel, down through the centuries, would necessarily bring justice to the plight of women.

Of course, it’s merely theory.  And as I said, it does not have much to do with what I believe are scriptural passages concerning ordained leadership, which opposes WO.

But regardless, the “Jesus had only 12 apostles and they were all men” is a dreadfully silly “argument” to advance opposed to WO, arguing from the negative or missing practice [never very sure and consistent] and thankfully very few use it.

Hello Rev. Kennedy,

I must agree with LP (who is doing a very fine job in this discussion) that you have imported something into the text of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 in a serious way (as was also noted in my last post). 

Going to the point—it has not been shown how 1 Cor 11 demands that women are allowed to lead and exercise authority in the Public Assembly (in direct contradiction to what you admit to be the most obvious meaning of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14) . As stated before St. Paul demands those who prophesy in an unknown tongue without an interpreter to remain silent in Church just as he commands women to remain silent (regardless of whether they prophesy in a known or unknown tongue) .  Thus, if it is possible for a man who prophesies in an unknown tongue (1 Cor 14:27) to keep silent in the Public Assembly “speaking to himself, and to God” (1 Cor 14:28) so also it is possible for a woman who prophesies in a known or unknown tongue (1 Cor 11) to keep silent in the Public Assembly (1 Cor 14:34, 35).

I ask for all here to soberly look at St. Paul’s instruction for women to be silent in context and see if St. Paul could reasonably be said to include women “prophets” in 1 Cor 14:29-33 (which Rev. Kennedy’s interpretation of 1 Cor 11 appears to demand) when St. Paul immediately thereafter forbids women to speak in the Public Assembly 1 Cor 14:34, 35.

1 Cor 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

And as for Acts 18 I would like to repeat again David Ould’s excellent words on the matter:

<blockquote>I think we need to be careful when we start saying that women have nothing to teach to men.

I think that’s confusing the issue. To say that a woman should not teach nor be in authority over a man is not to say that she has nothing to teach - only that there a limits to the contexts in which she can teach. </blockquote>

William

p.s. I hope Rev. Kennedy that my post does not come across as lacking the proper degree of charity. I must say that I am grateful for your clear affirmation of the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith and your strong faith in the Sacred Scripture (without which this discussion would be impossible).
Blessings in Christ.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

LP,

the principle you suggest may be pushed to the point of absurdity as well. The NT certainly calls on us to sing pslams, hymns and spiritual songs, but no where are we given permission to use organs or pianos or, for heaven’s sake, guitars etc…and there are many more things, as you know, that the church does now that the church did not do then.

“In the same way the Church is given authority to ordain men to clerical offices but is not given, by the absence (if absence there is) of explicit proscriptions, authority to *change* this practice (to ordain women or cats or fireplace mantels)”

By the same token the people of God are commanded to observe the Sabbath. In the OT the Sabbath was on Saturday. While there is evidence that the church started meeting on Sunday in the NT (Acts 20:7 etc) in celebration of the Sabbath rest afforded by the resurrection, this change was never articulated nor is it clear that they necessarily stopped observing the sabbath on Saturday. In the absence of clear NT warrant what gives the Church the authority to change the OT pattern?

re: abortion: I would say that abortion is specifically forbidden in the, though “shalt not murder” bit and that the concept of life beginnign at conception can be plainly found in Psalm 51:5 and 139

You said:

“Now, concerning ordination, the NT only explicitly considers it for men; it nowhere gives examples or ordained women (as you’ve agreed); it says that women should not teach or have authority in public worship; its examples of women’s roles and leadership are only those of _lay_ activity (as you’ve agreed is even the case in 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18).”

and you conclude:

“All of which, I believe, makes it clear that the Church has been given authority to ordain men but not women…”

I would change the first quoted paragraph to read:

“Now, concerning ordination, the NT only explicitly considers it for men; it nowhere gives examples or ordained women (as you’ve agreed); it says that women should not teach or have authority in public worship but women do prophesy in public worship and may instruct men so long as they are doing so under the headship of another man; its examples of women’s roles and leadership are only those of _lay_ activity (as you’ve agreed is even the case in 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18).”

And I would say that while I agree with the modified paragraph above, your conclusion below does not follow

“All of which, I believe, makes it clear that the Church has been given authority to ordain men but not women.”

I would say:

“All of which, I believe, makes it clear that the Church may not ordain women to speak or teach or exercise any leadership in the church unless she does so in a delegated capacity under the headship of a male presbyter or bishop”

RE: “RE: “Sarah, the importance here is whether or not one is submitted to God and His authority and His written word, or if one is in rebellion against God and sticks their fingers in their ears at His word at certain points.”

I’m confused about what on earth your point has to do with adiaphora.  Of course, both sets of Christians firmly believe that they are in submission to God’s word, and neither [of those who are not ECUSA progressives, of course] group is ignoring it, nor is either group deliberately “rebelling”. . . that’s the whole point of this discussion, Sodbuster.

I personally believe that smoking is not scriptural at all.  But I believe that those who smoke and are committed Christian believers are [hopefully] not deliberately defying God’s word written and that the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth to them in His time.  Until then, I will be in communion with them, and count smoking—the deliberate defilement of God’s temple, the human body—as adiaphoric, in that good Christians have disagreed down through the centuries on this practice and may reasonably interpret scripture differently.

RE: “The argument that women can be made into male elders (which is what “priest” means, coming into English from the Greek male-gendered noun “presbyter” and losing the middle consonants as is the case with a large number of nouns in English from OE to modern English) is obviously contrary to the teaching passages of the Old and New Testament Scriptures is disingenuous, as is the pretense to not follow the argument.”

HUH?  Then why are you on this thread, arguing about it.  If it’s so obvious, and those who support WO are deliberately defying scripture, then no doubt they are not Christian believers.

In any case, I suppose you will have to determine if you can be in communion with those who believe that WO is scripturally supported.  I would think it would be difficult in any case, since you believe that evangelical Anglicans like Archbishop Orombi are in deliberate defiance and rebellion against God’s word, rather than mistaken interpretation.

I can be in communion with him, all else being equal, and so I belong in Group #3.

William:

“Going to the point—it has not been shown how 1 Cor 11 demands that women are allowed to lead and exercise authority in the Public Assembly”

And that is a good thing because showing how 1 Cor 11 “demands” that women be allowed to lead and exercise authority… is not my burden. Not even close to it.

My burden is simply to show that nothing forbids it in the context of male headship.

Sara says:

So I stand behind my theory about why Jesus did not have women as apostles.  I think that he chose not to confront the “patriarchal” system, knowing that the Christian gospel, down through the centuries, would necessarily bring justice to the plight of women.

Sarah,
I understand that argument, but at the same time Jesus was God.  He confronted everything.  No divorce.  Help those hated Samaritans.  Turn the other cheek.  Give to Caesar, the occupier.  You brood of vipers.

I’ve always thought Jesus did exactly what he wanted to do when He was here.  Now, what it meant is sometimes not agreed upon by believers, but I don’tthtink he pulled any punches.

LP et al,

Must get to work. I’ll come back later, hopefully, to address what I have not yet addressed. I have vestry tonight so my time is tight.

RE: “Would the Lord Jesus Christ have left such an unstable system?”

I believe that He would and He did.

The system necessarily deals with flawed fallen people and we WILL screw things up, including me, Matt, the Continuers, the evangelicals, and the Pope.

That’s a given.

That makes me cast myself on the mercies of the Lord, as only He can help make us better.

And that is a good thing because showing how 1 Cor 11 “demands” that women be allowed to lead and exercise authority… is not my burden. Not even close to it.

My burden is simply to show that nothing forbids it in the context of male headship.

Hello Rev. Kennedy,

As I noted a couple of posts back St. Paul stated that a woman under the authority or headship of her husband (not to mention the Ordained leaders of the Church)  could not even so much as take the lead in worship by asking questions.  If a woman is preaching, administering the Sacraments, etc she is taking upon herself leadership and authority over men in the Public Assembly whether in the context of a male headship or not (and again St. Paul’s statement that women under the immediate male headship of their husbands (and of course their Ordained leaders, etc) were not allowed to lead in the Public Assembly in any way proves this point).

Blessings in Christ,
William

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

William wrote:

I ask for all here to soberly look at St. Paul’s instruction for women to be silent…

A question for William and others who take 1 Cor 14:34 (women be silent) as trumping 1 Cor 11:5 ff (women allowed to pray or prophesy with covered head): do you have women in the choir at your parish? Singing is not silence. Are women permitted to sing in church?

I find it difficult to understand how a woman can prophesy in silence, and it seems to me that 1 Cor 11 is referring to public meetings. If that’s the case, he specifically allows women to speak within limits, in the public worship service. St Paul defines prophecy as “speaking to men for edification and exhortation and consolation” (1 Cor 14:3) and most of the sermons I have heard in Episcopal churches would fit that description, rather than “teaching” as such.

RE: “I understand that argument, but at the same time Jesus was God.  He confronted everything.”

Yikes!  I think he did not at all confront everything.  He did not confront the grotesque Roman corruption.  He actually gave money to the [at the time] vilely corrupt Jewish officials.

He did not address the treatment of women as property by husbands, nor the slavery system, not to mention the debauchery and murder of the Roman games, their sexual practices, and on and on.

I think one could actually make a case that John the Baptist confronted “culture” more than Jesus did, who seemed to be more intent about teaching on the Kingdom of God, knowing as He did that the Kingdom of God would triumph, as it has and is doing.

LP wrote:

...as LKW+ points out, how is a senior woman priest under a male bishop or a female bishop under a male presiding/arch- bishop, etc, not also an example of such “subordination”?

In my admittedly nebulous thinking on WO (and long before the election of KJS), I had come to the conclusion that she was, and that therefore WO was permissible as long as it was not women “all the way up the line”.  But I think my ignorance was showing there, since if I understand it correctly now, the US Presiding Bishop does not function as a head (authority) over the other bishops anyway, in the same sense as an archbishop does.

I’m coming in very late to the discussion, and have very little of value to add.  But I do have some questions!  I am of position #5, valuing greatly the ministry and witness of the many female priests I have known in the last 25 years.  Matt, I thank you for setting up the ground rules for this fascinating discussion; I have not been persuaded, but I have been informed and I appreciate that.

As a layperson of very little formal theological education, I would appreciate it if somebody would clarify the nature of the term “altar Christus.”  It has appeared many times in this discussion, but I’ll quote this one because it used the exact term (thank you!) and because it bears on another point:

If a priest is to be the altar christus to his congregation then being male is important.  Why?  Because if a male is not standing in the place of Christ, but a female is standing in that place then it is about a relationship not ordained by God.  Let me be more specific.  Jesus, the bridegroom; His Church, the bride.  If a female stands in that place, it is a same-sex relationship, which is what all the fuss is about these days.  Isn’t it?  Same theology folks.

I grew up in a fairly conservative parish in the 1970’s; all lay readers were men and all acolytes were boys.  My priest and my family taught me that the ordination of women was an absurdity, if not an abomination.  (My mother still believes this.)  But I do not remember “altar Christus” being taught either in Sunday School or in Catechism.  I had always thought that when a priest says “This is my body,” he is quoting Jesus, not channeling him.  Is “altar Christus” a doctrine of the church?  One viewpoint among many?  Is it based on specific scriptural requirements for the role of a priest, or is it an extrapolation from metaphor? 

The odd thing is, if you take the argument I quoted above to one logical (but absurd) conclusion, all the people in the congregation must be women in order to embody the church as Christ’s bride.  If a male sits in that place, it is a same-sex relationship. . . .

Moving on.  As a young girl I was taught that most references to “men” and male pronouns (he, him, his) in the bible, prayer book and the hymnal were meant to be interpreted as gender-neutral; for example, “maker of all things, judge of all men” applies to women, too.  In that spirit, and knowing that the vast majority of church leaders in the first century were male (with a couple of exceptions that have been discussed here at great length) is it possible that the instruction “husband of one wife” implies the converse “wife of one husband”?  In a similar manner, the fact that the tenth commandment forbids me from coveting my neighbor’s wife also implies that I should not be coveting my neighbor’s husband.  (Or anything that is hers.)

And for that matter, if one reads the passage literally does it not mean that all priests and deacons must be married?  Somebody better alert the pope!

ladytenor wrote:

As a young girl I was taught that most references to “men” and male pronouns (he, him, his) in the bible, prayer book and the hymnal were meant to be interpreted as gender-neutral (snip) is it possible that the instruction “husband of one wife” implies the converse “wife of one husband”

I’d like to know, too. I have heard this argument that the real qualification Paul is setting down in those passages that say “husband of one wife” is the marital status (i.e. not a polygamist) rather than the sex of the person who is to be ordained. So, is there a gender-neutral word in Greek, parallel to the English word spouse, that he could have used? If there is such a word and Paul decided to use the word for man/husband anyway, that would pretty well disprove the argument. Back later, it’s time to go to work now.

It would be interesting to discover who, among those who hold to Position #1, still remain in ECUSA, which is an inherently contradictory place for them.  Hopefully, those who do hold to Position #1—WO is a salvific matter—are not still in ECUSA, which would be a position horribly lacking in integrity and principle, since they are in communion with people who are practicing WO around the globe. 

  Splendidly stated!  I could not agree more!  You tell ‘em, Sarah!  Go, girl!

And for that matter, if one reads the passage literally does it not mean that all priests and deacons must be married?  Somebody better alert the pope!

Foul, the book of Timothy was written by the same human author who wrote 1 Cor 7. So even if read in literal context of words, that does not negate Scripture to be read in context of other Scripture ... that should be basic understanding to our discussions and presuming the best in others that you may disagree are handling the Bible with respect and care.

Of course the reason why we are all reading the bible and arguing all this for ourselves is thanks to the Reformation.

So, is there a gender-neutral word in Greek, parallel to the English word spouse, that he could have used? If there is such a word and Paul decided to use the word for man/husband anyway, that would pretty well disprove the argument.

I respectfully disagree.  The writers of the prayer book could have said “maker of all things, judge of all people,” but the fact that they did not use the perfectly acceptable gender-neutral noun does not exempt half of humanity from judgment.

RE: “Is “altar Christus” a doctrine of the church?”

It is a very important doctrine held by the Anglo-Catholics.  It is entirely false, in the opinion of evangelical Anglicans.

That is why I think if there is a division between Anglicans amongst the departed Ecusans it will be over issues like this one, rather than WO, which is something that departed ECUSAns are able to bear with.

As I stated long ago above in the thread:

“This brings me to the common way that these threads seem to divide out.  The arguments against WO may be Anglo-Catholic or evangelical.  But neither are particularly acceptable to the other.

For instance, when an Anglo-Catholic says “women may not be ordained—why, how can a woman represent Christ at the altar of the mass?” that argument has no bearing on my arguments opposed to WO . . . because I do not [as has been pointed out before over and over] acknowledge the salvific efficacy of the sacraments, nor do I believe that the man/priest represents Christ Jesus, nor do I believe that the Eucharist is a re-creation of the atoning work of Christ on the cross more than 2000 years ago.

So in response to Widening Gyre’s great question . . . my understanding is that NEITHER SIDE of the issue made their arguments at various GCs from scripture.

What I understand to have happened is that the progressives bleated about how unfair it all was, how women were “just as spiritual as men”, how “hurtful” it was, how women would never be able to climb the chuch corporate ladder if denied ordination, and then proceeded to shared their experiences and feelings.  The responders [and I’ve asked and discovered the sad truth] made opposing arguments based on their Anglo-Catholic theology.

Two ships, passing in the night.

Sure would have been nice to have some evangelicals make the case from scripture—for EITHER SIDE—but it was not to be.  In reality, most evangelical Anglicans seem to support WO, based on their interpretation of scripture.

The case that many of them made to me, though I considered it to be flawed, led me to take the #3 position—it was clear that, unlike Wink, Griswold, Chane, Robinson, Russell, Kaeton, Bennison, and [insert progressive Episcopal name here], they were not saying “scripture, schmipture—the church wrote the Bible and we can rewrite it”.  In fact, the evangelical Anglicans that supported WO were making a good [but not perfect] case, that involved respectful handling of scripture, and in acknowledgement of Holy Scripture’s complete authority.”

RE: “. . . but the fact that they did not use the perfectly acceptable gender-neutral noun does not exempt half of humanity from judgment.”

Heh—I had been bargaining on that!  ; > )

Fr. Matt,
Again, I have a problem with the way you make your argument that WO is not prohibited.  Thus far, you have appealed only to understanding based on certain scriptures and interpretations from the *New* Testament.  The Church Catholic (meaning in miy mind the teaching of the churches that continue in the Apostolic Tradition, not the RCC) consider individual scriptures in the context of the WHOLE of Holy Scripture - including the *Old* Testament.  It is quite clear in the OT that the priesthood was given to the men.  Furthermore, Tradition (up until the 1970s; thus, far and away the weight of it) is clear that the priesthood belongs to men. 

The Anglican Communion has relied primarily upon Scripture (all of it, including the Old Testament) and Tradition, yet the OT and Tradition don’t seem to figure into your way of thinking about this matter, so far as I have yet understood.

Thanks again for this great discussion and for the rules framing it.

For Anglo-Catholics:
1.  RC’s (not entirely sure about the Orthodox who I believe have a variant on the absolute prohibition) say no to married priests yet most of you believe otherwise.  Why?
2.  RC’s (not sure about the Orthodox) believe your orders are invalid since you have not been ordained by bishops within the apostolic succession.  I understand the argument about Canterbury being an ancient see and all that, but the catholic church (or at least the RC piece), generally believes you are not validly ordained priests.  If so, does that not also mean that in their view, the sacraments you adminster are likewise invalid?  (I am not concerned with their view - but those of you who don’t want to act outside the tradition of the catholic church might want to explain why that tradition is not also binding.)

The phrase is not “altar Christi” but “alter Christi” which, since it literally means “another Christ” (and that might imply “a different Christ”) most Catholic (and Anglo-Catholic) theologians have preferred the phrase “in persona Christi” that the celebrant of the Eucharist acts “in the person of Christ.”  One might almost say “impersonating Christ” except that “impersonating” in English carries the clear connotation of “falsely pretending to be” whereas in Catholic and Anglo-Catholic understandings the priest (and especially the bishop) is investe or clothed with the priesthood of Christ in the role of celebrasnt of the Eucharist.  (It would be a diverting discussion to discuss the way in which most Orthodox theologians agree with the Catholic conclusion but reach it by a different route.)  Really, though, at the risk of being tedious, I can do no better than to repeat my recommendation of those book s that I mentioned yesterday—- *Man, Woman and Prieshood* ed. Peter Moore (1978); *Man, Woman and Priesthood* ed. James Tolhurst (1989); and *Women and the Priesthood* ed. Thomas Hopko (1999)—for some very good essays on the subject.  The Hopko volume is written from an (Eastern) Orthodox perspective and all the essayists in it are Orthodox, while the Moore collection is basically Anglican (both Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic, but with an Orthodox, a RC and a Swedish Lutheran essayist as well) and the Tolhurst one mostly RC (but with an essay by a Scottish Presbyterian Calvinist, an Eastern Catholic theologian and Graham Leonard, who was of course then Bishop of London in the Church of England but is now a Catholic priest).

Oops, I meant “alter Christus.”

Sarah:

So I stand behind my theory about why Jesus did not have women as apostles.  I think that he chose not to confront the “patriarchal” system, knowing that the Christian gospel, down through the centuries, would necessarily bring justice to the plight of women.

Sarah, this not up to your usual standard.  I could say that Jesus never rescued strained babies left to die on hills because he did not want to confront the abortion standard of the Greco-Roman culture with the same validity.

Reality is that the leaders of the NT were men… it is what Scripture has written and what we have to deal with as Christ’s people.

I doubt this is because Jesus was ‘culture sensitive’ because it didn’t keep him from hanging out with the Samaratin woman, for example, or letting prostitutes wipe his feet with their hair… both defying the cultural norm for his people - not to mention allowing his disciples to gather grain on the Sabbath. 

In addition, the implication of your statement is God is myopic with His Word - since obviously He didn’t have a clue what would happen in the future and couldn’t take account for that.  IF God is God, then I think He would have foreseen this eventuality… and you will note that it did not change what He had written.  We have to trust that with an Omnipresent God there is a Omnipresent reason.

God has to have a good reason for men in leadership - beyond just what you or I might see.  As I stated eons ago on this thread I have no problem with women in spiritual roles up to the deacon level - because there is backing for women missionaries, prophets and deacons in the Scripture.  However, there is no Scriptural basis for women bishops and priests - so, if it is not in there, it is not in there and we should respect it.

I don’t think the question of married priests was answered adequately by calling of “Foul!”  If we are to take 1 Tim as universally pre/pro-scriptive, then singleness is out.  I agree that someone should call the Pope.  Also, I assume that, in addition to not allowing women to sing in the choir they must not participate in responsive or collective prayer.  Further, I assume that all you #1’s out there do not allow your wives to wear pearls or gold or expensive clothes and require head coverings in church.
I have really enjoyed this discussion, but am still solidly a #4
peace!

DaveG wrote:

“1.  RC’s (not entirely sure about the Orthodox who I believe have a variant on the absolute prohibition) say no to married priests yet most of you believe otherwise.  Why?”

Both RCs and Orthodox (and all the non-Orthodox Eastern churches, save the Assyrians [since 486]) agree in forbidding those men who have been ordained (whether as bishops, priests or deacons) to marry (whether for the first time or after being widowed).  The Orthodox allow married men to be ordained deacons and priests (but not to marry after ordination) but not bishops, who since the Sixth Century have been required to be monks.  The celibacy requirement for Catholic clergy was only legislated in 1076 and 1122 (although before that date ordained men who married after ordination were liable to deposition from the clergy, although some regions of the Western Church were more severe than others in enforcing this) and in the Catholic Church the requirement is cleraly viewed (at least as regards the ordination of married men) as a discipline which could, in theory, be changed—as indeed it has been changed in regard to the occasional ordination of married convert Protestant (and Anglican) clergymen since the late 1940s, and the more frequent ordinations of convery anglican clergy since ca. 1981.  As early as 385 AD the Church of Rome (i.e., the “Diocese of Rome”) allowed the ordination of married men, but required such men and their wives freely to agree to forego sexual relations after ordination as a condition of ordination; and of course those who had been ordained were absolutely forbidden to remarry in the case of widowerhood.  The fact that they could continue to live together as man and wife, save for the requirement of abslute continence, gave rise to “scandals” from time to time, and this wa sone of the many factors that led “reformers” (and especially monks) to press from the Tenth Century onward for making celibacy a condition of ordination.

In the East, by contrast, some bishops who ordained married men required the man and wife to separate before ordination (with the wife usually becoming a nun or a deaconess, or both), others allowed them to continue to live together with marial relations—although in the case of married men (often laymen, not priests or deacons) who became bishops the requirement thta the couple separate was absolute.  It was only in 691 that the current discipline, whereby bishops must be celibate monks, celibate priests cannot marry after ordination and are eligible for the episcopate and married priests can remain married and exercise their “marital rights” but cannot remarry if widowed not be eligible for the episcopate (unless widowed), bacame absolute. 

“2.  RC’s (not sure about the Orthodox) believe your orders are invalid since you have not been ordained by bishops within the apostolic succession.”

The Orthodox believe that all Orders outside the Church (the Orthodox church) are invalid, but that in the case of those non-Orthodox bodies who have preserved an Orthodox church-like structure, such of their clergy who become Orthodox may be “recognized” as priests or deacons or even bishops, without reordination (or may not, depending on the degree of rigorousness of the particular Orthodox church making the decision), while those who have not preserved such as structure (basically all Protestant bodies) are always reordained when they become Orthodox.  In the course of the 20th century many Orthodox churches decided that, in theory, if Anglican churches united with the Orthodox Church their clergy might not have to be ordained, while a few toook the opposed stand.  Since the 1970s and the advent of WO, all Orthodox churches have taken the tacit or explicit decision that the issue is now moot, and that Anglican churches have the same standing in their eyes as Lutheran or Methodist or Calvinist bodies.

All,

I’m going to need to close this thread soon - 320+ comments, loaded at a feverish pace by hundreds of visitors, is going to put a strain on our database server that it can’t withstand indefinitely.

I’ll be opening up a new thread where this conversation can continue, Please remember that if, in the new thread, you want to refer to a comment in this thread, just right-click the [link] beneath each comment, and choose “Copy Shortcut” (or “Copy Link Location” in Netscape/FireFox). You can then just paste that link into your own comment, or follow the formatting rules for creating a link.

This is a great thread - please keep it going in the new post!

Sarah,
I believe He confronted the Jewish practices that He wanted to.  He confronted the place of women by not allowing Jewish men to divorce their wives for any little reason.  He confronted the jewish leadership.

You are right - he didn’t right every wrong that we see in 1st century life.  I think that’s because they aren’t important to our salvation.

DavidG—

It’s important to remember that the difference between “Roman Catholics” and “Anglocatholics” is not just liturgical. Roman catholics believe quite a number of things—such as papal infallibility & universal ordinary jursidiction—which anglocatholics do not. Anglocatholics reject both Protestant errors in the Reformation (i.e. where the Reformers taught contrary to Scripture as understood by the early Church) *and* Roman errors/additions (including many of those to which the Reformers were likewise reacting).

So you can’t say “RCs say this” and conclude anglocatholics do to. This is, in fact, one of the weaknesses of Matt’s generally good comparison between “Evangelicals” and “Anglocatholics” of some time ago—often what he’s comparing/contrasting are not Evangelicals and *anglo*catholics, but Evangelicals and *Roman* Catholics.

1.  RC’s (not entirely sure about the Orthodox who I believe have a variant on the absolute prohibition) say no to married priests yet most of you believe otherwise.  Why?

Even for the RCs, the prohibition on married priests is a _discipline_ not a _doctrine_. That is to say, it’s a uniform practice of the Church, but one which is neither mandated by Scripture & Tradition nor one which could not be changed.

And, in fact, the Roman church *has* married priests who have been brought in under special circumstances—such as those handful of married former Anglican priests who have come in under the “Pastoral Provision”.

Anglocatholics simply don’t subscribe to this particular Roman “discipline”. They note, as Romans agree, that many of the apostles (including Peter) and many of the clergy of the first several centuries of the church (and, frankly, more than a few clergy in the Middle Ages) were married—that the discipline of celebate clergy evolved in the Roman church over time and has only truly been enforced in recent centuries—and that this discipline is not one they share.

2.  RC’s (not sure about the Orthodox) believe your orders are invalid since you have not been ordained by bishops within the apostolic succession.

The Orthodox, at least in the U.S., were generally more positive about Anglican orders until recent decades, with the growing apostacy of PECUSA since the late 1950s. It used to be that Orthodox clergy - especially when there were fewer Orthodox churches in the U.S. - would tell their people that, if they couldn’t find an Orthodox parish - they should go to an Episcopal one. That certainly is not the case today.

Romans believe Anglican orders are invalid, ultimately, because of the Reformers erroneous teaching on the Eucharist which denied the Real Presence. An error which many Anglicans today share.

The history and theology of this is somewhat complicated, but basically the Roman argument is that the first Anglican bishops were ordained by valid Roman bishops in the apostolic succession, but because of the defect of those ordinations—chiefly that the erroneous concept of the Eucharist, meant an inadequate concept of what a *priest* is, meant that the “intent” required for sacramental validity was absent, meant that the ordinations were invalid—those Anglican bishops were invalid. Consequently, their episcopal acts were invalid and so that, even if/when Anglican teaching was modified in subsequent generations to allow “space” for a proper understanding of the Eucharist, by then the ministers doing ordinations were all laity, so there could be no valid orders.

Anglocatholics still in the Anglican Communion (which, as Sarah Hey rightly notes, is an inherently self-contradictory postion—you cannot, in good conscience and theological sense, hold to an apostolic and catholic understanding of the sacraments and the episcopacy and still hold yourself to be in communion with PECUSA) argue that this Roman judgement was simply wrong, that the first generation of ordinations _was_ valid [either because the Eucharistic theology wasn’t as defective as Rome made it out to be, or because Rome’s argument about validity was incorect—I happen to be of that letter opinion, but that’s another discussion].  So, they argue, Anglican orders always have been and remain valid (except, of course, when used to attempt to ordain the unordainable—we’re back to the woman/cat/chair/fireplace mantel discussion above).

For those anglocatholics in the Continuing church—and thus not in communion with the apostates of PECUSA but in separate jurisdictions—a case has been made that, in fact, even from the Roman perspective, their orders are valid (albeit “irregular”) because of the “refreshing” of orders which came about at the movement’s origin. I.e. as anglocatholics, (1) their Eucharistic theology is not defective (from Rome’s point of view), avoiding the initial stumbling block, and (2) bishops involved in the initial ordinations were accepted as valid by Rome, and thus those initial ordinations valid (again, albeit irregular). You can find a presentation of that argument here.

pax,
LP

“Of course the reason why we are all reading the bible and arguing all this for ourselves is thanks to the Reformation. “
Oh yes, THANKS A LOT!
BTW, Which are the Holy Scriptures? And who says?

I’m a bit ga-ga from all the posts, and I apologize that I couldn’t read all (but did more than half) before posting again.

A few ramblings: Cooperation is possible, even with #1s.
I’m a #1 who can work with #2 - #5 folk if they are willing to place a moratorium on WO. I’m even OK with “grandmothering” women rectors who are adamantly supported by their parish, as long as sacraments are performed with co-consecrators, or some other similar allowance that says “we agree to disagree” pastorally, for the moment,  and even “agree to disagree” theologically for now, as long as we “agree to agree” that where there’s disagreement, the boundary for action will be the historic “no more Women’s ordination” (Meaning that pro WO folk would be sacrificing/suspending their beliefs more than those opposed, but both would be stretched.)

Other comment: I’m very much tracking with LP and see a strong parallel between Women’s Ordination and Homosexual Ordination. Of course one might rub us wrong on the inside more than the other because of cultural conditioning. If all could agree to set aside the non-sequiter distinction that “Women don’t sin by living true to their womanhood, but homosexuals sin by living out their ingrained temptations. One is a question of ontology, the other of praxis.” Of course that is “true” and I’m not denying that is one way to look at it, but it’s a distraction and “straw man.” Forget that. It’s not really part of the argument.

Better: the question is broadly, may we ordain outside of Scriptural Injunction and Tradition, where strained ambiguities can be argued. YES! say the WO folk, and YES! say the HO folk. On that fundamental level, there definitely is symmetry.

Matt, you may have answered this already, but I agree with LP that you are fooling yourself if you think you are not bringing more to the texts than is there, in order to get them “to work for you.” From my perspective, you clearly are. Consider the analogy:

The Board of Directors for Ladies Home Journal (LHJ) crafted a job description for its Senior Manager of Development:

We acknowledge there are differences, and good things for women and men to do, (and bad things they end up doing and should avoid)[xcf. I Tim. 2:7-12]. And of course there are reasons for these differences that stretch back to time immemorial [xcf. I Tim. 2:13-3:1] that should in no way keep one from wanting high-level employment at LHJ. If a woman wants to advance, that is good (a good work—3:1). Let us start with a top position and be particular.

The Senior Manager of Development therefore must be without reproach, the wife of one husband, temperate, ... no slanderer, grave, ..., a good mother who nurtures well her family, ... (but if a woman knoweth not how to nurture in her own house, how shall she nurture those at Ladies Home Journal?)...

Men, likewise, (with no reference to position) also have a role at Ladies Home Journal, and should not be brawlers, not contentious, etc.

Well, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the text “as it is” shows that the intention of the Board was to have a woman serve as LHJ Sr. Manager of Development. Conversely, much ambiguity and outside presumptions need to be added to suggest that they were indifferent to whether a man or woman took the job. This the natural reading of the language and is accentuated by the fact of a preamble of differences between the sexes (ITim2), and an vocative interjection to the opposite sex (i.e. the male sex in this case, but women in ITim3:11). Moreover, the language of “nurturing”, even if some consider that sexist or stereotypical in a negative way, is commonly connected to the female sex. Just like “headship” and “ruling well one’s family” may sound sexist to modern ears, but nevertheless are terms especially connected with male roles in Scripture.

[Note also that, regarding women as ordained bishops/deacons, “falling for the reproach and snare of the devil” (3:7) is explicitly mention as both a qualification of bishop/deacon and a liability of some sort for women since Creation—now, that’s not my general observation unless perhaps tied to self-esteem/reproach, but I’m not free to say it’s not in Scripture, because it is—and so it is true in some (subtle) way. And this emphasizes the strain of those who would interpret the passage as if it were “gender-neutral.”]

To repeat my point, I Tim. 2 and 3 are not the only Scriptures I just touched on, but these chapters naturally set forth men as fulfilling the position of bishop, just as my hypothetical LHJ analogy set forth women as the presummed candidates for Sr. Manager. To say otherwise is to introduce quite a bit that is not in the immediate context.

As a lay person, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that historical church documents prior to the 4th century do not support the <i>priestly</i> ordination of women. However, there is support for ordination in the role of a deaconess, as well as specific ministry or Ministry. Specifically, one can reference the Teaching of the Apostles (Didascalia Apostolorum) and the Apostolic Constitutions (amongst other writings).  Whether or not you accept these documents as carrying any weight will depend largely on which branch of orthodoxy you accept as valid expressions. If you believe these are documents a genuine, then two things must be accepted: (1) the ordination of the woman deaconess occurred as any other ordination to major orders, and (2) was accompanied by both a blessing and the laying on of hands as in the tradition of male deacons.  As I continue to state, I believe the agreement on this issue will either converge or diverge on acceptance of early church documents. If the documents cannot be accepted, then the argument if framed in the context of scripture, and as we have seen, divergent interpretations occur. I believe the persons arguing on both sides are genuine and thoughtful, but there is abridge we cannot cross. Even more so, there are some that would burn the bridge entirely – and that would be a great loss IMHO – although I would rather they be consistent with their belief.  But, if we come at this debate from a documented, historical church practice, then I think we enter a point where we can come together and begin the walk and discussion in initial agreement, and hopefully begin to reason together in unity. If we cannot do this, then two things will occur: (1) another Anglican stream of orthodoxy will emerge or merge with existing streams and (2) the safety net of support and accountability we enjoy as global Anglicans will diminish, leaving us no better than many other denominations facing the onslaught of relativism and heresy.  <b>The latter my friends, would be the great tragedy of the realignment that is happening.</b>

Matt+—

the principle you suggest may be pushed to the point of absurdity as well.

This is why the normative interpretation in teaching and practice of Tradition is so important. When you excise Scripture from the early Church, when you ignore the context and authority of apostolic and patristic practice, when you reject the witness of Tradition—the continuinity in teaching and practice of the apostles and their disciples—and decide that Scripture can mean whatever you can contort it to mean, despite arguments to the contrary and despite the teaching and practice of the early Church (and we have both arguments against your position on WO *and* express teaching against it from the early Church which supports the anti-WO interpretation of the relevant Scriptural texts) then you have opened the floodgates to all sorts of changes—have endorsed, in fact, the very methodology by which the LGBT-advocates make their case.

This is why I"ve outlined the parallels between your pro-WO arguments and their pro-SSB arguments: in both cases, having divorced Scripture from Tradition and ignored the witness of apostolic & patristic teaching and practice, the only difference between you and them is that *you* say “WO is okay but SSB is not” and *they* say “WO and SSB are both okay”—and only authorities either of you can appeal to is your individual interpretations (or rejections) of particular passages.

I’ll take the authority of the apostles and their disciples, take the teaching and interpretation of Scripture by the early Church (some of which documents were written when the preaching of the apostles & their diciples themselves was in living memory) over both you and them any day of the week.

.

As to the discussion about WO, I think others have raised some salient points which I won’t bother rehashing:

* The place of the O.T. in the discussion
* The fact that in 1 Cor 14 Paul enjoins “silence” even on women who are under the “headship” of a husband [which argues against your imported category of ‘female junior cleric’]
* Your rejection of Tradition (both patristic and Anglican) as an un-Anglican approach to Scripture.

.

I do still await a fuller articulation of how your methodology & hermenutic differs from the LGBT-camp’s pro-SSB methodology, something more expository than your mere dismissal that they differ “in just about every way”.

There you appealed merely to your interpretation of Scripture as WO-okay SSB-forbidden, without giving any reason or methodological justification—now that you’ve jettisoned the authority of Tradition—for why *your* reading of these Scriptures should be privileged and the anglocatholic/Orthodox/Roman Catholic reading (i.e. the reading of the pastristic Church and of Christianity for nearly the entirety of its existence) on the one hand, and the LGBT reading on the other should be rejected.

pax,
LP

Sorry the end of my post got cut off somehow… what Imeant to say was

If we cannot do this, then two things will occur: (1) another Anglican stream of orthodoxy will emerge or merge with existing streams and (2) the safety net of support and accountability we enjoy as global Anglicans will diminish, leaving us no better than many other denominations facing the onslaught of relativism and heresy.  The latter my friends, would be the great tragedy of the realignment that is happening.

On Deaconesses

As a lay person, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that historical church documents prior to the 4th century do not support the priestly ordination of women. However, there is support for ordination in the role of a deaconess, as well as specific ministry or Ministry.

You’re not out on a limb at all there—you’re still on the trunk.

No Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or anglocatholic either denies the existence of deaconesses nor thinks they are a bad or inppropriate thing. For the very reason you cite—they are adumbrated in Scripture and clearly present and approved in the Tradition of the early Church.

However, even there, the order of deaconesses is expressly a _lay_ ministry and subject to the “clerical” orders of deacon, priest and bishop.

For example, Affirmation of St. Louis - the position statement of those Episcopalians who left PECUSA because of the theological errors of the ‘79 BCP (and the mindset behind it) and the illegal and uncatholic ordination of women - expressly recognizes and commends this lay order.

Another thread on this site, here, deals with this topic at some length, and cites the various patristic documents which describe the order of deaconesses - including a clear statement of their _lay_ rather than _clerical_ nature.

pax,
LP

Festivus,

What you just write about deaconesses just is not the case, historically.  Canon 19 of Nicaea is clear and explicit in numbering deaconesses among the laity, not among the ordained.  Martimort (whose book I have mentioned above) subjects the Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions—as well as the rites for making a deaconess (as compared with those for ordaining a deacon) in the Syriac tradition—to detailed analysis in his book and concludes that there is no basis whatsoever for your claim that that “the ordination of the woman deaconess occurred as any other ordination to major orders ...”  In fact, where deaconesses played the most diverse roles, in Mesopotamia, it is clear from the ordination rites that deaconesses were not “female deacons” nor in any Orders (“major” or minor”), whereas in Byzantium, where the rite for making a deaconess was closely assimilated to that for ordaining a deacon (such that a case could be made, especially if one were to overlook the key differences between the two rites, that deaconesses were female deacons), deaconesses had no liturgical functions whatsoever and had none of that “access to the altar” that marked off those in Orders from those who weren’t.

*Deaconesses: An Historical Study* by Aime-Georges Martimort.  San Francisco, 1986, 1996: Ignatius Press. (Originally published in French in 1982 by Edizione Liturgische, Rome, Italy.)

is it possible that the instruction “husband of one wife” implies the converse “wife of one husband”?

Grammatically and lexigraphically, it simply isn’t possible. You could try to aruge - as Matt+ does - that while this passage is clearly about men it doesn’t, therefore, forbid WO. But you can’t argue that the passage itself is gender-neutral or gender-indifferent.

The Greek for “husband of one wife” is quite explicit—it says, litterally “of one woman/wife the man/husband”, giving gender-specific words for both “woman/wife” and “man/husband”.

Furthermore, in (for example) 1 Tim 3, the character of the wife is discussed separately in v. 11 (just as the children are in v. 4) - and thus explicitly textually separated from the discussions of “deacon” and “bishop”—in fact, right after describing the character of the wife, 1 Tim 3 goes on to say the deacon should be the “husband of one wife”, further emphasizing the fact that, in the case of the clergy, we are talking specifically about men:

Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

.

As an aside, while some have argued that “husband of one wife” means not a polygamist (an interpretation which Chrysostom shared—though, quite unusually for him, he actually admits that it’s a minority opinion and that others hold a different view), the consensus of surviving patristic commentary (in both theology and law, both East and West) on the passage is that it means that a cleric should only ever have had one sacramental marriage… i.e. hasn’t remarried after a former wife has died. I believe the Orthodox still have this requirement for clergy (and the Romans, of course, avoid the issue entirely with unmarried clergy). But that’s another discussion.

pax,
LP

Ok, folks… shutting this one down. Please pick it up with gusto over here.