Women’s Ordination: Open Thread II

Taking this opportunity to correct typos from previous post…

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 merely 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.

Addend: I’ll have to do more reading, as the other thread closed with a reference to Matt+ agreeing that I Tim 2, etc. is not gender neutral, but saying for some other reason it didn’t matter (!). I’ll try to find that reason and comment.

Since the last thread started off with Matt+‘s explanation of 6 “categories” and his defense of category 4 as (in his book) the “right answer”, I’d like to repost, here, my challenge to him, asking him to clarifiy the rational behind category #4.

I’ve updated these questions suitably to take into account the discussion since that initial query.

—————-

(1) Given - as you have agreed - that WO is not explicitly approved by Scripture (though not, as you argue, unequivocally considered and rejected as such) nor even conceived by it (all discussions of the “clerical” orders simply and explicitly assuming male ordinands), given that -as you have agreed - there is no evidence that WW was practiced by the apostolic or sub-apostolic Church, given—as you have agreed—that WO is _explicitly_ rejected by the early Church, given that WO has not been the practice of the Church for nearly 2000 years and is still, in accord with patristic teaching, rejected by the majority of Christians worldwide (Roman, Orthodox, and many Protestants), what grounds/basis/consideration do you have to justify such a fundamental change in Christian teaching and practice?

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

Is your _only_ justification “well, it’s not expressly and explictly forbidden by Scripture considered apart from Tradition, therefore it’s okay” or do you have something more substantive to offer?

.

(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?

If you appeal to your interpretation of Scripture (“WO is not forbidden; SSB is”), on what basis—given that you’ve jettisoned Tradition and the teaching & practice of the early Church as normative guides to Scriptural interpretation—should _your_ interpretation of Scripture be given authority while the traditional/patristic/catholic interpretation (anti-WO and anti-SSB), on the other hand, and the LBGT interpretation (pro-WO and pro-SSB), on the gripping hand, be rejected?

Again, is your defense here only “My interpretation is right; yours is wrong”, or do you have an objective hermenutical or methodological standard which would prohibit the LBGT folks from replying, with equal validity, “No, *our* interpretation is right and *yours* is wrong!”

.

pax,
LP

William Tighe wrote:

Martimort 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 ...”

Haven’t read his book, can’t comment.  However, orthodox professor Professor Evangelos Theodorou of the University of Athens in his book ‘The Ordination or Appointment of Deaconesses’ draws a different conclusion.
And….

Canon 19 of Nicaea is clear and explicit in numbering deaconesses among the laity, not among the ordained.

Yes, I agree it does. But the two references I mentioned preceed the Nicaea canons. Before we can move forward in time, I believe we have to start at the earlier or earliest references.  To quote the Apostolic Constitutions (Book VIII):

Concerning the Deaconess—The Constitution of Bartholomew.
XIX . Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this constitution: O bishop, you shall lay your hands upon her in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deacon*esses, and shall say:—
The Form of Prayer for the Ordination of a Deacon*ess.
XX . O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who replenished with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who did not disdain that Your only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, ordained women to be keepers of Your holy gates,—do Thou now also look down upon this Your servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deacon*ess, and grant her Your Holy Spirit, and “cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,” (2 Corinthians 7:1) that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to Your glory, and the praise of Your Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to You and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.

Compare that to the ordination of a man:

Concerning the Ordination of Deacons—The Constitution of Philip.
XVII . Concerning the ordination of deacons, I Philip make this constitution: You shall ordain a deacon, O bishop, by laying your hands upon him in the presence of the whole presbytery, and of the deacons, and shall pray, and say:—
The Form of Prayer for the Ordination of a Deacon.
XVIII . O God Almighty, the true and faithful God, who art rich unto all that call upon You in truth, who art fearful in counsels, and wise in understanding, who art powerful and great, hear our prayer, O Lord, and let Your ears receive our supplication, and “cause the light of Your countenance to shine upon this Your servant,” who is to be ordained for You to the office of a deacon; and replenish him with Your Holy Spirit, and with power, as You replenished Stephen, who was Your martyr, and follower of the sufferings of Your Christ. Do Thou render him worthy to discharge acceptably the ministration of a deacon, steadily, unblameably, and without reproof, that thereby he may attain an higher degree, through the mediation of Your only begotten Son, with whom glory, honour, and worship be to You and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.

Now, maybe the discussion should be the role of each and is it ministry or Ministry, and is it historically supported? But I’m just a lay person trying to figure this out…

And why I am thinking about it, following the First Council of Nicea, you have to look at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, the Council of Trullo, The Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea, the Synod of Orange, and the Synod of Epaon to gain a holisitc (if I can use that term) of the role of deaconesses.

LP,

Given that you have admitted that scripture does not forbid WO within the limits of male headship the question is rather, by what authority do you impose limits on the Anglican Communion?

Much of your reply assumes that the Church is the primary interpreter of hte scriptures. I do not agree wiht this assumption, and no reform minded Christian can agree with that assumption. The scriptures interpret the scriptures. It is not “my” interpretation verses “your” interpretation or anyone esles interpretation. The scriptures communicate intelligibly in their own right in accordance with the intention of the authors.  The Church is certainly a help and an aid and she certainly has the authority to serve as the final arbiter in matters of discipline etc…, but she is not the interpreter first interpreter. Scripture is.

Thus, when you say “that’s your interpretation” as if it is some sort of damning statement, it really means very little. Of course that is my interpretation. Yes, indeed! And you have yours and others have theirs and Rome has hers and Geneva and the Pentecostals and Constantinople. The question though is whether my interpretation stands up to the evidence of the text itself.

I demonstrated, conclusively, that the there is no need to import external evidence into this argument but that I can argue from scripture alone that there is no NT impediment to women in orders. I have shown this in two consecutive posts.

And, moreover, I demonstrated how the same is an impossiblity for those who hold to a revisionist line on homosexual behavior. As opposed to the NT passages regarding a woman’s role in the Church, there is nothing remotely qualifying in the scriptures to modify or limit the scope of the passages that condemn homosexual sex. Nothing.

Your response, “Well, that’s your opinion” is not so much a response but a statement. And I agree. Yes it is. Now show me how I am wrong. You can cite 2000 years of tradition until you are blue in the face, but as Luther said at Worms (and I know well that I am not Luther, I’m just paraphrasing his words to express the principle in question) unless it can be proven from the Holy Scriptures that this cannot be done then the impediment you suggest is essentially groundless.

If the Anglican Communion comes to it, agrees that WO is wrong, I will certainly submit because it is (unlike Sola Fide) a non-essential issue. But she has not done so.

So, I will continue to argue that the scriptures do not forbid WO in a limited capacity and thank the Lord that I am not relying on my own argument alone (although you have yet to show how it is incorrect) but on that of Anglicans and orthodox Christians far brighter.

Going back for a moment to your discussion of tradition. Because we do not understand tradition to be infallibly true, the Church in every age must be willing to check her traditionas and to test them, all of them, in light of what the scriptures teach. This is essentially what Hooker argued in EP. This is essential to Sola Fide and it is affirmed in the Articles. The Church must be able to reconsider traditions that do not rest on biblical injunctions and principles.

She is in the process of doing so with Women’s Ordination. Therefore, while it is not strictly true that I am forwarding my own opinions…there is good deal of evangelical support for WO in the Anglican Communion…even if I were, that would not necessarily make them wrong. Scripture will be the judge. Show me now, from the scriptures where I am wrong.

Hesitant to chime in… And no, I haven’t read all of the previous thread, so I beg your forgiveness if I am repeating a point already made.

I have immense respect for the writings of Paul the Apostle. I believe he says precisely what he means to say, no more and no less. He uses ambiguity when called for, and plain speaking when called for. My point is from 1 Timothy 2:12:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve (NIV).

Paul’s argument stems from his reliance on natural law, and he is correct, of course. But I notice that Paul does not say, “God
does not permit a woman to teach…” Paul does not say this and would not say this because he knows it to be incorrect. He knows it to be incorrect because of the instances in Scripture (OT) when God specifically empowers women to teach; and to teach not only men, but the entire nation of God’s chosen people.

I refer you as an instance to Judges 4:9, when Deborah tells Barak, “because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the LORD will hand Sisera over to a woman.” Barak had the opportunity to remove the shame on Israel for its being led by a woman, and he declined to step forward to lead. Because of this, shame rather than honor would be conferred on Barak.

Natural law beginning with Adam appoints male leadership. However, we live in a fallen world. Adam deferred to his wife in the matter of eating the fruit, and compromised his leadership. Barak refused to lead an army unless accompanied by Deborah. And men of the world today are failing to step forward into their rightful positions of leadership in the Church, giving place to women.

If there is not a man to lead or teach, God will appoint a woman. Any man who points a finger at a woman priest for usurping the place of a man should look instead at the other three fingers pointing at himself, and at his fellow men. Women have been genuinely called into leadership of Christ’s Church, and the place to correct that is in development of masculine leadership, not roadblocks in the path of those genuinely called to lead.

For context, I should explain my view of the (quite unbiblical) Christian order of ordained priests (as opposed to the priesthood of all believers): I view the order of ordained priests as a creation of the Church, established to maintain order in Christian worship (especially in the Eucharist) and to assist the bishops (overseers) in governing the churches. It is within the Christ-given authority of the Church to establish an order of priests, and to determine who may or may not be a priest, whether male or female.

If women priests disturb you, start training more men to step forward!

Haven’t read his book, can’t comment.

You should. It addresses your questions.

Since you’re citing the Apostolic Constitutions to support your argument, you should read through it and recognize that it *explicitly* states that the order of deaconesses is *not clerical* (just as Nicaea does) and is subordinate—not equal—to that of deacons:

A deacon does not bless, does not give the blessing, but receives it from the bishop and presbyter: he does not baptize, he does not offer; but when a bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes to the people, not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests. But it is not lawful for any one of the other clergy to do the work of a deacon.  A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency.

So the very source you cite to defend your pro-WO thesis actually disproves it.

Again, I point you to the earlier thread on this site, here, if you want an informal/bloggish introduction to the subject before actually reading monographs.

.

One thing to recognize is that not all “laying on of hands” equals “clerical ordination”. Even today, a bishop will “lay on hands” during confirmation, but this doesn’t make the confirmand a priest.

The question is not merely one of the particular ceremony used, but, more fundamentally, of the nature of the ministry for which the individual is being set apart. As Dr. Tighe already pointed out, the similarity of the two ceremonies in this Eastern rite does not detract from the fat that the Church’s <u>understanding of those two ministries</u> (as exemplified by the quote I gave above) was that they differed significantly.

.

I do suggest, in all events, that rather than saying “so and so says that…”, you go back and evaluate their arguments and sources and base your argument on those authorities in Tradition, not the say-so of a modern interpreter.

.

pax,
LP

One more comment and I’ll refrain for a while. There is a reason why I mentioned the above and the historical underpinnings for this debate. I’m sure one of you theologians will pick up on it.

offline again for work

Given that you have admitted that scripture does not forbid WO within the limits of male headship.

On the contrary, I have repeatedly said that that category - “junior female cleric to a senior male cleric” - is a category not found in Scripture, but one which you have imported to resolve a perceived conflict between 1 Cor 11 & 1 Cor 14—a conflict, moreover, which doesn’t _require_ such a category, since (as you yourself have admitted) no passage in Scripture *advocates* WO and, thus, no passage *conflicts* with the anti-WO implications of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 (or the anti-WO assumptions of 1 Tim 3 & Titus 3 and other passages)... and so there’s no _need_ to introduce this artificial category.

All I have said is that Scripture does not _unequivocally and explicitly_ say “women shall not be ordained”. It says so, I believe, implicitly - and quite clearly says so implicitly - and, moreover, this implication was clearly the received teaching and practice of the early Church. Just as Scripture does not _unequivocally and explicitly_, but only implicitly, say that one should baptize in water, not in mud or oatmeal or ashes—but that baptism in water was clearly the received teaching and practice of the early Church and thus is the norm we are to follow.

As far as Scripture goes, then, I think that, considered “in a vacuum”, letting Scripture interpret the Scriptures, then the most reasonable interpretation is anti-WO, and considered in the light of Tradition, that the *only* orthodox interpretation is anti-WO.

.

I demonstrated, conclusively, that the there is no need to import external evidence into this argument

I disagree; and your statement that you have “demonstrated conclusively” doesn’t make your inadequate (IMO) arguments any stronger.

I think you have neither demonstrated it, nor done so conslusively. I have stated, repeatedly - and others have agreed - that you have imported a non-Scriptural category “junior female cleric under a male senior” into the text—a category which is not only alien but also unnecessary as, even on your own admission, 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18 do not refer to women taking _clerical_ roles.

Moreover, as another poster has observed, Paul actually invokes headship in these very discussions - a woman under the ‘headship’ of her husband -and still said she should be “silent”. So not only is your imported category alien, it actually is contrary to the assumptions and outlook of the text, where “being under headship” makes no difference to Paul’s adjudication.

.

You have imported into your interpretation of Scripture a concept which is not there—ordained women—and a category/disctinction which is not there—“junior cleric under a senior male”—just as surely as the pro-SSB lobby has imported a concept (“naturally homosexual”) and a category/distinction (“heterosexuals vs. homosexuals engaging in homosexual activity”) which are not there.

Accordingly, even by your own measure of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” - divorced from the teaching and practice of apostolic Tradition - I believe your interpretation fails.

.

You argue that WO is also okay because, regardless of what Tradition says, the Church can re-evaluate—and, anyway, that individuals have no requirement to obey Tradition, or even their own Church, but can make up their own mind about what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says, according to their own personal understanding of that interpretation.

Well, guess what, that’s exactly what the LGBT folks are doing, and exactly the argument they make.

They say that Tradition has no authority, that it is dated and should be reevaluated and rejected; they say that their individual interpretations of what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” has to say leads them to believe that SSBs are okay; they say - explicitly - that their church is entering upon a period of discernment about SSBs and hasn’t made it’s mind up yet. (In fact, even the ABC has said this, he merely advocates a more gradual implementation.)

So given that you accept the arguments you make to support WO—Tradition forbidding it can be ignored; some individuals interpretation of “Scripture in a vacuum” supports it as a possibility; the church is engaged in “testing” and “discerning” whether this novelty can be embraced—you have no reason to object when the LGBT lobby makes EXACTLY the same arguments to support SSB and when your own church has formally and officially entered into a “period of discernment and reception” about the issue.

.

Again, I don’t see that you’ve given any reason why your own approach and hermenutic permits approving the innovation of WO but rejecting the innovation of SSB—no reason other than *your* personal interpretation of Scripture… as opposed not just to that of Tradition and the majority of Christians in time and space but _also_ opposed to the <u>official position of the Episcopal church</u>, of which you are a member and official.

.

pax,
LP

“However, Orthodox professor Professor Evangelos Theodorou of the University of Athens in his book ‘The Ordination or Appointment of Deaconesses’ draws a different conclusion.”

Yes, he does; but he is very much in the minority among the Orthodox in doing so; and his “argument” ignores the evidence form Syriac and (later) Western sources—and he does not deal well at all with the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.  Martimort is in every respect his superior in his handling of historical and liturgical evidence.

Matt+ and all,
I don’t concede that Scripture is debilitatingly ambiguous on WO or HO, I believe it is sufficiently clear that Scripture is against both. And while I do concede that there are some paths to arrive at WO that are not ultimately contradictary in a casuistic/Jesuetical approach, those paths are not okay. Even though we (most) all find fault with the Regulative Principle, the opposite is faulty too: Scripture interpretation that is free from raw, necessary logical contradiction is not enough! If that were indeed the baseline, the floodgates of immorality would open and wreak havoc. Instead, I’m with Hooker: Scripture is the only absolute authority, but it is not properly understood without the lesser authorities of Tradition and Reason. We must be appropriately submissive toward each: Bond-servants to Scripture, deeply humble to Tradition and Reason.

There is no path to arrive at WO that is sufficiently submissive to God’s revelation in Scripture, there is no such path that is humble toward Tradition, and none IMNSHO that does not strain Reason.

Now, I’m obviously only arguing for first principles here, not how anyone is or is not measuring up to them. I am a bit alarmed, though, that Matt+ used the phraseology: “unless it can be proven from the Holy Scriptures that this cannot be done then the impediment you suggest is essentially groundless.” That doesn’t sound like it’s in accord with Hooker. For example, the doctrine of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit does not pass such a test. The bar is not to be set at “what can be proven from Scripture that cannot be done.” Rather, it should be set at what can be shown from Scripture that should not be done, or is against God’s design, or even, “is unwise,” and ultimately, “is not humble or loving.” Tradition and Reason inform us powerfully here.

Just as we remake God into our own image when we go against Scripture, so we make Tradition into our own Experience (and vice versa) when we go against Tradition’s clear witness.

Matt+, I think you’ve thrown down the gauntlet to prove you wrong according to a certain philosophical outlook: All is permitted unless prohibited in absolute terms by Scriptural syntax and is completely ambiguity-proof in essence. Perhaps that’s overboard, but not by much. I think that philosophical commitment is faulty, and you may well easily convince yourself to be against WO in the particulars, once your philosophical approach to Scripture and Tradition is modified.

Can I ask a dumb question?  Well, I will anyway?
Didn’t Jesus enjoin his apostles to be servants and to eschew any hierarchical distinctions (i.e., who would be the greatest? who would sit at his right hand?)  If that is so, why is there a question about ordained women clergy not having “authority”?  The apostles and those who claim to wield such “authority” by means of hands in apostolic succession having been laid upon them are all supposed to be servants of the faithful, not their superiors, betters, governors or rulers.  What “authority” over me does a priest (male or female) claim to exercise?  I reocognize none except their Godly counsel and that is not an authority related to their gender, but rather to their faithfulness.

LP,

I think this is the first time so far that you have mischaracterized my argument.

No where have I said that obedience to the church is unnecessary.
I said the Church is not obligated to be obedient to tradition when Tradition is not base on scriptural proscriptions and, yes, that is per Hooker.

As for how many on this thread agree with you and how many agree with me…well that is certainly an inexact way of determining the soundness of an argument not to mention a dubious way of measuring actual support as readers are far more numerous than commenters.

As for whether I have imported something into the text. You continue to assert that I have done this but fail, now multiple times, to demonstrate that this is true.

The cornerstone of your failure is perhaps your misunderstanding of my argument. I am not importing the concept of “ordained woman” into the text. The concept of “ordained woman” is not there and I have NEVER claimed that it is. How I can import a concept into the text when I never suggest that it lies there is beyond me.

To say that the scriptures do not forbid the use of electricity is not, for example, to import the concept of electricity into the text. It is simply to test the concept of “electricity” in light of what the bible teaches.

The same is true for WO. To say that the scriptures do not forbid WO in no way imports anything into them. I am simply testing this concept in light of what the scriptures do say and arguing that it is not forbidden.

The way I argue this is to show that the two now ever so familiar texts generally employed to oppose it, do not in fact suffice for that purpose. Women clearly prophesied, out loud, in the early church in a mixe body under the headship of men. And there were occassions when women under the headship of a man taught men. Thus 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2:11 cannot be used as absolute proscriptions to these tasks.

The question then becomes what is the scope of the proscription and could limited WO fall beyond that scope? No need to import anything into the text

Revisionists however cannot do this because there are no “1 Cor 11’s or Acts 18’s” for them to turn to. There is no mitigating passage to qualify the absolute proscription of homosexual behavior. You have yet to answer this argument.

Just, as you say, my saying I have demonstrated this or that to be true does not make it so, so your saying that you have demonstrate this or demonstrated that does not make it so. You have merely asserted a similarility between two arguments and I have argued that your assertion is baseless. In response you have made the assertion again but more forcefully.

Moreover, again, underlying our argument, is an argument with regard to the use of the regulative principle. Is the Churhc bound by scriptural precedent or is she free to act in so far as she does not violate a proscriptive principle. I say she is free, you say she is not.

Just a note here:

Listen, PLEASE to re-posts posts from the other thread.  I think that’s why Greg gave us directions for the link on the former thread.  This is already a long set of posts and it’s hard enough to keep up without having to re-read AGAIN what’s already been written.  Most of us are literate and have already read what what you posted before, please, like announcements - don’t repeat what has already been written.

In addition:

LP:

No, you have failed to make a decent comparison between what Matt believes regarding WO and SSM.  Since this is obvious, please quit trying to state that you have.  It might be easy - but it is not correct - nor saying it is correct 500 times will make it so.  So, please try a different tack for the sake of those of us reading the thread.

Re:  Deacons

Since this is Biblically dictated, I do not see why there can’t be women deacons.  Even evangelical denominations realize this - so, trying to say ‘only in lay positions’ is a thin premise - if nonexistent.  There was no distinction in Scripture between the two.

Well Eclipse, I for one think LP has been making his point(s) quite nicely. You might try going back and reading previous posts about the female deacon issue.

Another analogy: One of my kids asks for an ice cream sandwich at supper and I shake my head and tell him “I don’t think so.” If he doesn’t like that answer and up and gets it for himself right away anyways, that’s wrong. If he waits a bit and then gets one, after thinking, “Dad only meant “no” during salad; we’re close to dessert.” That’s still wrong. If he gets one after pondering, “I don’t think so” is logically only an opinion, not a command; that’s still wrong. Even if he waits until his plate is cleared and we’re having dessert, thinking to himself all his prior justifications and one more to boot: “it would be unnatural to deny my ice cream jones,” and then gets one without asking to be excused or checking with what Mom had planned for dessert; that still would be wrong in our house. “I don’t think so” is enough of a prohibition, even with its slight syntactical ambiguity, and even when the context changes. My children are responsible to submit, not only to the syntax of my words (cf. neo-protestant “sola scriptura”), but to our traditions of humility and respect (cf. Hooker’s Scripture-first, with Tradition & Reason).

There is nothing wrong with an ice cream sandwich; and “meta-comparably” (a comparison that goes far into an entirely different realm than that of insulting comparison), there certainly is nothing wrong with the mature desire and calling to serve the church in significant ways as a woman, or man. In all things, we just need to submit, not strictly to syntax, but personally, with submission to the God of Scriptural Syntax, who is also the God of Holy Tradition. The “Three-legged stool” is not ultimately describing three different authorities, but three different vehicles of our One authority. That is, allowing Tradition to have authority, is just letting God have authority through Tradition.

Deaconesses

Since this is Biblically dictated, I do not see why there can’t be women deacons.

No, “women deacones” are not Biblically dictated. “Deaconesses” are. These are a *lay* order, not a clerical one—as early Church teaching and practice makes explicit.

As someon who believes WO is contrary to both Scripture and Tradition, I have _no_ trouble with the lay order of deaconesses—indeed, I wish _more_ was made of it, because I think much of the heart of the disagreements over WO is the failure of the modern Church (and not just the Anglican one) to properly value and promote _lay_ ministry.

As I’ve just had occasion to exchange a PM on this topic, I’ll c/p my reply to that message here:

===quote===
Can you show me where you referenced the limited role? I believe that the Didascalia Apostolorum defines the role of a deaconess in much broader terms than you give credit and also makes it clear that it is a role conferred by ordination.
===quote===

There’s a long thread on this site concerning deaconesses here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1939

You can find a compendium of quotations from the Didscalia Apostolorum relevant to deaconesess here:
http://www.piney.com/ChDeaconessDida.html
and the full text of the Apostolic Constitutions here:
http://www.piney-2.com/DocAposConstitu.html

The passage I cited from the A.C.—“A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency”—is from Book VIII, sec. 3, ch. 28… just a few sentences beyond the passage which you quoted (about the laying on of hands) which is found in Book VIII, sec 3, ch. 19.

.

Again, remember that the “laying on of hands”, even the term “ordination” (which is, often, merely the english translation of cheiro-machia—i.e. laying on of hands—I don’t have an original-language text of the A.C. to hand so I can’t check what’s used in VIII.3.19), doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual is being _ordained_ in the modern, clerical sense of the term. Just as “laying on of hands” in confirmation is not, therefore, ordination to a clerical office.

What you’re reading is being translated out of both another language and another culture. Before you rush to the conclusion “oh, it’s laying on of hands therefore it’s clerical ordination” you have to make sure that that is what is _meant_ by the text.

Since the *very same document* explicitly says—and says, in fact, within just a few sentences of this passage—that deaconesses are *laity* and *subordinate* (not equal) to the order of *deacons*, it’s clear that, whatever the particulars of the ceremony described in VIII.3.19, it is definitely _not_ an “ordination” in the “clerical” sense of the word, nor is it creating a “female version” of a “male deacon”, otherwise identical in function, authority and office, as is made quite clear from VIII.3.28 of the very same text.

pax,
LP

Matt+, I just posted and have now read your latest, and believe I’ve been listening more to LP’s characterization of your stance than yours. I apologize for simplifying your stance too much. Nevertheless, I think my general point remains. My current understanding is that your own view of revealed authority is sympathetic to Hooker, but still is a bit less weighty toward Tradition. Please inform the thread if I’m still wrong on this.

No, you have failed to make a decent comparison between what Matt believes regarding WO and SSM.  Since this is obvious, please quit trying to state that you have.

Given that others think it _is_ a decent comparison, it’s hardly “obvious.”

I’ve provided a parallel and explained why I think it is justified. Matt+ has disagreed with the validity of the parallel, and provided reasons he think the parallel doesn’t apply.

That’s how argument works.

Your trumpeting of your own opinion - without reason, argument or example to back it up - and your demanding that I cease to explain my own position is not argument or discussion, it is merely an attempt at suppression—very much as the pro-SSB have attempted to muzzle and suppres the voices of traditionalists in PECUSA. It does nothing to further discussion or understanding.

I suggest that you either follow Matt+‘s civil lead, and provide reasoning or examples to support your disagreement with mine, or that you refrain from comment and allow those who share your views but are actually willing to _discuss_ and _defend_ them continue the conversation. That’ll be more productive and civil all around.

pax,
LP

I looked back at Matt’s original post and realized that accepting the infallibility of scripture was not one of his three hard-and-fast rules regarding this discussion.  So I trust that it is not forbidden (although it may be extremely unpopular) for me to say:  Maybe sometimes Paul contradicted himself.  And maybe sometimes he just got it wrong.  He gave one set of instructions to an established church in response to that church’s problems and concerns, and a different set of instructions to his colleagues who were out plantng new churches.  Which instruction came first?  How much time passed between one and the other?  What new challenges, triumphs and disasters had occurred in-between? 

The epistles we know are translations of copies of copies of copies of Paul’s correspondence; he was inspired by God and faithful to God, but I do not believe that he was taking God’s own dictation.  I say this, not to set myself up for a tongue-lashing, but to attempt to articulate an argument that has been absent (as far as I have seen) from the 300+ previous comments on this subject. 

Ducking for cover. . . .

LP

In short - there is a prohibition that homosexuality (hence, SSM) IS a sin in Scripture.  There is not backing to say WO is a sin in Scripture.  Therefore, stating that one is the same as the other is NOT valid comparison. 

Via Orthodoxy:

Aside from the above, I’d say he’s done a fair job - and I am inclined to side more with his position (non ordination of women pastors) than Matt’s. 

However, regarding deacons - their ministry is one of service NOT authority - therefore, there is no conflict Scripturally for a woman deacon - not to mention examples of women deacons in Scripture.  So, when the Bible is wrong, I’ll retract my position of the allowance Women Deacons in ministry.

Matt+,
“No where have I said that obedience to the church is unnecessary.
I said the Church is not obligated to be obedient to tradition when Tradition is not base on scriptural proscriptions and, yes, that is per Hooker. “
1. What do you mean when you say “Church” (with a capital C)? A General Council? The Anglican Communion? A local fellowship?
2. “Per Hooker” :: arguments pushing scripture as allowing something do not have force to change Church usage-and certainly not unevocal tradition. (EP , Book II. 9) “For although Scripture be of God, and therefore the proof which is taken from thence must needs be of all other most invincible; yet this strength it hath not, unless it avouch the selfsame thing for which it is brought. If there be either undeniable appearance that so it doth, or reason such as cannot decieve, then Scripture-proof (no doubt) in strength and proof exceedeth all. But for the most part, even such as are readiest to cite for one thing five hundred sentences of holy Scrpture; what warrant have they, that any one of them doth mean the thing for which it is alledged? Is not their surest ground most commonly, either some probable conjecture of their own, or the judgment of others taking those Scriptures as they do?” I think the very use of the “permissive” argument proves that the Scriptures do not “avouch” the Supposed Ordination of Women.
Nelson Koscheski

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.

Only in cyberspace.  In the real world nobody thinks or talks or cares about this.  Infinitely bigger disagreements exist in the areas of abortion, contraception, and divorce.  But the “revisionists” in these areas want to persuade the “orthodox” to change—not force them.  Because forcing the Catholic Church to change would be like forcing somebody to marry you or give you absolution.  It wouldn’t be real if it was forced.  Whereas the Episcopal revisionists don’t see their church as having some special charism.  It’s just an organization to them—theirs for the taking (or take overing.)

kyounge 1956 said:

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?

Hello kyounge1956,
This is a good question and one that I spoke about in my first post link
The applicable section of that post is here:

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).

You said:
<blockquote>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. </blockquote>

A women who prophesies (1 Cor 11) certainly does not need to remain silent outside of the actual Public Assembly, though according to the instructions of St. Paul to women within the passage of 1 Cor 14:27-35 (and thus given in the context of instructions on how to perform public prophesy/conduct Corporate worship) she must remain silent during the Sacred Assembly [i.e. “Silent” in the sense of not taking a “vocal lead” in the Public Assembly as noted above—thus, in the Public Assembly they might be said to prophesy but only to prophesy/speak before God rather than before the whole gathered Body. Likewise a woman may speak words of prayer (also noted in 1 Cor 11) silently before God but not before the gathered assembly—except of course in the unison prayer of the assembly (in which the woman is not taking a “vocal lead” as noted earlier)].

And this “silence” (that is, refraining from taking the “vocal lead”) is the explicit “limit” in the public worship which St. Paul sets for women in regards to all speaking, including prophetic speaking—just as “silence”/refraining from taking the “vocal lead” is the explicit “limit” in the public worship also set for men prophesying in an unknown tongue without an interpreter (as noted previously). 

There are certainly a number of examples of women prophesying to men in the Old and New Testament, just as there are examples of women teaching men (Priscilla in Acts 18)—but they never do so as ones holding spiritual authority in the Church (over men) in the Ordained [male] Offices of Bishop, Priest, or Deacon (or, in the Old Cov., in the Ordained [male] Offices of High Priest, Priest, or Levite) or as exercising spiritual authority in the Church in the context of the Public Worship (wherein, also, the spiritual authority in the Church of the Ordained Ministers over the Body is most notably exercised and realized).

And St. Paul lays out in 1 Cor 14: (27, 28) 29-32 how one is to take the “vocal lead” in prophesying within the Sacred Assembly—i.e. versus “remaining silent” in the Public Worship (immediately before forbidding women to have authority/speak in the Public Assembly). And our brother Rev. Kennedy’s interpretation of 1 Cor 11 means that St. Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 14: (27, 28)29-32 for leading the Public Assembly in prophesy must be for women as well as men.

Now, the question from my last post still remains:
link

And so I respectfully ask again whether our brother Rev. Kennedy or others would be willing to state with confidence that St. Paul’s words in1 Cor 14:(27, 28)29-32 are not only for men—but are also instructions for how a women who prophesies is to speak her prophesy in the Public Worship, while looking at the passage in context:

1 Cor 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 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 the churches of the saints. 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. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

We need to all remember that God will hold us accountable for how we interpret His Word.

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.

Nelson+,

From the prefact of Hooker’s LEP:

Some things are so familiar and plain that truth from falsehood and good from evil is most easily discerned in them, even by men of no deep capacity. And of that nature, for the most part are things absolutely unto all men’s salvation necessary, either to be held or denied, either to be done or avoided. For which cause Saint Augustine acknowledgeth that they are not only set down, but also
plainly set down in scripture, so that he which heareth or readeth may, without any great difficulty, understand. Other things also there are belonging, though in a lower degree of importance, unto the offices of Christian men, which, because they are more obscure, more intricate and hard to be judged of, therefore God hath appointed some to spend their whole time principally in the study of things divine, to the end that in these more doubtful cases their
understanding might be a light to direct others.

Okay, Matt+, and with love—Don’t you think that the argument to ordain women AS PRIESTS (other ministries are another argument) has almost no support or even allowance from Hooker “plainly writ”?
Nelson

A couple of corrections:

Blockquote error-the second quote from Kyounge is only the “paragraph” which begins with the blockquote tag-the paragraph after this is my response.

Correction of “women” to “woman”, and removal of “while looking at the passage in context”:
<i>And so I respectfully ask again whether our brother Rev. Kennedy or others would be willing to state with confidence that St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor 14:(27, 28)29-32 are not only for men—but are also instructions for how a *woman* who prophesies is to speak her prophesy in the Public Worship:

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.

+Matt,

First, I commend you for trying to deal with the Elephant in the Living Room.  Obviously, it’s not going away for quite some time.  But, we do need to deal with them in some fashion or another.  Moreover, I commend you for your creative use of your authority (blogging authority), such that the discussion has not degenerated. 

I’m nowhere near your level of expertise, but something has been bothering me about your argument:

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.

The thing that strikes me about the 1 Tim 2:11 passage is that Paul is making a Redemptive-Historical argument (IMHO) - he’s providing a basis for ordaining men but not women, then following up in chapter 3 with how that is to be applied.  Contextually, Paul’s basis applies to church offices. 

1 Cor 14 strikes me as an application to worship amongst the Covenant Community - it’s more general.  But I see the pattern as the same:  Men teach.  Women are under the authority of their husbands.  The same pattern that Paul points to at the end of 1 Tim 2. 

Regarding Priscilla and Aquilla - I don’t see this as a problem.  I assume that Priscilla isn’t ordained;  and the fact that her teaching ministry is mentioned in the context of her husband teaching with her, seems to be perfectly consistent with male headship.  Frankly, she sounds like a typical pastor’s wife, who is the Sunday School superintendant, and runs half a dozen ministries, on a gratis basis (...if that). 

I guess I’m having difficulty with the idea that a text like 1 Tim 2 is played against the 1 Cor 14 text, and the Acts text;  since the last two aren’t applied to the offices.  Am I seeing apples and oranges, when there are apples and apples? 

As you probably know by now, I’m partial to Redemptive-Historical hermenuetics in addition to Systematics (BTW - I raise eyebrows when I tell other evangelicals that they can find Christ in the book of Proverbs!    ).  It’s my opinion that Paul is indeed interpreting Scripture with Scripture here, but not with Systematics.

William,

If in the end, God judges us “for how we interpret His word”, then we are all doomed.  This puts us back under the Old Covenant, the purpose of which was to demonstrate that none can measure up and what we think is “righteousness,” is in fact, not. 

In the end, and as we confess in the liturgy, our salvation is completely dependent upon the grace of God as demonstrated in the incarnation and resurrection.  Thanks be to God! 

If in Heaven, we find ourselves discussing the appropriateness of the ordination of women, I rather suspect we will discover that we are not in Heaven.

Hello KJthurible,

I belive that Salvation is a purely gracious work as you do. This does not, however, give us freedom to be Antinomian (in life or doctrine). I am not accusing anyone here of being Antinomian in life or doctrine but I do want everyone (myself included) to remember that how we interprete God’s Word is not a light matter in the Lord’s Eyes.

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.

Moot said:
“BTW - I raise eyebrows when I tell other evangelicals that they can find Christ in the book of Proverbs!”

The evangelicals which you spoke to must be particularly far removed from the Historic Christian faith if they cannot find Christ in the Book of Proverbs.

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,

The evangelicals which you spoke to must be particularly far removed from the Historic Christian faith if they cannot find Christ in the Book of Proverbs.

We have to look at these sorts of problems redemptively, though.  The eyebrow-raisers are conservatives who have sat under bad preaching for so long, that they are suspicious of ANY sort of preaching that “sounds hooky.”  And well, finding Christ in the book of Proverbs does, sound hooky. 

It’ll come out in the wash.
...Everything does ! 

(2) Importing concepts and distinctions.

Secondly, I think your way of creating a pro-WO “space” within these texts actually fails to live up to your own methodology of “The scriptures communicate intelligibly in their own right in accordance with the intention of the authors.”

The _intention_ of the authors was never the ordination of women. You’ve said so yourself—that Scripture nowhere approves of WO, nor do its authors conceive of it. (Thus Paul in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 always talking of male bishops and deacons.)

Thus your interpretation of Scripture is, in fact, _importing_ the notion of ordained women which is alien to the authorial intent.

Now, you can argue that this is an acceptable move—that it is a reasonable interpolation or progression or discernment or whatever—but you cannot coherently, I don’t think, say that Paul’s *intention* in 1 Cor 14 was “women shouldn’t teach or take a clerical leadershp role unless they’re under a more senior male cleric” when not only does he _not_ say this, he doesn’t even consider the possibility that women might be ordained.

Your pro-subordinate-WO interpretation—while it may be argued to be not explicitly forbidden by Scripture—is certainly not “in [its]own right in accordance with the intention of the authors” in the way you claim as a norm for your hermenutic.

.

The cornerstone of your failure is perhaps your misunderstanding of my argument. I am not importing the concept of “ordained woman” into the text.

No, I’m saying you’re importing the concept of “junior cleric” into the text.

Your whole argument hinges on coming up with a “contradiction” between 1 Cor 14 & 1 Tim 2 (women are “not to have authority over men” and are to “keep silent in church”) and 1 Cor 11 & Acts 18 (women “prophesying” in church, women teaching _privately_).

Insofar as 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 address “clerical” functions, there is no conflict - you’ve already said that none of the examples of female activity in the churches is “clerical” or “ordained.” There’s no need for a “junior cleric” concept here to resolve an ambiguity.

Acts 18, I maintain (for both structural and linguistic reasons of Scripture itself, already provided) says nothing relevant about female teaching/leadership in public, as the passage clearly describes private catechesis—indeed, it is best read alongside the passages about women asking their husbands at home (where clearly inquiry and teaching is appropriate) rather than as some sort of “disproof” of the passages about public roles and behavior. Again, no implication of nor need for the “junior cleric” notion.

And, further, 1 Cor 11 - as others have pointed out—when read with ch. 14 also fails to provide the kind of “contradiction” which would required “modifying” the anti-WO implications of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2—especially as “prophesy”, as described here, is not the same as “teaching” nor, for that matter, has to be done out loud.

Finally, both these “anti-WO” passages allude to “headship” - and they do so not to argue (as you do) that women may disobey these proscriptions provide that they’re “under headship” when they do so, but rather gives their proscriptions <u>even in the context</u> of headship.

Thus I see no contradiction in these texts which requires creating the category of “junior cleric under the headship of a senior cleric” to resolve, nor do I see that concept even implicit in any of these passages. This is why I’ve described this category as “imported” for your project of generating a pro-WO interpretation.

.

Now, I’m not saying that importing this new category is, per se, wrong. As you point out, there are plenty of “categories” and “concepts” which aren’t in Scripture which we can genuinely “import” to examine. Heck, you’re importing the category/concept of women’s ordination itself—one you’ve agreed is neither in Scripture nor in apostolic practice.

Now, because I think Tradition has a normative interpretive authority when Scripture is ambiguous, and because Tradition has expressly rejected WO - and has instructed us that the anti-WO interpretations as what divinely-inspired Scripture _actually_ means—I believe that your interpretation is wrong. However, I recognize that you reject this normative authority of Tradition and so that this point is irrelevant to your analysis.

This is, in fact, where my question (1) comes from. Given that WO is not *in* Scripture, nor is *conceived* by Scripture, and given that it is explicitly rejected by Christian Tradition and practice (though admittedly this is not binding for you), _what_ is it which impells you to introduce and accept the innovation?

I’m not saying, in this question, “prove it’s okay according to Scripture.” I _get_ what your argument is—though I find it both unconvincing and inconsistent. But never mind that.

_Given_ that you believe Scripture doesn’t _forbid_ WO, what are your grounds for advocating the innovation. After all, there are a lot of things Scripture doesn’t explicitly forbid (and even more in your “world view”, unbeholden to patristic Tradition, than in mine) yet you aren’t advocating all of them. Why this one? That is, in fact, the thrust of my question #1 from the top of this 2nd thread.

(continued)

(3) WO / SSB parallel

As for my question #2 there at the top, you’re mischaracterizing the parallel I"m drawing.

I’m *not* saying “what is different between pro-WO and pro-SSB _in your interpretation of Scripture_”.  I understand that you believe that “Scripture interpreting Scripture” doesn’t forbid WO but does forbid SSB. I get that.

I’m not asking about your belief, I’m asking about your methodology and hermenutic.

Look, from what you say, it’s clearly not “Scripture interpreting Scripture” which you hold to be normative, but rather “What Matt+ thinks Scripture interpreting Scripture says” which you hold to be normative.

Yes, you aren’t saying “whatever I think”—you’re holding yourself accountable to Scripture—but you’re still holding yourself accountable to Scripture, to “scripture interpreting scripture”, as *you* interpret it.

And yes, I know you will argue that Scripture is “clear” and that this personal interpretation is actually getting to some objective “norm” of what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” really says, one that all right thinking people would share in common. But others, letting “Scripture interpret Scripture” <u>come to a different view</u>. Why are you right and they - and Tradition - wrong?

(In fact, for the catholic believer, Tradition is, in many ways, “Scripture interpreting Scripture”, for it is the consensus of interpretation and belief and practice not just of one individual (be it Matt+ or me or the pope or John Scott or whoever) but of generations of saints and believers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in many ages and many cultures.)

On what basis am I - or anyone - to conclude that what *you* claim “scripture interpreting scripture” says is correct, and that others, who disagree what “scripture interpreting scripture” says is wrong? Is it not just as likely that <u>you</u> are wrong and <u>they</u> are right and you are wrong? They claim that their views are the clear result of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” just as you claim yours are—and you’ve rejected both Tradition and the Church as a norm to judge between you.

(And, for my money, is it not, indeed, more likely that the immediate disciples of the apostles themselves - the teaching and practice of the church they organized and which kept their teaching and practice in living memory - that the saints and teachers of the early church when the Holy Spirit was particularly active, according to Christ’s own promise - i.e. Tradition—had a better grasp of what “scripture interpreting scripture” actually said than you do?)

By the same token, I know there are plenty of pro-SSBers out there—the “worthy adversaries” as Sarah likes to call them—who are equally piously convinced that Scripture does not forbid SSB. And they are not all commending SSB this by making normative “whatever they think” per se any more than you are approving of WO by making normative “whatever you think”—they are, rather, making normative “what they think Scripture interpreting Scripture” says. That’s precisely why, in fact, the pro-SSBers put forward their analysis of Scripture (as in the brief summary I cited before) to show how they believe it doesn’t forbid SSB, just as you put forward _your_ analysis of Scripture to show how you believe it doesn’t forbid WO.

.

*That’s* the parallel I’m drawing. You seem to think I"m making a parallel between “Scripture interpreting Scripture” and “pro-SSBers contorting Scripture” or a parallel between “what Matt+ thinks Scripture interpreting Scripture has to say about WO and what he thinks it has to say about SSB”. I"m not.

The parallel I’m drawing is between “What Matt+ honestly believes Scripture interpreting Scripture says” and “What pro-SSBers honestly believe Scripture interpreting Scripture says”. I’m drawing a parallel between the categories “ordained women” and “junior priest under a senior cleric” which you introduce into Scripture—and introduce honestly believing those categoreis not to be contradictory to what Scripture says, and the categories of “naturally homosexually oriented” and “homosexuals in a monagmous union” which *they* introduce into Scripture—and introduce honestly believing those categories not to be contradictory to what Scripture says.

And given your methodology—that what the individual believes “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says trumps Tradition—I see no objective reason, given your methodology, why your view of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” and of innocently introduced categories should be prefered over theirs.

.

I <u>understand</u> that within your world view & interpretation of Scripture (or, if you will, of Scripture interpreting Scripture) that WO is okay and SSB is not. I’m not contesting that.

What I"m saying is tha the *only* difference between _your_ view and _their_ view is what _you_ claim “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says and permits and what _they_ claim “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says and permits. Your methodologies are the same: the rejection of normative Tradition; the privileging of individual interpretation of Scripture; the introduction of ‘innocent’ categories and concepts into the text.

Further, I’m saying that, from the outside, there’s no “objective” reason to chose your application of that methodology over theirs. Sure, within your world view they’re wrong to promote SSB and I’m wrong to forbid WO. But within *their* world view you’re just as wrong to forbid SSB as you believe I am to forbid WO.

What - from the outside - gives your view more authority than theirs? Since the only authority to which you ultimately appeal is “what I believe Scripture interpreting Scripture to say” - just as they appeal to what *they* believe Scripture interepreting Scripture to say—and since you (and they) give priority to that personal interpretation over _both_ Tradition _and_ official jurisdictional policy—and since you are both using the same methodology, what makes your view more credible than theirs?

In fact, given that you are rejecting *both* Tradition _and_ your jurisdiction’s official policies, offering only your own interpretation as justification, aren’t you, considered objectively, _less_ credible than they, who also reject Tradition but not their jurisdiction’s policies?

.

pax,
LP

(1) On obedience to the Church

Oh bother, it appears to have eaten my part #1. Blast. Well here it is again, out of order—thank goodness I saved a draft…

Matt+—

Thanks for your reply from this afternoon. I’ve broken my response to it into 3 parts for the convenience of readers.

(1) On ‘obedience’ to the church
(2) On importing concepts/distinctions
(3) On the WO/SSB parallel

———

Matt+—

No where have I said that obedience to the church is unnecessary.  I said the Church is not obligated to be obedient to tradition when Tradition is not base on scriptural proscriptions and, yes, that is per Hooker.

I should have been clearer—what I"m saying is that you appear to hold that obedience to Tradition and the Church is not normative, not that it’s unimportant.

I say that because you write:

Much of your reply assumes that the Church is the primary interpreter of hte scriptures. I do not agree wiht this assumption, and no reform minded Christian can agree with that assumption. The scriptures interpret the scriptures. It is not “my” interpretation verses “your” interpretation or anyone esles interpretation. The scriptures communicate intelligibly in their own right in accordance with the intention of the authors.

The fundamental problem with this approach is that it makes normative the individual’s intepretation of what “the scriptures interpreting the scriptures” say. Thus you can look at apostolic, patristic, and, indeed, most of the history of Church practice and tradition forbidding WO—including all those who through the ages have let “scriptures interpret the scriptures” and concluded that WO is forbidden—and *you* judge that, no, they’re wrong; Tradition is wrong; the Church has been wrong; that’s not what “scripture interpreting scripture” says… and so you dismiss all these anti-WO arguments because they don’t agree with what *you* think “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says.

And this *personal* decision and interpretation takes priority not just over Tradition in general but your jurisdiction in particular. TEc - of which you are a priest and member - has officially decide to enter upon a period of “reception” concerning SSB. In other words, its official position - and interpretation of Scripture - is both pro-WO and pro-SSB. So you can’t say that you’ve accepted WO because your jurisdiction is in the process of “receiving” this new teaching—if that were basis for your choices, you’d accept SSB as well.

No, you believe that “Scripture interpreting Scripture” is pro-WO and *anti*-SSB. Therefore you disagree not just Tradition (which forbids WO) but also with your church (which promotes SSB) and would, presumably, if ordered to perform a SSB you would refuse.

This is what I mean by you “not having a requirement” to obey the church—not that you would disobey your church in matters you judge to be ‘adiaphora’, but rather that, before all authorities, it is *your* interpretation of “what Scripture interpreting Scripture” says that matters, and that trumps what your church says. Only if _you_ think it’s ‘adiaphora’ (based on your interpretation of “Scripture interpreting Scripture”, regardless of what Tradition or the Church teaches) will the polity of your jurisdiction be acceptable.

(continued)

William wrote: “...but I do want everyone (myself included) to remember that how we interpret God’s Word is not a light matter in the Lord’s eyes.”

If those involved in spirited debate on this and other matters took understanding of God’s word lightly, I don’t think that they would be involved in spirited debate.

In this thread and others, I see the tendency for people of faith and integrity doubt the faith integrity of others given a different interpretation of Scripture.  Perhaps due to growing up in a household that valued inter-denominational community before I even knew what that was, I am puzzled by this prevalent skepticism directed towards other believers.

I see the tendency for people of faith and integrity doubt the faith integrity of others given a different interpretation of scripture.

I can’t speak for others, of course, but I for one don’t think that just because someone is <u>wrong</u> that they are therefore without faith or integrity.

I disagree absolutely with Matt+‘s approval of WO - and, in fact, with his whole approach to Scripture and Tradition. I don’t conclude from that, however, that he is faithless, disingenuous or dishonest. Not at all. I just think he’s <u>dead wrong</u>.

By the same token, however, being faithful or honest doesn’t make someone’s interpretation <u>right</u> or <u>acceptable</u> or even <u>tolerable</u>. There are “faithful” and “honest” people who approve of SSB. My attitude toward them is not to say “oh, I disagree with you, but you’re doing what you think is right so it’s okay and we can all get along happily in the same jurisdiction”—my attitude is “you may be the nicest person in the world, but your rejection of the authority of Scripture and Tradition and your embracing of sexual immorality is apostate and heretical, it risks damnation of souls, and it must be opposed tooth and nail.”

Likewise, I would not say “those who ordain women do so out of genuine conviction and piety and therefore, though I think they’re wrong to do so, we can all get along in the same jurisdiction.” That is simply both logically and theologically incoherent.

.

Disagreeing with someone—at least when you believe in objective Truth—doesn’t mean disliking them or condemning them. It simply means judging them intellectually mistaken.

It’s only the postmodern relativists and apostates - who believe there is no objective truth, merely competing rhetorics - who must resort to _ad hominem_ attacks to try to denigrate their opponents since, for them, there is no objective truth by which to judge someone wrong, merely the challenge of discrediting them and, thus (they believe), “disproving” their position.

pax,
LP

Matt+ wrote:
“scripture will be the judge. Show me now, from the scriptures where I am wrong.”

Fr. Matt, I’m still waiting for your discussion of the WO ordination in light of the weight of the Old Testament, wherein the priesthood was awarded to the men. 

Also, I must agree with LP:
<i>“Your methodologies are the same: the rejection of normative Tradition; the privileging of individual interpretation of scripture; the introduction of ‘innocent’ categories and concepts into the text.”</i>

Finally, it occurs to me that maybe, just maybe, there’s an element of you having to defend WO—at some level—because of Anne’ situation.  This last is not an attack or criticism, just an observation about the tendency of human beings to rationalize and justify our actions and beliefs.

Note to technical elves - Although the command to end italics </i> is working, the command to close blockquotes </blockquote> seems not to be. 

Connie

Now nothing seems to be working correctly.  Arrggh!

As a an Orthodox Christian (EO), I find it impossible to understand how something as fundamental as WO could have been missed for almost 2000 years and then, by an amazing coincidence, just when feminism arises, the Church suddenly could discover that WO was just fine after all. It seems to me that all the arguments for it apply just as well to the homosexual issue, so I have a lot of trouble understanding why WO is acceptable, but same-sex is not; they both derive from the same principle of ignoring 2000 years of tradition and reading the Scriptures in a total vacuum, along with “creative” interpretations of inconvenient passages. Thus, the only position I can comprehend for a Christian is Matt’s position #1. Further, I cannot understand how anyone who holds #1 could remain in the AC once it started purporting to ordain women as priests and bishops.

I also cannot grasp position #2 at all. If WO is impossible, how can it be tolerated for a period of “reception”? It means that the most basic element of the Church, its ordained ministry, has been compromised, and therefore all the Sacraments are in doubt. If you hold #2, the apostolic succession has been broken, so your ministry is corrupted. And suppose after the period of so-called “reception,” the Church decides WO was a bad idea. What do you do with all the deacons, priests, and bishops who were ordained by female purported bishops? How about the confirmations by the same? What happens to the absolutions, anointings, weddings, and Communion Services performed by these female bishops and priests and those ordained by female bishops? How do you go back and correct all this? How do you restore apostolic order once it is corrupted,broken, and lost? To me, position #2 is completely illogical and impossible.

I would have to say that from a standpoint of simple logic, anyone who holds to positions #1 or #2 should get out of the AC as fast as possible, since its ministry has been thoroughly corrupted by WO and any possible claim to apostolic succession has been lost, and along with it, any possibility of valid Sacraments.

LP,

You seem to disagree with yourself.  I agree that we can judge someone to be “intellectually mistaken” and when we disagree with other believers, it does not mean the one with whom we are in disagreement is “without faith or integrity.

Yet, you speak of ad hominem attacks by those with whom you are not in agreement, but seem to be comfortable in calling them “apostates” over things, IMHO, that are not pertinent to salvation. 

When you refer to SSB, something that this thread is not about, you assume that someone who supports them has rejected the authority of Scripture and tradition and their soul is likely damned.  Wow!  If that particular topic were that important, I think that Jesus would have discussed it at great length.

Then, back to the topic of the ordination of women, you communicate, again that though the individual might be one of faith and integrity, if they differ with you, you cannot participate in the same “jurisdiction”. 

I don’t think that these are the topics of the eternal.  While the Way of the Cross does not preclude “logic and theology”, it is not in those things that I will place my confidence as they do not give life and restore relationship.  Empowered by the Spirit of Christ, faith, hope, and love extended toward those with whom we are in disagreement—Now that is the stuff of good news, power, transformation and eternity. 

P.S.  Father S.J., I grew up in the “Holiness” tradition, in which I can assure you that the ordination of women was around prior to Gloria Steinem.

____<u>A Proposal for the Anglican Church in North America</u>____
(future orthodox Anglican body on this side of the Pond)
1) No WO as bishop, priest, or deacon, and spells out those functions which only an ordained bishop, priest, or deacon is allowed to perform.
2) The canons permit a wide variety of lay ministries including, but not limited to, parish administrators, lay preachers, lectors, cantors, acolytes, eucharistic visitors, etc, and set out the qualifications for each. Lay ministries are open to both men and women (or both boys and girls if appropriate to their age), and lay ministers are supervised by the clergy. The Asian pastors described in this comment would be one possibility.
3) The bishop may further restrict eligibility for these lay ministries within the diocese; and the rector of a parish may, with permission of the bishop, add further restrictions within the parish. If, for example, a parish wants to have a “no girl acolytes” rule, they can do that (with the bishop’s OK), but the nationwide canons allow parishes that wish to have girl acolytes to do that also.
4) Dioceses and parishes are strongly encouraged to assist formerly ordained women to find positions in which they can continue to serve God with their gifts and training, and in which they can replace the income they formerly earned as priests.

In other words, the widest possible latitude of lay ministry (within Biblical boundaries) is permitted but not required.

How about it? #1’s, does your conscience allow you to be part of this proposed body?  #5’s, what about you?

KJthurible said:

If those involved in spirited debate on this and other matters took understanding of God’s word lightly, I don’t think that they would be involved in spirited debate.

Thanks for your post. I don’t think those who are debating on this thread take God’s Word lightly—that’s why discussion regarding the text of Sacred Scripture here is not useless as it is when discussing things with many revisionist who totally disregard Sacred Scripture (not to mention the God-given witness of the Ancient and Catholic faith of the Church). As for mistakes in interpreting Sacred Scripture—all of us make them (I know I do) and our Lord grants much mercy to us in our ignorance on this point.

Nevertheless, interpretation of the Scriptures is a serious moral issue (as I’m sure you would agree—for example if someone were to so misinterpret the Sacred Scripture (whether sincerely or not) as to deny the gracious nature of Salvation*which you spoke about previously).

*[For those of us who hold to the Creed (which is an official doctrinal standard of the Anglican Church) regarding the grace promised by our Lord in Baptism (not to mention the Ancient, catholic faith regarding the grace of Holy Communion)—Salvation is still completely gracious (in fact the Ancient and Creedal doctrine of our Lord’s Church regarding the sure grace bestowed in Baptism (and in Holy Communion) is part of the traditional doctrine of “justification by faith alone”).]

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.

seem to be comfortable in calling them “apostates”

a·pos·tate –noun 1. a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc. 

This is a technical term, not an insult. Calling someone an “apostate” is not like calling someone a “jerk”. It’s a statement of an objectively measurable fact, not of personal opinion.

If Spong gets baptized, joins a Christian Church, and then announces that he believes that Jesus is not the Son of God, or that Scripture is not the Word of God and does not contain all things necessary for salvation, then he is an “apostate”—he has forsaken his relegion, he has denied the truths of the Christian faith. He may be a nice guy. He may be—indeed, I think he is, a clever fellow. That’s not the issue, nor relevant to the defintion of apostasy.

over things, IMHO, that are not pertinent to salvation.

It is not your HO or my HO which is relevant—it is the basics of Christianity as preserved in Scripture and Tradition.

Again, this isn’t saying that they aren’t nice people. This isn’t saying they aren’t acting with honesty or integrity. It isn’t even saying that they are damned—that’s up to God, not us.

It’s simply saying that they have rejected fundamental bases (such as the authority of Scripture) of the Christian faith.

Then, back to the topic of the ordination of women, you communicate, again that though the individual might be one of faith and integrity, if they differ with you, you cannot participate in the same “jurisdiction”.

Being in the same jursidiction isn’t merely a question of thinking the people you’re with are “nice”. Nor is it a matter of believing on a few big things and letting everything else slide for the sake of some vacuuous feel-good-ness.

Being in the same jurisdiction requires more than just sharing the same belief about, for example, the Trinity. It also requires having the same belief about the bases for what a *jurisdiction* and a *church* are. In just the same way that it would make no sense for me to join a pro-abortion group when I believe and actively advocate that abortion is murder. I may think the people in that pro-abortion group are nice folks. I may enjoy hanging out with them. But the _nature_ and _reason_ and _identity_ of that “pro-abortion” group requires members share something more than this - it requires a shared belief in the what defines the group and what it stands for.

I can’t be in the same jurisdiction as a Roman Catholic, nor he with me. We might get along quite well, and have a lot in common theologically, but one of the things which _defines_ the Roman Catholic jursidiction is accepting the univeral ordinary jurisdiction and infallibility of the bishop of Rome. I don’t believe in these claims, therefor I cannot, by that very fact, belong to a Roman Catholic parish. Whether I like the people there, or what I _do_ share with them, doesn’t change this fact.

The same thing is true with those who oppose the innovation of WO. As Fr. S. J. points out above, to “go along” with having laity preside at Eucharist or perform ordinations or other clerical & episcopal functions—which is what the orthodox believe is happening when ordained women act as clergy—is to give up all sacramental and apostolic validity and reliability of the Church. It is to jettison what is part of the very definition of an episcopal and sacramental “jurisdiction.”

This is simply a matter of fact, logic, and definition. It isn’t saying “oh, I disagree with you therefore I’m taking my marbles and going home.” It’s simply the straightforward realization that there are some disagreements which, though not about (e.g.) the Trinity, are about the very fundamentals of what the Church is—and, accordingly, are differences which, by definition, prevent being in the same jurisdiction.

It’s a simple matter of definition—just as rejecting the pope’s claims to universal ordinary is, by definition, rejecting the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

It has nothing to do, as you seem to think, with an _ad hominem_ attack or meanspiritedness or rejection of the integrity or intellectual honesty or piety of those with whom you disagree. It doesn’t prevent fellowship or mutual respect or common cause in other ways.

It’s simply a matter of definition and fact—of recognizing when the subject and nature of a particular disagreement precludes, by definition, jurisdictional unity. Not all disagreements over theology or ecclesiology rise to the level of prohibiting jurisdictional unity. But WO is one of those which does.

And, for the reasons Fr. S.J., Sarah Hey, and others have pointed out, those who hold to position #1 simply cannot—if they are logically and theologically consistent, if they really believe about the Church and sacraments what they say the believe—be in the same jurisdiction with those in groups #2-6.

pax,
LP

Fr. S. J. wrote:

I also cannot grasp position #2 at all. If WO is impossible, how can it be tolerated for a period of “reception”? It means that the most basic element of the Church, its ordained ministry, has been compromised, and therefore all the Sacraments are in doubt. If you hold #2, the apostolic succession has been broken, so your ministry is corrupted.

Those who hold to this position essentially opt out of OW. They consider it an optional experiment to be risked by others. The Eames Commission made it clear that no one need accept OW to be an Anglican in good standing. At this point, therefore, no Anglican jurisdiction can legitimately pronounce OW as a dogma, nor can it require equal treatment of men and women in the clerical role. (That TEC pretends to do so is just another piece of evidence of its contempt for the Anglican Communion.)

In the end, after people have seen the fruits of OW, they must reject it. If, instead, they require its acceptance, then the moment of reckoning will have come for those who hold to position #2: the communion will have committed itself to apostasy instead of just debating it. Until that day of reckoning, the wheat continues to grow with the tares.

In practice, Anglo-Catholics who hold to #2 will not allow female priests to celebrate Mass in their churches, nor will they receive communion from a female celebrant, nor receive absolution from a female confessor. They segregate their clergy entirely from female clergy and those ordained by them. (They have even gone to the length of tracking ordination pedigrees so that they know which male priests were ordained by female bishops.) A female diocesan bishop can be hard to live with if she insists on her episcopal prerogative of celebrating the Eucharist when she visits. But when such a visitation is forced upon the parish, its obvious non-consensual character makes it clear that the parish has not submitted willingly and does not believe that anything sacramental happened during the visitation. Such bishops sometimes have to bring their own congregations to avoid preaching to near-empty churches.

LP,

I’m not sure if you’re missing my point on purpose or if we are coming from such two different perspectives that you have no idea what I’m trying to say, so I’ll quietly back out of the room. 

One thing that seems to be certain.  Such discussions certainly point out the difference between the stuff of religion versus the eternal things of the Gospel. 

Peace of Christ

And, for the reasons Fr. S.J., Sarah Hey, and others have pointed out, those who hold to position #1 simply cannot—if they are logically and theologically consistent, if they really believe about the Church and sacraments what they say the believe—be in the same jurisdiction with those in groups #2-6.

LP, in your opinion could group #1 be in the same jurisdiction as groups #2-5 if those groups agreed never under any circumstances to purport to ordain women (or to license purportedly ordained women) but stopped short of affirming any particular theological basis for the decision?

Rob-roy said on 06-20-2007 at 03:35 AM,

“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?”

RR,

Let us define insurmountable; adj; not capable of being surmounted or overcome; then apply that definition in the context to which I intend, that for the most part everything that has been commented on in the previous 400 plus post has already been discussed ad nauseum over the last 4 decades or so. We can talk, talk, and talk till He walks on water again. This issue of WO is never going to be resolved, to a finite conclusion.

And contrary to Sarah Hey’s comment on 06-20-2007 at 06:11 AM

“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.”

Ms. Hey, I beg to differ, who agreed, as a whole, that the matter of WO is adiaphora? To what Anglican Communion do you refer? Certainly you mean “as a whole”, the Canterbury Communion only! I, being a member of the Anglican Church of America (ACA), thereby a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) , in concordance with this Communion, DO NOT accept WO as being adiaphora.

Being one who yearns for the re-uniting of all catholic faithful, and as I stated earlier, only by ALL coming together at a BIG TABLE can we possibly work out this monster of an issue, as it has become.

Ειρήνη

Roland—

In practice, Anglo-Catholics who hold to #2 will not allow female priests to celebrate Mass in their churches, nor will they receive communion from a female celebrant, nor receive absolution from a female confessor. They segregate their clergy entirely from female clergy and those ordained by them.

Is this not, in effect, having a separate jurisdiction in everything but name only? What does that accomplish save to confuse the laity and suggest to the world that you don’t actually take catholic theology seriously enough to fully stand up for it?

Moreover, doesn’t it risk creating a thoroughly confused situation down the line, at the end of the period of “reception”, when the pro-WOers finally decide either that they’re going to give up their innovation or hold on to it regardless.

And, frankly, I don’t think many of those who have accepted WO even as “unscriptural but permissable” will ever return to apostolic and catholic practice; take the example of Sarah Hey, who has said in this thread that, despite thinking WO is contrary to Scripture, she would rather abandon Anglicanism altogether than ever join a #1 group! (“for folks like me in Group #3… 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.”)

Doesn’t it make more sense - practically, pastorally, and theologically, and wouldn’t it be more honest, simply to have the separate jurisdiction in name as well as in fact (though perhaps in the context of an inter-jurisdictional fellowship to keep an affiliation going) and then, should the other jurisdiction (surprisingly) abandon WO, take at that point what steps are necessary to bring the groups back into jurisdictional union?

.

Allergic—

LP, in your opinion could group #1 be in the same jurisdiction as groups #2-5 if those groups agreed never under any circumstances to purport to ordain women

Seems to me there are two issues here which you’re implicitly distinguishing:
(1) Practice
(2) Teaching

You rightly, I think, observe that the “jurisdictional” issue for anglocatholics centers on the import that WO has on the apostolic succession and the guarantee of sacramental validity (as Fr. S.J. describes above).

So your proposed solution—a jurisdiction in which women are not ordained, regardless of what people think about it one way or the other—solves that first problem, the one of practice, yes.

It does leave open the implicit threat that, down the road in a generation or two, the whole issue might explode again. So, perhaps, what you mean to suggest is that the church body would make as part of its official canon law that women should not ever, in it, be ordained. So that solves the part of the issue falling under #1 above.

.

Now, however, you still have the # 2 problem—the issue of clergy and people in the church body who are openly (and honestly) convinced that their church’s teaching is wrong.

In the same way, for example, as you had an active pro-SSB contingent within PECUSA since the 60s which believed the church’s teaching on homosexuality was wrong, which openly said as much, and which actively worked for decades to get that teaching changed (first by advocating WO, then permissive divorce, then abortion, and now, openly, homosexual activity)—all leading up to the latest meltdown.

So while your proposed solution solves the immediate sacramental and theological problems which logically _require_ separate jurisdictions, I think that, by essentially “sweeping the problem under the rug”, it doesn’t present a solution which is workable in the long term, because it creates a situation where a large contingent obviously doesn’t agree with what its jurisdiction practices, and more or less institutionalizes the whole sort of “wink and grin up your sleeve” attitude toward theology & practice which has characterized PECUSA (with its clergy who deny the divinity of Christ, His resurrection, etc) for the past decades.

.

I think it’s probably better and more irentic simply to recognize that pro-WO vs anti-WO is an intractable difference which, logically & theologically & ecclesiologically, requires separate jurisdictions, and to allow the two groups to each go its own way.

I think, in the long run, more fellowship and Christian charity could be preserved that way—honestly recognizing the differences, acting accordingly, and still working fraternally where common cause could be made (e.g. the neighbor pro- and anti-WO parishes get together for service weekends in the community)—than by trying to find some artificial way to shoe-horn these two ultimately incompatible beliefs into the same jurisdiction.

.

pax,
LP

LP, I agree with you that the solution wouldn’t be workable in the long term, but the hope would be that by solving the immediate problem which makes intercommunion impossible, an opportunity would be created for catechesis and ultimately the conversion of the entire province to orthodoxy. My sense is that even in 2007, the number of principled proponents of WO is not all that great among the constituency for any new province. Most have simply trusted their priests and bishops and haven’t thought much about it.

The force I alluded to David was the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, as guided by the person of the Holy Spirit.

That is why in the Catholic Church there will be no ordination of women and official SSB…despite the forces of liberalism rampant even within the Catholic Church.

As Archbishop Heath ( last catholic Archbishop of York) so aptly in 1559 put it, before Elizabeth I re-established the Anglican schism, ” We risk shipwreck of Faith , if we desert the ship of Peter.”

LP et al,

I hope to address your points later in the day. still somewhat swamped

LP,

here is the first half of my response. I must go to work now.

Answers to your part 1

You say

“I should have been clearer—what I’m saying is that you appear to hold that obedience to Tradition and the Church is not normative, not that it’s unimportant.”

I think here that you haven’t quite captured the nuance (to use an Episcopalian word). I am in fact saying that obedience to the Church is normative, but I am arguing, again, per Hooker, that the Church has the authority to act contrary to tradition in so far as she does not act in violation of biblical proscriptions. Hookers burden was twofold: 1. He wanted to maintain the doctrine of Sola Scriptura against Rome, arguing that the scriptures are the sole infallible source of revelation (Sola Scriptura does not, contrary to popular belief, teach that the “sole source of revelation”, but the sole “infallible” source) as opposed to the two source doctrine (Scripture and Tradition) of Rome while at the same time 2. opposing the Puritan argument that the church must not act in any way for which there is no precedent found in the scriptures…the Puritans were arguing for the regulative principle.

Hooker, maintained that so long as she did not violate the proscriptive limits or boundaries found in the scriptures, that she could break with biblical precedent. The Church can, for example (my example), use vestments and candles and icons and crosses in worship even if there is no biblical precedent for these things. So long as they do not violate biblical proscriptions the church has the authority to do make decisions that do not follow biblical or traditional mandate.

This is not the same as saying every individual has the right to do this. Being a protestant and holding to Sola Scriptura, Hooker (as is seen in the quote I reproduced from the preface of LEP above) did believe that the essentials of Christian doctrine are founded upon what is clear or indisputable within scriptures and that when/if the church errs and violates one of those, that individuals must not follow but these times, he thought, were rare and that the normative stance of the Christian is obedience to the Church.
And the Church has authority in disputable matters, to keep or break tradition or custom or make new laws in so far as they do not violate scriptural proscriptions.

You quote me as saying:

”Much of your reply assumes that the Church is the primary interpreter of the scriptures. I do not agree with this assumption, and no reform minded Christian can agree with that assumption. The scriptures interpret the scriptures. It is not “my” interpretation verses “your” interpretation or anyone else’s interpretation. The scriptures communicate intelligibly in their own right in accordance with the intention of the authors.”

What I say here does not contradict what I have said above. To say that the Church has authority to rule on disputable matters is not the same as saying the Church is the primary interpreter of scripture. The primary interpreter is Scripture itself and Hooker would certainly have agreed with that. But the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit certainly has the authority to make decisions and declarations with regard to those aspects of the bible that are less than clear.

How does all of this play into WO?

I am arguing that the Anglican Communion has the authority to break with the tradition of all male clergy in so far as she does not violate biblical proscriptions. And, in fact, she has made the decision to allow female clergy and, as Bishop Iker noted in a recent interview, has entered into a period of reception wherein the idea is purportedly being “tested”.

I, personally, believe that the AC has erred in this process of reception by disregarding the principle of male headship, but since I believe this to be a non-essential matter, I am content to let the authority of the Church dictate. That is why Anne is ready to surrender her collar if, after the period of reception has come to an end, the Communion (or whatever orthodox body emerges in the next few years out of the husk of it) decides not to permit women clergy.

Again, since the bible is not clear, this is a matter in which the Church has warrant.

You say:

“The fundamental problem with this approach is that it makes normative the individual’s interpretation of what “the scriptures interpreting the scriptures” say. Thus you can look at apostolic, patristic, and, indeed, most of the history of Church practice and tradition forbidding WO—including all those who through the ages have let “scriptures interpret the scriptures” and concluded that WO is forbidden—and *you* judge that, no, they’re wrong; Tradition is wrong; the Church has been wrong; that’s not what “scripture interpreting scripture” says… and so you dismiss all these anti-WO arguments because they don’t agree with what *you* think “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says.”

I hope you can see, after the explanation above, that this is something of a misunderstanding of my position? I am not arguing that I have the right to do all of that. I am arguing that the Church does, not because the Church is the primary interpreter of scripture (scripture is) but because the Church is the authority charged with applying scripture and has the authority to make rules and decisions in disputable matters.

Now, if we were speaking about an essential matter, the Trinity for example, and the Communion decided to trash it, then every individual would be obligated to resist error, not based on his or her personal decisions or opinions, but because the Trinity is, as Hooker would say, one of those doctrines the Scriptures plainly deliver (and scripture interprets scripture).

You go on to say:

“And this *personal* decision and interpretation takes priority not just over Tradition in general but your jurisdiction in particular. TEC - of which you are a priest and member - has officially decide to enter upon a period of “reception” concerning SSB. In other words, its official position - and interpretation of Scripture - is both pro-WO and pro-SSB. So you can’t say that you’ve accepted WO because your jurisdiction is in the process of “receiving” this new teaching—if that were basis for your choices, you’d accept SSB as well.”

Here again we run into the distinction between essential and non-essential and here again I point back to the preface to LEP as quoted in my post above…the non-essential is defined by what is not plainly delivered in the scriptures. It is plainly delivered in the scriptures that, and the Communion recognizes this in Lambeth 1.10, that homosexual sex is a perversion that is incompatible with godliness.  There is not one shadow or shade of positive light cast on homosexual sex anywhere of any kind in any way. There is no “tension” between texts that deal with this subject. They are uniformly negative without mitigation or qualification. There is then nothing that needs to be “harmonized”. The bible only provides one uniform answer, from the OT to the NT, to those who seek sexual satisfaction from those of the same sex: no.

The role of women in the church, beyond submission within the limits of male headship is not plainly delivered. There are texts that call for silence and seem to deny any authority at all and there are texts that permit women to speak, more, to “prophesy” in mixed worship settings and texts which show women teaching men in certain settings and under the authority of males. At the very least we can say the texts are not uniformly negative with regard to the role of women in the church as they are with regard to homosexual sex. There is some tension between 1 Cor 14 and 1 Cor 11 that must be harmonized.

There is a big difference between the question of WO and the question of SSB’s when testing both ideas in light of the scriptures. One is forbidden without shadow or shade. The other does involve tension and some ambiguity and the question is not an immediate given.

Thus, whereas the Church has warrant to make decisions that cut against tradition in the area of WO, she does not have this same warrant with regard to SSB’s. Why? Again, one is clearly proscribed and the other is not.

And, just to be clear, my jurisdiction is not the Episcopal Church. The church in which I have jurisdiction has taken the very same position I have outlined above. So, I am not standing on my own authority in this disputable matter.

cont…

Answers to your Part 2:

you say:

“I think your way of creating a pro-WO “space” within these texts actually fails to live up to your own methodology of “The scriptures communicate intelligibly in their own right in accordance with the intention of the authors.” The _intention_ of the authors was never the ordination of women. You’ve said so yourself—that Scripture nowhere approves of WO, nor do its authors conceive of it. (Thus Paul in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 always talking of male bishops and deacons.) Thus your interpretation of Scripture is, in fact, _importing_ the notion of ordained women which is alien to the authorial intent.”

I think this is the area in which we have the greatest disconnect, not necessarily regarding the issue itself but communication-wise. You seem to be promoting the regulative principle over and over again in this discussion and I continue to resist this.

No doubt St. Paul had no intention of ordaining women. And so clearly his words do not suggest otherwise. And, as I have repeated over and over again, I DO NOT suggest that any biblical text provides precedent for WO. The question, as you hinted at above, is not whether Paul et al intended to establish WO or not. They did not. The question is whether they intended to deny the very possibility of it. Chances are, as you suggest above, they did not even “conceive” of it.

And, if true, it would be difficult to argue that 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 are intended by the author to deny WO. How could they deny something they could not even conceive? This is why I have a hard time applying these texts directly to our question. Speaking of “importation”, it seems that those who read a denial of WO into 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 are, in fact, doing a good bit of importation.
This is why it is necessary to take the concept of WO and test it in light of revealed texts and principles in the same way that we might test any teaching or teacher. Does this thing violate the text? It is a difficult or disputable question. I do not think that it does. And, more importantly, the Communion, for now, has said that it does not.

You go on to say:

“Your pro-subordinate-WO interpretation—while it may be argued to be not explicitly forbidden by Scripture—is certainly not “in [its]own right in accordance with the intention of the authors” in the way you claim as a norm for your hermenutic.”

I think you have misunderstood my hermeneutic. Yes indeed, the intent of the author is the primary measure of any biblical interpretation. But we are not arguing over that. We both agree, I think, that Paul did not specifically intend to reject WO. He most likely wasn’t thinking about it. In any case, that he does not think of it does not constitute a proscription any more than the lack of mention of electricity means that we need to become Amish. The question is not whether there is explicit biblical precedent but whether there is an explicit or implicit biblical proscription that would prevent us from using electricity or ordaining women.

part 2 answers will be continued later

This issue is easily handled by Pontificator’s First Law:

When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses.

Or as “I’d Rather Not Say” might say, If Anglicanism is only a part of the whole, then it must not act as if it were the whole.

No doubt St. Paul had no intention of ordaining women. And so clearly his words do not suggest otherwise. And, as I have repeated over and over again, I DO NOT suggest that any biblical text provides precedent for WO. The question, as you hinted at above, is not whether Paul et al intended to establish WO or not. They did not. The question is whether they intended to deny the very possibility of it. Chances are, as you suggest above, they did not even “conceive” of it. ...
We both agree, I think, that Paul did not specifically intend to reject WO. He most likely wasn’t thinking about it. In any case, that he does not think of it does not constitute a proscription any more than the lack of mention of electricity means that we need to become Amish.

Matt, it’s already been said multiple times, but it bears repeating that an advocate of gay marriage could [honestly and non-duplicitously] use this argument almost word-for-word….

Matt+—

Since you’ve got more to say on 2 & 3, I’ll just respond to your comments on 1—the church & Scriptural interpretation—and hold off on other reactions until this afternoon/evening after you’ve had a chance to finish your posting.

You present a more complete and nuanced explanation of how you see the church - and obedience to its decisions - into your scheme. But you’ve completely failed to either address or disprove the point I was raising. I probably wasn’t clear enough - so let me try to better articulate my point, as you’ve just articulated yours.

.

I understand the methodology you’re describing—of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” and of changing tradition where that doesn’t conflict with that Scripture, etc.

Yet nothing you write gives any reason for prefering the SSB-crowd’s interpretation over your own, nor gives you any authority or justification for your pro-WO position other than your own say-so.

Let me show how.

You think WO is okay because you don’t see it forbidden in Scripture. You maintain that Scripture doesn’t even conceive of WO and so, obviously, cannot forbid it any more than it can “forbid” electricity.

(Now, I happen to disagree with this point, I think Scripture *does* forbid WO. I agree with you that it doesn’t come out and say, explicitly and unequivocally “do not ordain women” in precisely those words. But that’s not the only way something can be “forbidden” by Scripture. It can also forbid something by the implication of Scripture taken as a whole—my point about abortion is along these lines. It does not say “do not abort a foetus”, but what it has to say about murder, about God’s knowing us in the womb, etc is sufficient to deduce the prohibition despite that lack of explicit and unequivocal condemnation. So too WO. I think the thrust of the Bible as a whole - OT & NT - plus the implication of the Pauline passages about headship, about male and female roles in public worship, and about the nature of (and qualifications for) the diaconate and episcopacy are sufficiently clear to show that WO is forbidden by implication—that it falls into the “abortion” category not into the “electricity” category. But that’s a separate question—I"m addressing the methodological/interpretation issue in general, at the moment, not the specifics of the WO debate.)

Now, you admit that Tradition does explicitly and unequivocally forbid WO. But you think that this Tradition is not binding, because Scripture (in your view) doesn’t forbid it.

I am arguing, again, per Hooker, that the Church has the authority to act contrary to tradition in so far as she does not act in violation of biblical proscriptions.

Now, on what grounds can you say that “Scripture interpreting Scripture” does not forbid it. The Church fathers thought it did - this is why they forbade WO and cited Scripture in support of their position. Rome thinks “Scripture interpreting Scripture” forbids it - the defense of the Roman position doesn’t merely say “oh, that’s how we’ve always done it” but cites Scripture in support of the prohibition. Likewise the Orthodox. Likewise anglocatholics.

But, to you, all of this “tradition” or “other interpretation” is irrelevant. _YOU_ think that “Scripture interpreting Scripture” doesn’t forbid WO, and that’s all that matters.

Sure, you maintain the Reformed view that there is some “objective” truth which all clear-minded thinkers examining Scripture will get to—that “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says the same thing to all people. And I won’t even argue that that isn’t the case on many issues—e.g. the divinity of Christ. But on _this_ issue it clearly isn’t a “clear and distinct” interpretation, as the majority of Christians in time and space—including those of the early Church, who were closer to the living memory of the teaching, preaching and exposition of the apostles & their disciples—believe, unlike you, that “Scripture interpreting Scripture” *does* forbid WO.

Now, here is where the issue of church authority comes in. You invoke the authority of the church and say

the Anglican Communion has the authority to break with the tradition of all male clergy in so far as she does not violate biblical proscriptions.

Similarly, you say

I am not arguing that I have the right to do all of that. I am arguing that the Church does, not because the Church is the primary interpreter of scripture (scripture is) but because the Church is the authority charged with applying scripture and has the authority to make rules and decisions in disputable matters.

But, don’t you see, it is *your* interpretation of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” which decides, for you, what is and is not a “disputable matter” about which the church can make rules; it is *your* interpretation which is deciding, for you, what parts of “tradition” can and can not be changed.

You make quite clear that it is not the Church which decides what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says, because the church may only rule on things which “do not violate biblical proscriptions”. In other words, the determination of those proscriptions is _logically prior_ to the church’s authority.

But if the Church doesn’t decide what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” proscribes, and if apostolic and patristic Tradition doesn’t decide what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” proscribes, and if what various disputing scholars and Christians don’t decide what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” proscribes, then who or what does? By your argument, it’s _you_.

Now, yes, you say that you’re actually obeying the church—you say that “the normative stance of the Christian is obedience to the Church.” But you say that’s only the “normative” stance when the Church does “not violate scriptural proscriptions”—the nature of which proscriptions are determined by what _you_ think “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says. It’s disingenuous to argue that you’re “obeying” the Church when that’s always contingent upon being allowed to disobey the church when *you* decide the church is wrong. That’s exactly the kind of “supermarket Christians” which rejects the divinity of Christ etc, on the basis that they’ll go along with what the Church teaches provide that the church teaches what they already believe and not otherwise.

.

This self-is-greater-than-Church-or-Tradition logic that underlies your position is clear from your reaction to SSBs.

Now both Tradition and the “Church universal” have rejected homosexual activity as sinful. But, as we’ve already seen, that authority is not normative for you—for you, the category of “what does Scripture interpreting Scripture proscribe” is logically prior—which is why you can reject the teaching of Tradition and the Church universal on WO by saying “no, Scripture interpreting Scripture _doesn’t_ proscribe WO, despite what Tradition says.”

Further, you can’t appeal to some unabiguous objective norm which everyone who examines Scripture will come to, because the SSB advocates present an interpretation of Scripture which *they* honestly believe is an accurate assessment of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” which *doesn’t* prohibit SSB. They do this by importing notions of “essentially homosexual” individuals and “committed same sex unions”—concepts which aren’t in the relevant passages of Scripture—just as you’ve imported the “ordained women” and “junior cleric” concepts into the passages relevant to ordination and women’s roles. But this starts to get me into topic 3, so I’ll hold off on this point for now.

My point here, however, is that you cannot point to the issue of Church authority here, because PECUSA has clearly and officially decided that the issue of SSB is a “disputable matter” and so, citing as you do the church’s “authority to make rules and decisions in disputable matters” has entered upon a period of “reception” of SSBs just as it entered upon a period of “reception” of WO.

You point to Lambeth and the wider Anglican Commuion as disagreeing with PECUSA on this. Lambeth and the AC are irrelevant. Lambeth is non-binding. The AC has no jurisdictional, canonical, or theological authority over its member churches, all of which are jurisdictionally independent. As the leaders of PECUSA have repeatedly pointed out, Lambeth and the other AC jurisdictions are irrelevant to their own rulings. If you’re going to look at what “your church” says to justify judging that WO is okay (and, as I pointed out above, you actually do that only because _you_ have decided, regardless of what Tradition or other jurisdictions believe, that Scripture interpreting Scripture permits WO), then you *also* have to accept that what “your church” says justifies those who accept SSB.

Now, you say that “my jurisdiction is not the Episcopal Church.”...

(continued)

Now, you say that “my jurisdiction is not the Episcopal Church.”  I’m somewhat mistified by this. I thought you were in PECUSA. Your parish is listed on the website of the diocese of Central New York ( http://www.cny.anglican.org ). You’re listed there as a priest in good standing - and your parish a member of - that diocese. Your bishop - from whom you derive your sacramental authority -  is bishop “Skip” Adams, who has said “I continue to believe that the decision of the General Convention of 2003 to give consent to the ordination and consecration of Gene Robinson was not only canonically sound, but also that it was consistent with the Gospel and God’s vision of justice as set forth in the Scriptures and as it was lived and taught by Jesus.”

This being the case, your jurisdiction and your diocese remain ones which have approved of SSBs and ordination of practicing homosexuals. The fact that you reject these positions shows that it is not the *church’s* position on what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says which is normative for you—ultimately, it comes back to what *you* think “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says, regardless of what Tradition or the wider Church or your jurisdiction or your bishop teach. Only once something has passed the “magisterium” of your interpretation to be approved of as ‘debatable’ (as WO does but SSB does not) do you let the church have a say. This is what I was getting at in terms of the ‘authority’ of the church not being, ultimately, normative for you.

Now, if there *has* been a change in your jurisdictional and canonical status—one not reflected in the diocesean information or, that I can find, on your parish’s webpage—so that you have moved to a jurisdiction which does (unlike PECUSA and the dio of Central NY) approve WO but not SSB, this simply further exemplifies this issue. To have made that switch, you obviously decided that PECUSA was *wrong* in what it said about SSB, based on your understanding of “Scripture interpreting Scripture”, and you acted accordingly.

.

Again, in all this, I"m not disagreeing with your position on SSB. I’m not even, for that matter, disagreeing with the principle that the Church has the authority to establish disciplines about doctrinally indifferent matters which aren’t addressed by Scripture. (E.g. the Roman Church has the authority to add the “discipline” of a celebate clergy, even though that position is not a _dogma_ and is not one required by Scripture.)

I’m simply pointing out that, for you, what is or is not proscribed by “Scripture interpreting Scripture” all comes down to “what _Matt+_ thinks is proscribed by Scripture interpreting Scripture.” If Tradition disagrees with you, you reject Tradition. If your *church* and *jurisdiction* disagree with you, you reject them too (even, perhaps, switching jurisdictions to find one which agrees with what you’ve already decided).

.

This is clear with WO.

Concerning it, you’ve rejected what Tradition has to say on the matter; you’ve rejected what other jurisdictions (Rome, Orthodoxy) have to say on the matter; you’ve rejected what nearly 2000 years of Christian teaching and practice has to say on the matter.

And concerning SSB you’ve, likewise, rejeted what PECUSA and your own (or at least your until-recently own) jurisdiction has to say on the matter.

It all comes down, ultimately, to what *you* think “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says. That’s your magisterium of one. And the “obedience” to your church to which you appeal—while doubtlessly there in matters which *you* have decided are debatable—is logically subsequent to this individualism. Only when *you* say that “okay, the church may make this decision” do you “obey” the church.

That’s what I meant when I addressed, in (1), the issue of the church’s authority.

.

Look, I’m NOT saying, on this point, that you’re wrong on WO. I think you are, but that’s not relevant here. And I’m NOT saying that you’re wrong to hold that the Church may make determinations of discipline in doctrinally and Scripturally “indifferent” matters. I’m NOT even saying that there are things which “Scripture interpreting Scripture” clearly and unequivocally says to all reasonable thinkers who approach it objectively.

What I AM saying is that given your “individualist” methodology—by which the ultimate arbitror of what is and is not “indifferent”, what is or is not “proscribed” by Scripture, what the Church may or may not make decisions on *ALL* comes down to what *YOU* believe “Scripture interpreting Scripture” does or does not say—there is, objectively, NO REASON to take your position over the pro-SSB Episcopalians.

They (or, at least, many of them), after all, have *exactly the same methodology*—they think the church may rule on matters not proscribed by scripture. The *only difference* is that they think SSBs, in the modern sense, _aren’t_ proscribed by scripture and the reason they think that is that, in *their* view, Scripture interpreting Scripture doesn’t prohibit it. You think it does; they think it doesn’t. That’s the only difference—competing individual decisions about what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says.

.

This is why I believe that is that your argument pro-WO and anti-SSB, against both the revisionists of PECUSA on the one hand and the early church, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and anglocatholics on the other, _ultimately_ boils down to nothing more than “because I say Scripture says so.”

.

pax,
LP

<blockquote>We both agree, I think, that Paul did not specifically intend to reject WO. He most likely wasn’t thinking about it. In any case, that he does not think of it does not constitute a proscription any more than the lack of mention of electricity means that we need to become Amish. </blockquote>

As a (somewhat) long term reader of this blog but a first time poster, I cautiously add another perspective.  (mercy to the newcomer.) This perspective may have been included within long series of comments above….or not. I confess I skimmed.

I’m a woman. I have the blessing to receive a salary in order that I am free to offer more time in ministry than my brothers and sisters who are also engaged in ministry in my local church. I embrace a tradition that suggests that, yes, Paul most likely wasn’t thinking about woman ordination nor, possibly, any concept of “ordination” at all.  My Christian faith tradition regards the idea of a separate class of Christians called “clergy: as problematical in itself.
....just, as I said, another perspective to toss into the mix.

(and yes, a perspective that shares a heritage with the Amish, who have a bit more about them than no electricity : )

Matt presents his argument pro WO as an expression of Reformed theology, Scriptura sola, Scriptura Scripturae interpres, etc.  But he has not explained why those churches which have maintained Reformed theology consistently without compromise come to the opposite conclusion, indeed regard WO as something worth splitting over.  WO was a large element in the PCA’s secession from PCUS.  It was the major reason in URC secession from CRC.  It was the sole reason that OPC and PCA, within one week, broke “fraternal relations” with CRC.  The genuinely Reformed Churches do not regard this as any trifling issue.  Kr Kimel is fond is fonding of saying, “Where Orthodoxy and Rome agree, Protestantism loses.”  I would modestly submit, “Where Orthodoxy, Rome, and Reformed theology all agree, broad evangelicalism loses completely.”

If a major corporation were involved in a lawsuit as either plaintiff or respondent, any honest judge who owned stock in that corporation would recuse himself.  The term used by attorneys is “conflict of interest.”
My wife happens to be a nurse practitioner.  Therefore I would hardly be a suitable juror in a malpractice suit. It would be impossible for me to listen objectively, dispassionately, scientifically.
Do I need to continue?

LP,

No time to respond,  but to say you have not at all addressed or, apparently understood several points in my response. As for private judgement, apparently you missed the point of Hooker’s words in the preface and the point of articles 6 and 20 (I think, that’s off the top of my head as I am in a rush), on plain matters private judgement is sometimes necessary. Councils err. On disputable matters, matters for which there is some abiguity in the bible, obedience to the Church is required, but the Church has the authority to break with tradition in so far as she does not break the plain teachings of scripture. 

One other note, we have changed jurisdictions, but I can say no more about that presently. Please do not press me on it in this public exchange.

Anglican fudge…you obviously didn’t read closely enough…I was actually playing off a point that LP made. Moreover, it appears you don’t really understand the argument either. The revisionist point is that this is a new thing Paul would have not understood therefore Paul has not forbidden the new thing in Romans 1 or elsewhere. They may be correct. Paul likely did not know about genetics. But the problem is that they make a category error. Paul’s proscription specifically and explicitly had to do with behavior, not the quality of relationship behind it. So, to say he would not have concieved of it is no argument. The behavior itself is still proscribed.

The same is not true for WO. Here it is some on the anti-Wo side who are arguing that 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3 constitutes a proscription against WO. LP admits however that Paul does not know of or concieve WO. I agree. Moreover there are no proscriptions in 1 Tim 3 or Titus 3. They are positive descriptions. Paul’s ignorance of WO and the lack of explicit proscriptions does not constitute an argument for WO, but it certainly means that 1 Tim and Titus are not relevant to the argument against it as are 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2:11

Fortunately LKW+ this is a blog and not a court of law and fortunately I came to hold this position before not after I was married. So much for the conflict

The revisionist point is that this is a new thing Paul would have not understood therefore Paul has not forbidden the new thing in Romans 1 or elsewhere. They may be correct. Paul likely did not know about genetics. But the problem is that they make a category error. Paul’s proscription specifically and explicitly had to do with behavior, not the quality of relationship behind it. So, to say he would not have concieved of it is no argument. The behavior itself is still proscribed.

No, many revisionists would reject that as an oversimplification of their position, and argue that “Paul’s proscription specifically and explicitly had to do with behavior” of a particular class of persons and that homosexuals are not included in that class.

Eclipse said:
Re:  Deacons
Since this is Biblically dictated, I do not see why there can’t be women deacons.  Even evangelical denominations realize this - so, trying to say ‘only in lay positions’ is a thin premise - if nonexistent.  There was no distinction in Scripture between the two.

Agreed, ordain women and do away with professional clergy!

Yes, Matt, we all know this is a blog and not a court of law.  Your management of it has been exemplary in fairness and even- handedness, and your handling of this thread (which, after all, you did not have to create) has been remarkable in its charity.  I can only praise you for your tolerance of my curmudgeonly tone, which has at times pushed at the quite reasonable limits you established at the outset.  I am simply pointing out the obvious, that your views on WO are inevitably colored by the fact that your wife is a member of the clergy.  Any thing you might have to say on the topic must be evaluated in terms of that fact.  Your views on WO are, mutatis mutandis, similar to my views on malpractice suits.  We are both entitled to our biases, and everyone should be aware of them, especially ourselves.  And yes, I disliked personal injury lawyers long before I became married, 32 years ago.  The time sequence is irellevant.

Allergic—

You point out (rightly) to Matt+, concerning his pro-WO argument, that

Matt, it’s already been said multiple times, but it bears repeating that an advocate of gay marriage could [honestly and non-duplicitously] use this argument almost word-for-word

He’s already given his response to this—i.e. that the SSB and WO case differ because (in his opinion) the SSBers teach something contrary to Scripture and the WOers don’t.

And you know what _my_ response to this is—that the only measure which Matt+ admits to determine what is or is not “contrary to Scripture” is his own personal interpretation—since when he perceives Tradition or the universal Church or his own (former) denomination to say something contrary to his personal interpretation (be it anti-WO or pro-SSB) he rejects that contrary interpretation as not being what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says.

As I believe I’ve already shown, with step-by-step quotes from Matt+‘s own posts, in his system what is or is not “forbidden by Scripture interpreting Scripture” and what, accordingly, the Church may or may not change & legislate all ultimately come down to what *he* says Scripture says.

We have yet to seen an answer from Matt+ to the heart of my question #2 from way back which asked what gave preference to _his_ use of this methodology over the SSB-ers use of the *exact same* methodology, when the only difference was an individual interpretation of Scripture which had more than that individual interpretive authority to support it.

pax,
LP

One other note, we have changed jurisdictions, but I can say no more about that presently. Please do not press me on it in this public exchange.

 

Congratulations, and welcome (to wherever you are), my brother. This is big news, and I somewhat marvel at your boldness in stating it thus publicly in this context.

Hijack over; you are now returned to your previously-scheduled gladiatorial smackdown.  Do make nice, Matt & LP—I really like both of you, and admire your tenacity and faithfulness, and respect your arguments.  Bear in mind that each of you has in the other a very formidable ally in what I believe Gersonides called the ‘Wars of the LORD’.

(I say ‘congratulations’ on the assumption that you don’t mean you’ve become Shiites and are now following Moqtada al-Sadr, like certain other TEC/ECUSA clerics . . . .  )

<i>”...the Church has the authority to break with tradition in so far as she does not break the plain teachings of scripture.” </i>

But that simply ignores LP’s question: who, or what, in “the Church” has authority to determine what are “the plain teachings of scripture,” as opposed to the not-so-plain ones. I perceive that the answer that you would give is not “the Magisterium of Matt.” Very good: but if not, what?

Allergic, yes that was a paragraph dashed off on the run (and so this must be as well) so it was necessarily a brief summary of the revisionist position. Actually your restatement illustrates the point that neither you nor LP have come to terms with…Paul’s proscription of homosexuality was not a proscription of sex within types of homosexual relationships (which, as you rightly state is their position) but a proscription of sex between same sex partners. This is the point. To nuance Paul away from that revisionists must introduce the categorical distinctions you name but even as they do they cannot get away from the core problem that it was behavior not relational circumstance that Paul proscribed.

I am sure you agree. But you simply agree because tradition says so apparently.

The same cannot be said for WO. And, again, I see that LP has not been able to answer this argument or even address it. I have demonstrated many times that there is no importation necessary and in response all LP can say is essentially, “that is your opinion”
and after I demonstrate in detail how the SSB argument and the WO argument is distinguished the ambiguity created by scripture itself, LP seems to say, in effect, “no it isn’t” without, yet, explaining sufficiently in what way.

He has not and does not address the content of the argument.

As for my personal opinion about matters, well I do think scritpure is at least as clear as the teaching of the Church, or do you say otherwise? I know some Romans who would argue that tradition invariably points to Rome? Why aren’t you there? You have a different understanding of tradition.

But is tradition a wax nose able to be shaped in any way we would like? No. It has content. So does the Roman Catechism and it is discernable content.

The scriptures are no different. If an individual can pick up and understand what is plain in the Catechism, then he or she can certainly do the same for God’s own Word.

The main and plain things, the essential things, in holy writ are clear. The bible is not a wax nose. To stand in the Reformed tradition is to assert nothing other than that. There are disputable matters that do not effect doctrine and about which the Church may make her determinations, but the essentials are clear.

If you dispute this, look to Galatians 1. What exercised Paul? Was it that the Galatians had not sent off to council for a decision about the Judiazers? No. He was infuriated that having received his clear and perspicuous gospel, the apostolic teaching, they were unable to tell the difference between a lie and the truth. He expected that individual congregations (at least) could discern revealed truth by themselves by appeal to the Word of God.

This, in fact, is what the Bereans were commended for.

THe assertion that human beings cannot understand what is plainly communicated in the Word of God does not pass muster with the Word of God.

It doesn’t pass muster with the articles (6 and 20).

This has gone on longer than it should have. I’ll need to come back to it later now that I am very late.

Matt+—

I believe you’re completely missing the essential point of my comments. You say:

on plain matters private judgement is sometimes necessary. Councils err. On disputable matters, matters for which there is some abiguity in the bible, obedience to the Church is required, but the Church has the authority to break with tradition in so far as she does not break the plain teachings of scripture

I understand this methodology. You keep expanding on and nuancing and elaborating it—and that has been helpful—but that’s not the issue I’m challenging. I already get where you’re coming from.

What I’m doing—and tried to do above with step by step quotes from and discussions of your post—is show that in this methodology of yours, the determination of what the “plain teaching of Scriptures” are - those which the Church may not change—is, in your system, completely individualistic. This is why I’ve gone step by step through the possible authorities for “what does ‘Scripture interpreting Scripture’ say”—Tradition, the universal Church, past Anglican practice, contemporary Anglican jurisdictions, even (as someone has now pointed out) other Evangelical thinkers & scholars—and shown, from your own quotes, that in every case you reject those interpretations (be they anti-WO or pro-SSB) when they differ from your own.

ON WO you’ve explictly rejected what is said to be the “plain teaching of Scripture” by Tradition, by the wider church (including not just Rome and the East but even some Protestant Evangelicals), and by Anglican practice and legislation until recent decades. All of these say that WO is *contrary* to the “plain teaching of Scripture” and you have said that they are <u>wrong</u>.

In every case it comes back to what *you* claim Scripture means - even when it’s contrary to Tradition and all these other authorities. Youu define what is “clear” and what is “ambiguous” in Scripture solely by your own personal interpretation. All the other elements of your hermenutic (what can be safely ‘imported’ into Scripture; what the church may or may not adjudicate; in what ‘unclear’ issues an individual is obligated to obey his jurisdiction) are logically subsequent to this determination.

.

The fact that you say that on “debatable matters” an individual must obey their church is irrelevant to this point, because (again as shown above) what *is* or *is not* a debatable matter is, in your system, left up to the determination of the individual. When the individual decides that a matter is *not* debatable, even when his church officially says it is, (e.g. SSBs in PECUSA) the individual may disobey his church. I.e. you only obey the church in those matters where you, on your own authority, have allowed the church to have a say.

Thus, in fact, you actually believe not that “On disputable matters…  obedience to the Church is required” but rather “On matters which the individual has decided for himself are disputable… obedience to the Church is required, otherwise the Church may be disobeyed.”

.

I <u>understand your methodology</u>. I disagree with it, but I <u>understand</u> it. There’s no need to keep explaining/nuancing it.

What I’m asking you for is an explanation of what (if any) authority you appeal to <u>other than individual interpretation</u> of what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says to make those determinations—i.e. what is or is not contrary to Scripture; what is or is not debatable; what innovations the Church may or may not introduce.

I’ve shown from your own posts (correct me if I’m wrong) that you reject the authority of Tradition, of history, of other jurisdictions, of other thinkers (both evangelical and anglocatholic), even of your own (onetime) jurisdiction, when any of them teach that “scripture interpreting scripture” says something other than what _you_ claim it says.

If this is the case, if it all ultimately boils down to “my say-so”—if there’s ultimately no authority other than “I claim that this is what Scripture interpreting Scripture says” (in your case pro-WO & anti-SSB) there is no reason to give *your* belief any more credence than the SSBers. For *they* say, with an identical methology and (in many cases) identical conviction “No, Matt+ is wrong, *this* is what Scripture interpreting Scripture says” (in their case pro-WO & pro-SSB).

Or, for that matter, no reason to give your claims for what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” ‘really’ means any more credance than the contrary position advocated by early Church, the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the anglocatholics, and many Evangelicals—in short, the vast majority of Christian Scriptural teaching in time and space—who say that Scripture interpreting Scripture says is both anti-WO and anti-SSB.

LP admits however that Paul does not know of or concieve WO.

Please be careful not to mischaracterize what I’ve said. I’ve said that Paul does not explicitly say, in these exact words, “women should not be ordained.”

This does not mean that I don’t think the issue is, less explicitly, adequately addressed and forbidden in Scripture - I point you to my comparison between Scripture’s forbidding of WO and forbidding of abortion above.

When I say that Paul did not “conceive” of WO when writing on it, I did not mean that he was utterly ignorant of the concept of women priests. On the contrary, of *course* he was aware of the concept and the practice—how could he not be with the all the p-word-es in Greek and Roman temples. When I said he did not “conceive” of WO in the Church I meant it in the same way that I might say “I cannot conceive of the Church authorizing SSBs”. That doesn’t mean I’m unaware of the logical possibility or even (in apostate quarters) of the practice; it means that I find it utterly inconsistent with basic Christian teaching and practice.

.

Thus when I talk about how you “import” the category of “women priests” into Scripture - a category which is not there - I don’t mean (or agree with you) that you are importing an “innocent” or “utterly unaddressed” category into your interpretation.

Rather, I believe that you have, with WO, imported a category implicitly *rejected* by Scripture. In exactly the same way as when the SSBers “import” the category of “naturally homosexual individuals in a committed relationship” and claim it is not addressed by Scripture, and you reply that, no, their interpretation of Scripture is wrong and that Scripture *does* forbid that category, even if it doesn’t explictly say “individuals inherently drawn toward same-sex attractions and who desire a committed and ‘monogamous’ sexual relationship may not marry” any more than it explicitly says “women should not be ordained as deacons, priests or bishops.”

.

pax,
LP

Matt writes, “The bible is not a wax nose. To stand in the Reformed tradition is to assert nothing other than that.” 

Then why do you come to conclusions on WO radically different from
the OPC, PCA, etc. 

Who was the politician who said, “Son, I knew John F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy was a friend of mine, but you…....”?

Then I spoke too soon?  The answer is that in “the essential things” (implicit in which is the very definition of what are the essential things) “what seems perfectly clear to me should be perfectly clear to anybody?”

Pax, no, you still seem to misunderstand the concept of scripture interpreting scripture.

You characterize it as private judgement.

In some sense it is. In the same sense that I as an individual can discern that 1 + 1 = 2 and does not equal three. There is no need to ask the mathematics prof. I can figure that one out.

But while saying 1 + 1 = 2 is indeed my private judgement, it is a measurable one. There is an objective standard.

As tables become more complex, I’ll need a teacher, but the answers are not a matter of opinion. There are real factual answers that can and must be tested.

The scriptures operate in the same way. Using regular literary principles the main and plain things are as clear as the equation above. that was Hookers point and that is mine as well.

Those that are not so clear are not unintelligible.

Every mathematics problem despite its complexity does have an answer. But nevertheless some mathematics problems remain unresolved.

In the church when this happens we do not make hard and fast rules.

I claim that WO is one of those unresolved problems. SSB is more like 1+1. There is an objective standard by which you can check this claim. You have yet to do so. Instead we have discussed whether or not I personally can have an opinion. The assumption is, or seems to be, that the bible is unintelligible or that it is unable to be used as a measure in itself.

LKW+, you leave out the EPC

“I am arguing that the Church does [have the right to rule against Tradition], not because the Church is the primary interpreter of scripture (scripture is) but because the Church is the authority charged with applying scripture and has the authority to make rules and decisions in disputable matters.”

<P>Matt, what “Church” are you talking about when you say this? Are you refering to the Anglican Communion to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics and Orthodox? That would be a very hyper-Protestant ecclesiology, but hardly a small C catholic one. We affirm in the Creeds not just the Trinity but also the oneness of the Church. Your use of Hooker in this instance against the received tradition is quite against the grain and intent of Hooker, who was arguing against Puritans who wished to be ruled by scripture totally apart from Tradition. Hooker was trying to show the inadequacy of their use of Scripture. He wasn’t defending the absolute liberty of Reason to define essential doctrine.

You make much of the distinction beteween essential and nonessential matters. WO is in your mind a nonessentia. Thus the (local) church has authority. But does that local church have authority to decide what is nonessential? Are there no guides in Tradition to help the church, to restrain her in the determination of what is essential and what isn’t in the received Tradition? Back to the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Where would such oneness be found? Certainly not in the Reformation. As Anglicans we have historically looked to the
first four Councils as being works of the unified church. Perhaps the seven. Certainly this one church wqas not one with Arians, Nestorians or Monophysites, but all Nicene Christians can look to it as being the the church, whose doctrine and practice should be received with a measure of authority greater than that of any local and contemporary ecclesiastical judgment.

I gather you would not accept the authority of the local church to change the doctrine of the Trinity, as that is an essential matter. But what if the church declares it not to be essential. How would you respond? Does scripture anywhere make clear what are essentials and what aren’t? Would you say “the church has always seen this as essential”? Is that not but another aspect of unified Tradition. The church has always ordained only men and baptised infants and celebrated the eucharist with bread and wine, and defended the doctrine of the Trinity as an essential. How do you pick out one unified practice as normative in deciding essentials without guidance from Tradition in this. Is it again down to your private judgment to decide how to read the history of Christian practice to discern essentails and non-essentials and to follow changes in the latter but resist them in the former?It seems to me that your respect for Tradition boils down to this: When it’s important you’ll listen to Tradition. But you’ll decide when it’s important.It reminds me of Bill Engvall’s joke about dividing up responibilities between him and his wife. He said, “I let her decide all the unimportant stuff, and I decide when it comes to important things. And you know, in twenty years of marriage we haven’t had to make an important decision once.”

Matt+ says, concerning the anti-Scriptural arguments the pro-SSBers make:

Paul’s proscription of homosexuality was not a proscription of sex within types of homosexual relationships (which, as you rightly state is their position) but a proscription of sex between same sex partners. This is the point. To nuance Paul away from that revisionists must introduce the categorical distinctions you name but even as they do they cannot get away from the core problem that it was behavior not relational circumstance that Paul proscribed.

Concerning WO, therefore, I shall write, analogously:

Paul’s proscription of women’s leadership was not a proscription of leadership within types of clerical hierarchy where a male “head cleric” was in authority over the female clerical authority (which, as you rightly state is Matt+‘s position) but a proscription of women having “authority” or a teaching role over men in public worship at all. This is the point. To nuance Paul away from that, Matt+ must introduce the categorical distinctions you name, but even as he does so he cannot get away from the core problem that it was behavior - “authority” and “teaching”—not relational circumstance—not being under a senior cleric—that Paul proscribed.

pax,
LP

I was aware of my omission of the EPC, as they are more accurately described as “broad evangelical” than “Reformed.”  My impression is that while they ordain women as Ruling Elders and Deacons (strictly local offices in the Presbyterian system), they do not ordain women as Ministers of Word and Sacrament.  So what keeps Scripture from being a nose of wax?

“LKW+, you leave out the EPC”

Last week I attended (with Al Kimel) the “Orthodox Readings of Augustine” conference at Fordham University of which I am now in the process of writing an account for Touchstone.  At the conference there were two EPC ordinands attending a seminary in Mississippi.  When they alluded to their “traditionalist leanings” I told them that there was in that case no reason for them to be in the EPC, as that body purports to ordain women.  Their response was to express total opposition to WO and to state that WO is practiced only in several “regions” or “subdivisions” of the EPC, but not in all; and I “felt my heart strangely warmed” when they told me of their perception that there was a strong and steady movement against WO on the part of younger ministers and ordination students.  So perhaps the EPC will go the way of the Presbyterian Church of Australia which began to ordain women in 1974, but which renounced the practice some five years ago and characterized it as “unBiblical” and “unConfessional.”

LP,

you again mistate my argument. I would never introduce the categoriucal distinctions above and I do not. I don’t have to introduce anything. Paul himself qualifies the passages in question. That is simply fact and that is all I state. My only exegetical point in this entire discussion has been to show that 1 Cor 14 and 1 tim 2:11 cannot be absolutely proscriptive because of the presence of 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18. That is it. That is all.

Would you or would you not agree that there is no similar qualification within the scriptures that mitigates the proscriptions against homosexual sex? If not, please produce one that makes the case at all ambiguous.

Fr. Matt:

Once again the distinction between the laity and clergy is clear -

You are much more patient than myself. 

I will try to work on this virtue…

Sodbuster,

Quit with the irrational bluster and try to discuss this in a reasonable manner.

I am “revising” nothing. I am simply showing that there is a tension between these texts that has yet to be adequately resolved. They are disputable.

Do you deny that there are some things that are clear or “plain” and some that are not? If so, if you deny this, then it is difficult for you to go about siting the Chicago statement which says:

“Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.”

I affirm Chicago in its entirety by the way.

Let’s keep it civil

Concerning WO, therefore, I shall write, analogously:...

Amen LP—I couldn’t help but think about the quoted sections uniquely close parallel with the defense of WO.

I must say that LP has done an excellent job throughout of letting “Scripture interpret Scripture” and has not once (that I can recall) blindly appealed to Tradition while disregarding on this matter the infallible and highest Witness and Standard—Sacred Scripture (and proper interpretation of Scripture, by its very nature, requires “Scripture interpreting Scripture” as LP has done time and time again).

LP has also appealed rightly to the firm and God-given witness of the whole Church from the time of the Apostles regarding the correct meaning of the Sacred Scripture on this matter (which Ancient and Catholic faith of the Church has held, from the days of the Apostles, that Sacred Scripture (letting “Scripture interpret Scripture”) forbids WO as LP has noted well).
I hope Rev. Kennedy that when you get a chance you might respond to the question I asked in a couple of previous posts (I understand though that there are lot of posts to keep up with on this thread).

God Bless,
William

p.s. While I believe both WO and SSB are sins which contradict the Word of God—I still consider SSB to be, generally speaking, a graver sin which is much further down the pathway of apostasy from God’s Word (in contrast—it is obvious that those who hold to WO may be firmly within God’s Word on the majority of other serious issues).

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.

I have not followed this thread on both pages.  It is just too long.  And while I find the beliefs and various rationales expressed somewhat interesting I can’t get too involved in them because I am a full supporter of women’s ordination and I have yet to be convinced of another opinion.  For me, as a 34 yr old, this was just never a question.  So, if my question below has already been answered please direct me to the spot and I’ll go there.

I have been wondering how those who oppose women’s ordination, or only support limited women’s ordination, deal with the very real situation of women bishops and those who are ordained by them.  I have often noted the irony that in England and elsewhere that do allow women in the episcopate, a woman priest ordained by a man is recognized as a priest, while a man ordained by a woman is not.  Given the views expressed here, are whole dioceses of clergy to be considered invalid?  Certainly in the cases of women diocesan bishops substantial numbers of clergy have been ordained by them, and will have had little say in the matter, save changing dioceses. 

Tomorrow, the Anglican Church of Canada will elect a new primate.  Of the four nominees, Victoria Matthews is considered by many to be the favorite.  As has been pointed out here by former clergy in her diocese, she is understood to be orthodox theologically and is not in favor of approving same-sex blessings.  Yet, given opposition to women in the episcopate expressed here, she would seem to be an unacceptable candidate.  There is one other very conservative choice, but he likely will not be in the final round of voting. The other two candidates are more liberal, the other top contender significantly so. So, how would you, if you were a delegate to General Synod vote?  Vote for a moderate because he is male; although, he likely will not be elected?  Vote for the liberal male?  Spoil your ballot? 

Inquiring minds want to know….

My only exegetical point in this entire discussion has been to show that 1 Cor 14 and 1 tim 2:11 cannot be absolutely proscriptive because of the presence of 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18. That is it. That is all.

And I would say that you have failed to convincingly demonstrate that there *is* a contradiction which would undermine that proscription, nor have you demonstrated why *your* interpretation, that this contradiction is there and should undermine the import of passages such as 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2, should be given preference over *others’* interpretations to the contrary (especially in the absence of any authoritative Tradition or interpretation to which to appeal to support your view against theirs).

.

I shall go on to summarize some old and make some new comments on these passages, for purposes of discussion and interpretation. But I’m less interested in hearing you defend your assertion (an assertion I believe false) that there is a contradiction in these passages which undermines any WO-related proscription than to hear you address the logically prior point—<u>on what authority (if any) other than your say-so</u> should we accept your claim for what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says over that of Tradition or other jurisdictions (which are anti-WO) or PECUSA (which is pro-SSB).

<u>Even</u> if you were to convince everyone that your interpretation of the 4 passages listed above is a reasonable and logical and Scripturally-consistent one, you still would not have demonstrated why—given your hermenutic which gives individual interpretation ultimate authority over Tradition, history, other jurisdictions, one’s own jurisdiction, and any other thinker whatsoever—*your* claim about these Scriptures should be believed or why we should reject the *contrary* claims by others, who (like you) assert that *their* position is a “clear”, reasonable, logical and consistent one which is what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” really says.

:
:

Acts 18 is irrelevant. It refers to private catechesis outside of a public worship service, not to the public worship described in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2. It conflicts with them in absolutely no way. To argue otherwise is to *create* a contradiction in Scripture which isn’t there.

:
:

I see that 1 Cor 11, now that I look at it again, isn’t explilcitly about public worship. In the passage about prophesying which you claim contradicts 1 Cor 14, Paul says (v. 2-3,5)

maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God… any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.

It is not until v.17 that he explicitly starts to talk about public worship

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church…

So your 1 Cor 11 passage only conflicsts with 1 Cor 14 if you assume that in v.2-5 *before* he says “in the first place, when you assemble as a church” that he’s already talking about praying and prophesying in public rather than private.

.

Secondly, as Sodbuster and others have pointed out, even if this _is_ public prophesying, there is no necesssary contradiction per se between prophesying and being “silent”. 1 Cor 14:28-9:

But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

(I should point out, to be fair to Matt+, that, strictly speaking, the “being silent” in these verses applies immediately to “speaking in tonuges”, not to “prophesy” - and Paul does distinguish between those two)

.

Thirdly, 1 Cor 14’s statement “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” comes directly on the heels of the discussion of prophesy in public meetings. Your interpretation *assumes* that Paul is making an obvious and glaring contradiction with an earlier passage (ch. 11) when, having just discussed prophesy in public which (according to you) would include women, he then says women should keep silent. A far simpler and more straightforward interpretation, one which doesn’t _assume_ unnecessary contradictions, is that the prophesying he’s talking about in ch. 14, in a context where “women should keep silence in the churches”, isn’t in the same context as that which he discusses, more generally, in ch. 11.

.

Fourth, the word for “keep silence” he uses in 1 Cor 14 is not used in the NT to mean “not make any noise at all”, which is the interpretation you seem to be giving it (along with assuming that the ‘prophesying’ in 1 Cor 11 is explicitly public) to create the contraditction.

Rather, the word, ‘sigaw’, is used to mean either keep a secret (Luke 9:36, Rom 16:25) or to keep quiet and attend to an authority:
Luke 20:26 - And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.
Ac 12:17 - But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them…
Ac 15:12 - Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul…
Ac 15:13 - And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me…

The import of this verb in this context, then, is that women should be quiet and listen to the authoritative exposition. (Cf. points 5 & 7 below too.) There’s no contradiction between this at 1 Cor 11, especially if that passage is (as, upon reexamination I think it is), like Acts 18, not talking about the context of public worship.

.

Fifthly - in fact, the only time Paul uses this word, other than the Romans passage cited above, is in this chapter of Corinthians, where he’s discussing public comportment in worship:

But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent... As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches…

In other words, Paul is saying that, in public worship, the following people should ‘sigaw’:
* speakers in tongues (when there is no one there to interpret)
* prophet A while prophet B is talking
* women

The implication is that, in public worship, just as a speaker-in-tongues should keep respectful silence to listen to edification, unless he has an interpreter which permits him to add to that instruction, and just as a prophet should wait his turn, listening in silence to another speaker, so women should keep silence.

There is no suggestion made here that there’s an exception made for this third category if women happen to fall into the second. You only get that by <u>assuming</u> that ch. 11 is describing the same public circumstance as ch. 14 (see my first point above).

.

Sixth, your appeal to “headship” to create a category (junior [female] cleric under senior [male] cleric) to solve the contradictions which your assumptions have created (e.g. your assumptions that Acts 18 or 1 Cor 11 is talking about a public worship context) goes against the place of “headship” of the texts themselves.

Look at your crux passages in 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14 again:

1 Cor 11—But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head…

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. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church….

1 Tim 2—A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

In these passages, “headship” is not evoked to *excuse* women from obeying Paul’s injunctions but as a *reason* for those injunctions.

Your imported category attempts to resolve the contradiction which your assumptions have created by appealing to “headship” as giving us a way to ignore what Paul has said. But Paul is appealing to headship as one of the reasons <u>for</u> what he is saying.

.

Seventh, no one has yet pointed out the parallel between the instruction Paul here (1 Cor 14) gives the church about gender differences in public worship and the practice of the contemporary Jewish synagogues, where it was explicitly taught that men should read and expound on the law (as we see Jesus doing in his ministry, or Apollos doing in Acts 18) but women should not. Yet this certainly seems to be the implied parallel—especially with Paul’s appeal to the traditional Jewish understanding of differences between the genders (“as even the Law says”) in the context of public worship.

If so, than that explicit contemporary practice in the synagogues - one which is explicit on women’s roles - gives us a guide for understanding what Paul is here describing as normative apostolic _Christian_ practice.

.

pax,
LP

“So, how would you, if you were a delegate to General Synod vote?  Vote for a moderate because he is male; although, he likely will not be elected?  Vote for the liberal male?  Spoil your ballot?”

I have not been an Anglican since 1979, but if I were one, and a delegate in the position that you hypothecate, I would vote for that candidate whose opinions and likely policies would best bring on a schism.  It is hard to say which one would be best placed to do it in the Canadian situation—a woman whose “Orders” I would reckon, were I still a Catholic Anglican, to be a mere nullity, or a man of profoundly heretical views.  However, had I been an Anglo-Catholic bishop at ECUSA’s General Convention last year I would have had no such diffculties: I would have voted KJS as the person most likely to facilitate a rapid rupture—and by all indications so far I would have been right in doing so.

This is a brilliant thread.  400+ posts at this writing, and on a crucial subject, at a crucial time.  I am grateful to you, Matt, for starting it, and to you, LP, for your very-well-articulated (and marvellously persistent) contributions.

In the interest of keeping it going—and especially of keeping Matt and LP in discussion (which I find quite interesting—as one whose profession does not permit more in-depth involvement this week, I’m quite happy at this point to read their exchange and the learned comments of others), let me add this encouragement to keeping tempers cool and holding off for a few seconds before hitting the ‘submit’ button.  I gather from Matt’s earlier post that he and I and LP are, as of some very recent undisclosed date, probably fellow members of North America’s ex-ECUSA Anglican world.  This is a small pond.  In the greater scheme of things, Matt and LP are not likely to find closer theological allies in almost any context.  As the Anglican Communion unravels, I have marvelled to find my debate opponents of six months ago becoming my strongest allies.  The cooperation we need will require a great deal of interpersonal grace.  I submit that many readers and contributors here are likewise finding themselves warmly shaking hands that six months ago were wrapped around the knives in our backs.  In short, as one who have enjoyed several warm (though sometimes adversarial) communications with both of you, I’ll remind you that in the bigger picture, you are both on the same side on almost every contested issue in the Anglican world.

I do not, hereby, downplay the importance of the issues being debated.  That is, in fact, why I am writing—because what I really do not want is for either of you to stalk off, or to post something that causes some administrator to shut this thread down.  It is the importance of the issue, and not any desire that it be plastered-over, that moves me to write this.  Even my own AMiA’s much-publicised ‘study’ on the women’s ‘ordination’ issue does not go nearly far enough, as it merely sets out arguments on each side, then announces an expressly-provisional decision without specifying which of the arguments AMiA found dispositive.  Something like this debate needs to happen.  So, please, carry on—but please take care to do so in such a way that we don’t find this avenue for addressing the issue closed prematurely.

I smile, a little ruefully, at language such as the following (not to single the author out, but just because of the tidy juxtaposition of irenic and antagonistic sentiments)  :

Quit with the irrational bluster and try to discuss this in a reasonable manner.
. . . .
Let’s keep it civil

Posted by Matt Kennedy on 06-21-2007 at 01:06 PM

 

I know it’s tough.  If I had time, I’d be in the fray with you, and probably posting things I, too, would regret.  Remember, we are servants of the same Master—and the two of you are some of the abler of His servants whom it’s been my pleasure to know.

Thanks!

I have been wondering how those who oppose women’s ordination, or only support limited women’s ordination, deal with the very real situation of women bishops and those who are ordained by them.

To those, such as the anglocatholics in the continuing church, who uphold apostolic, catholic, patristic Christianity on this issue—i.e. that women cannot be ordained—the answer is simple: those “ordained women” are laity, and any “clerical actions” they take (such as presiding at Eucharist or, in the case of a bishop, performing ordinations) are as null and void as if any other layperson did them.

And, yes, this means that there are Eucharists being performed by laity; this means there are men (and women) who think they are being ordained to priesthood or episcopacy who are not; that the entire sacramental system of jurisdictions which ordain women has lost all assurance of sacramental grace.

This is, in fact, why the only rational anglocatholic position is the #1 group Matt+ described at the opening of this list—that pro- and anti-WO Anglicans cannot be in the same jurisdiction—because disagreements about who is *actually* a deacon, priest or bishop in the church (and thus over the validity of the apostolic succession and the sacraments in the body) is a disagreement one one of the things you _have_ to agree on if you are to have a coherent ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Or, at least, a coherent jurisdiction in the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” Church.

I can’t get too involved in them because I am a full supporter of women’s ordination and I have yet to be convinced of another opinion.  For me, as a 34 yr old, this was just never a question.

May I ask if you are saying, then, that you support WO simply because that’s how you were brought up, it was “just never a question”, and so the opinion and teaching of Scripture, the patristic church, and over 1900 years of Christian practice are irrelevant or unimportant?

Do you support SSB? If not, how would you respond, 30 years from now, if someone from the “Episcopal church” (or whatever that little cult will be calling itself then) were to say to you “I can’t get too involved in discussions over them because I am a full supporter of same sex blessings and I have yet to be convinced of another opinion.  For me, as a 34 yr old, this was just never a question….”

pax,
LP

This is a brilliant thread.  400+ posts at this writing, and on a crucial subject, at a crucial time.  I am grateful to you, Matt, for starting it, and to you, LP, for your very-well-articulated (and marvellously persistent) contributions.

Hear, hear!

Given the views expressed here, are whole dioceses of clergy to be considered invalid?

Yes, which is why this is more important in some respects (at least to my mind) than same-sex blessings.

Do you deny that there are some things that are clear or “plain” and some that are not?

I doubt there are many who would deny this. But who is to decide what is plain and what not? The understanding that there are less clear passages is no liscence to declare any passage unclear whose traditional understanding you don’t accept.

Furthermore, it seems to me rather arrogant to oppose a received tradition based upon a perception of LACK of clarity in scripture. Did Luther oppose Rome because he found their exegesis uncompelling and their Scriptural arguments unclear? No. He stood opposed to Rome because he found Paul’s arguments in Galatians and Romans ALL TOO CLEAR. If you think our exegesis of the texts is wrong it should be incombent upon you to show what they really mean. How can you oppose certainty with doubt?

Matt ++

p.s. on

Would you or would you not agree that there is no similar qualification within the scriptures that mitigates the proscriptions against homosexual sex? If not, please produce one that makes the case at all ambiguous.

I answer that you are giving me a false dichotomy—saying “do you think A or B” when I, manifestly, think ‘C’.

I agree with you that there is no Scripture, sensibly read, which qualifies the import of Scripture’s anti-SSB teaching. I disagree with you that there is any Scripture which, sensibly read, qualifies the import of Scripture’s anti-WO teaching either.

I see no burden of proof on me to justify a “parallel” by finding Scriptural texts which *ecuse* SSB. Like you I don’t think there *are* such texts, and I am *not* drawing a parallel between “scriptures excusing WO” and “Scriptures excusing SSB”.

Rather, I find the parallel because I <u>do not believe</u> (as the Fathers, as Roman Catholicism, as Eastern Orthodoxy do not believe) that there is any Scripture which excuses WO either.

As I’ve already posted, I do not find your arguments to the contrary convincing; I don’t think there are “contradictions” or lacunae in Scripture which permit WO any more than there are “contradictions” or lacunae in Scripture which permit SSB (and I’ve provided some Scriptural quotes and reasoning why this is the case).

The case I am making is a comparison between Scipture being *misused* to support WO (and justified by elevating individual interpretation over any other authority) and Scripture being *misused* to support SSB (and justified by elevating individual interpretations over any other authority).

THAT’s the parallel I’m drawing.

.

Beyond these questions of rightly understanding a handful of texts, I’m more deeply troubled by the implication of your hermenutic than I am over what I believe to be an incorrect exegesis of particular passages, which is why I keep asking for clarification on your hermenutic.

I perceive you to be elevating “individual claims for what Scripture interpreting Scripture” says over all other authority (Tradition; history; other Anglican jurisdiction; your own Anglican jurisdiction; other scholars and thinkers)—a hermenutic which I recognize (despite differences in claims by different parties over what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” actually says) as <u>exactly the same</u> as that of the pro-SSBers and other brands of heretics & apostates still in PECUSA.

pax,
LP

LP wrote:

Is this not, in effect, having a separate jurisdiction in everything but name only? What does that accomplish save to confuse the laity and suggest to the world that you don’t actually take catholic theology seriously enough to fully stand up for it?

Moreover, doesn’t it risk creating a thoroughly confused situation down the line, at the end of the period of “reception”, when the pro-WOers finally decide either that they’re going to give up their innovation or hold on to it regardless.

. . .

Doesn’t it make more sense - practically, pastorally, and theologically, and wouldn’t it be more honest, simply to have the separate jurisdiction in name as well as in fact (though perhaps in the context of an inter-jurisdictional fellowship to keep an affiliation going) and then, should the other jurisdiction (surprisingly) abandon WO, take at that point what steps are necessary to bring the groups back into jurisdictional union?

The underlying question here is the proper response to heresy in one’s jurisdiction, in general. This is not the subject of the thread, so I’ll keep my response brief. I would argue that it is never a properly Catholic response to go into schism voluntarily. (That’s why I could never join a Continuing Church.) Ideally, one should continue to practice the Catholic faith boldly until the heretics excommunicate you. Until they do so, they are implicitly admitting that you might be right. (I will confess that I myself did not live up to this ideal - I am now on my way to Eastern Orthodoxy. But I sometimes feel guilty that I left prematurely for personal reasons.)

As for the benefits of having a separate jurisdiction in all but name, look at Forward in Faith, which has essentially had this since 1992 in England. They have been able to continue practicing Anglo-Catholicism in their parish churches, and they have even strengthened the identity and unity of the Catholic movement within the C. of E. When the time comes that they must withdraw, this period of consolidation and preparation will have laid the foundation for a more orderly (and less spiritually damaging) exit than would have been possible in 1992.

LP:
Again, Thursday is the busiest day of my week, so this has been a running in and out debate. I cannot today, and judging by the numerous posts above will not be able to respond to each of them individually. A favor, is there one or, perhaps, a combination of several, that provides an in detail summary of your argument to which I can frame a detailed response?

Here are some brief rejoinders…
you said:

“And I would say that you have failed to convincingly demonstrate that there *is* a contradiction”

Praise the Lord. Because my argument is NOT that there IS a contradiction in God’s Word. Heaven forbid.  Rather it is that any exegesis that that reads 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2:11 as absolute proscription would cause a contradiction. And because there can be no contradiction in scripture, we can know that these are not to be read in that way.

As for Acts 18 being irrelevant.

The reason it is relevant is that it means that no matter how you interpret 1 Tim 2:11, you cannot say that the proscription is absolute. At the very least, as you acknowledge, we can say that Acts 18 adds an exception (private counselling) to 1 Tim 2:11. At the least you must admit that this means that 1 Tim 2:11 cannot be read as an absolute universal proscription without causing problems.

That was my only point.

Rather it is that any exegesis that that reads 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2:11 as absolute proscription would cause a contradiction.

This—that there would be that contradiction—is what I’m saying that I do not believe you to have proved.

I am not saying that you have failed to show there is a contradiction in Scripture—we both agree that can’t happen; I’m saying that the contradiction you claim _would_ be there if Scripture is read a certain way (prohibiting WO) is, in fact *not* there if Scripture is read that way—i.e. that you’ve failed to convincingly demonstrate the contradiction which you claim justifies your alternate reading.

Acts 18 - private catechesis - and 1 Cor 11 - private praying and prophesying - are in no way contradictions or exceptions to the discussions of *public* and *corporate* worship described in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2.

In fact, I think the source of a contradiction—sign of a misreading of Scripture—comes not from the interpretation that 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 proscribe a “clerical” leadership role for women (the interpretation you’re trying to discredit/disprove), but rather comes from the assumptions (not supported by the passages) that you are making, that the “prophesying” in 1 Cor 11:4-5 and the catechesis in Acts 18:26 are happening in the context of public worship rather than of private devotion and instruction.

So I would say, rather, that any adjustment made to our understanding of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 because of the the 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18 passages would be only an adjustment in understanding that the prosciptions of the former pair of texts apply to the “public” context which they are describing and not the “private” context of the latter pair.

However, since WO is dealing with public, ecclesiastical “authority” and “preaching”—not with lay activies such as prayer, catechesis, etc—this “adjustment” is irrelevant to the issue of WO.

No, I’m not saying that the “proscriptions” are “absolute”. They obviously don’t refer to “private” activities outside of the formal worship service. But, given that we’re talking about Scriptural precedent for the clerical female leadership represented by WO, that sort of “non-absoluteness” in these passages doesn’t detract from their relevance to the issue at hand.

.

Thursday is the busiest day of my week, so this has been a running in and out debate. I cannot today, and judging by the numerous posts above will not be able to respond to each of them individually.

Perfectly understandable. And, hey, there’s no rush! The issue and the blog aren’t going anywhere.

How about if I (and perhaps anyone else who is awaiting your responses) hold off on replies to your comments until you’ve had a chance—perhaps over the next day or two, whatever your schedule permits—to get caught up on all the posts and had a chance to frame and post your responses?

.

If you’re asking for which issues/points from the many above I"d be most interested in seeing you address, I say again that, for my part, it’s my “methodological” question. As I said in a previous post before turning to the discussions of the particulars of the 1 Cor, 1 Tim and Acts passages (slightly edited for clairty):

I shall go on to summarize some old and make some new comments on these passages, for purposes of discussion and interpretation. But I’m less interested in hearing you defend your assertion (an assertion I believe false) that there is a contradiction in these passages which undermines any WO-related proscription than I am in hearing you address the logically prior point—on what authority (if any) other than your say-so should we accept your claim for what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says over the claims for Scripture by Tradition & other jurisdictions (which are anti-WO) or PECUSA (which is pro-SSB).

Even if you were to convince everyone that your interpretation of the 4 passages listed above is a reasonable and logical and Scripturally-consistent one [and I, for one, am not convinced], you still would not have demonstrated why—given your hermenutic which gives individual interpretation ultimate authority over Tradition, history, other jurisdictions, one’s own jurisdiction, and any other thinker whatsoever—*your* claim about these Scriptures should be believed; have not demonstrated why we should reject the *contrary* claims by others, who (like you) assert that *their* position is a “clear”, reasonable, logical and consistent one which is what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” really says.

.

In addition to this point, perhaps it would be good to prioritize, as well, those issues/points where several other people have also chimed in (on whichever side)—this hermenutical question is one of them—so as to avoid, as much as possible, getting bogged down in side issues or details which are of interest and edification to fewer and fewer readers. (E.g. there’s probably less of a priority in batting around my speculation above that the church order conceived in 1 Cor 14 may be derived in part from - and refer to - norms of the contemporary synagogue.)

pax,
LP

If I might propose an idea that might help clarify the positions being taken here, might I suggest that there can be different levels of universality contemplated in what are prima facie ‘universal’ statements?  I intend no muddying of the Scriptures, of course, but in other Scriptural contexts, we are quite accustomed to dealing with prima facie universal statements whose universality does not exist at all levels. 

For instance—trivially—in Romans 3.10 Paul quotes with approval the statement from Pss 14 and 53 that ‘there is none righteous, not even one’—an emphatically-universal statement, if ever there was one—and follows up with Romans 3.23 (‘for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ ).  All of these are statements with about as stark a claim of universality as one could ask, and yet it is crystal clear that Paul had Jesus Christ very much in mind as an unstated exception to these ‘universal’ statements.

When we read these verses, then, as orthodox Christians, we understand without much trouble or controversy that Paul is making a statement that is at once universal—concerning the group he had in mind, viz, the bulk of humanity—and yet qualified, by its exclusion of the unique exception, viz, Jesus.  Nothing complicated here; we do it all the time.

But note that asking of Romans 3.10, ‘Well, is it universal, or is it not?’ may be asking a misleading question.  Yes, it is universal as to the class of mankind-other-than-Jesus ( pace , for a minute, the Roman Catholics, who believe there are two people in that category); but it is not, strictly speaking, universal as to the category of mankind-including-Jesus.

Even so, it seems to me that Matt’s question as to whether the passages restricting women’s speaking, teaching, etc are ‘universal’ (which question he answers, I think, straightforwardly in the negative, on the basis of passages in which women spoke and taught with apparent Apostolic approval) might be stated a little more simplistically than it ought.  The really-live question might more appropriately be phrased, ‘Is this statement ad hoc, or universal, and—if the latter—across what categories is it to be taken as universal?’

Another instance where Scripture suffers an apparent contradiction, when a proscription is rigidly imposed:  The Sixth Commandment.

Apparent Contradictions:
- Gen 9:6;
- The invasion of Canaan;
- God’s sanctioning of Non-Holy Wars and Holy Wars for Old Testament Theocratic Israel (OTTI)
- Punishment of adulterers et al in OTTI.
- ...

Since the 6th Commandment isn’t an absolute proscription against one human being killing another human being, why is (e.g.,) abortion wrong?

Because abortion is murder, not execution or killing in battle, and so it falls under the commandment “Thou shalt do no murder” as the others do not.

are ‘universal’ (which question he answers, I think, straightforwardly in the negative, on the basis of passages in which women spoke and taught with apparent Apostolic approval) might be stated a little more simplistically than it ought.  The really-live question might more appropriately be phrased, ‘Is this statement ad hoc, or universal, and—if the latter—across what categories is it to be taken as universal?

I agree.

The more I see this ‘universal’ term being used in action, the more I think it’s a red herring. The “universality” of the prohibition is irrelevant—the question, as far as WO goes, is “does this prohibition apply to public worship or not.”

I would - along with Christian Tradition - argue that it does, and while the “counter”-examples which Matt+ has given, 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18, which address a private context, may prove that the passages don’t universally apply in all contexts, that that’s pretty much irrelevant to the WO discussion—those examples he gives don’t prove that 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2, which are talking about church order and worship, shouldn’t apply to that public order and worship. And that’s where the nub of the issue is.

.

Just FYI, for those who think Tradition of interest, here’s what 2 authors have to say on the 1 Tim passage, showing how they understood its application:

Cyril of Jerusalem, _Catechetical Lectures_ 12:
Further, let the men when sitting have a useful book; and let one read, and another listen:  and if there be no book, let one pray, and another speak something useful.  And again let the party of young women sit together in like manner, either singing or reading quietly, so that their lips speak, but others’ ears catch not the sound: “for I suffer not a woman to speak in the Church.”  And let the married woman also follow the same example, and pray; and let her lips move, but her voice be unheard.

.

Chrysostom, _On the Priesthood_, III.9-10

The divine law indeed has excluded women from the ministry, but they endeavor to thrust themselves into it; and since they can effect nothing of themselves, they do all through the agency of others; and they have become invested with so much power that they can appoint or eject priests at their will; things in fact are turned upside down, and the proverbial saying may be seen realized—“The ruled lead the rulers:” and would that it were men who do this instead of women, who have not received a commission to teach. Why do I say teach? for the blessed Paul did not suffer them even to speak in the Church. But I have heard some one say that they have obtained such a large privilege of free speech, as even to rebuke the prelates of the Churches, and censure them more severely than masters do their own domestics.
  And let not any one suppose that I subject all to the aforesaid charges: for there are some, yea many, who are superior to these entanglements, and exceed in number those who have been caught by them. Nor would I indeed make the priesthood responsible for these evils: far be such madness from me. For men of understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for murder, nor wine for drunkenness, nor strength for outrage, nor courage for foolhardiness, but they lay the blame on those who make an improper use of the gifts which have been bestowed upon them by God, and punish them accordingly.
  Certainly, at least, the priesthood may justly accuse us if we do not rightly handle it. For it is not itself a cause of the evils already mentioned, but we, who as far as lies in our power have defiled it with so many pollutions, by entrusting it to commonplace men who readily accept what is offered them, without having first acquired a knowledge of their own souls, or considered the gravity of the office, and when they have entered on the work, being blinded by inexperience, overwhelm with innumerable evils the people who have been committed to their care.

.

pax,
LP

Matt+,
I hope this isn’t a double post as I tried already and it didn’t go through.
My question for you is regarding headship and the office of presbyter. And I do understand your interpretation of the relevant passages. But why do you see the male headship requirement being fulfilled in the role of rector/sr pastor?
It seems to me that the office of presbyter itself carries intrinsic headship authority. All believers are called to submit to their leaders (Hebrews 13:17). How does this not apply to all presbyters and not just those in a rector’s role?

W.T.,

FWIW, I believe that abortion is against the 6th Commandment. 

My point is that there are instances in Scripture in which the proscription in the 6th Commandment is not only apparently defied, but God positively commands killing.  If we are to employ a hermenuetic which says, “Aha!  over in Genesis 9:6, God tells us to execute the murderer, so therefore the proscription in the 6th Commandment isn’t absolute,” as a basis of neglecting the 6th Commandment in the case of abortion;  then something is probably amiss with my hermenuetic. 

Do you see where I’m coming from, now?

I’m puzzled by Matt’s understanding of “Scriptura Scripturae interpres” which somehow gets jumbled up with a very different concept, “private judgment.”  The first of these is spelled out nicely in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
<blockquote> The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly </blockquote>
In other words, plainly, obscure passages must be read in the light of clearer passages.  It seems to me Matt violates this principle all over the place with his tortured interpretation and eisegesis of a handful of difficult texts from Paul and Acts.  The worst example is his repeated invocation of the reference to Priscilla in Acts 18, a beautiful passage which shows at most a Christian woman sharing her faith, possibly exercising the ministry of a Sunday school teacher.
These texts are kidnapped and pressed into service, while the total sweep of Biblical doctrine of priesthood and apostolic ministry is ignored. 
“Private judgment,” on the other hand is a concept hardly known in Reformed theology.  Whatever the RC’s impute to the Reformed, based on a particular histrionic outburst of Martin Luther (Ich kann night anders, Gott hilf mir), the Reformed have instead the very opposite, a rather implacable notion of “strict subscription” to the Westminster standards or (amongst the Dutch Churches) Standards of Unity.
Matt is entitled to his views on WO.  But to dress them up and deck them out as grounded in “Reformed theology” is no more sensible than his dropping of the name of Mother Theresa. 
I am still wondering what keeps his Bible from turning into a “nose of wax” on the matter of WO.  John Stott, indeed, approves of WO in the limited form Matt advocates.  J.I. Packer (far more solidly Reformed than Stott) on the other hand has written clearly disapproving of WO, not calling it “invalid” but using a stronger term, “unBiblical.”  There is a host of Calvinist Biblical scholars and theologians who disapprove strongly of WO, but only a miniminity who approve.  Conversely, of those who approve of WO, I under how many (apart from liberal main-line Presbies) would call themselves Reformed and profess Biblical inerrancy. So Matt’s position, to which he is certainly entitled and which he has defended with genuine passion and eloquence, is surely an anomaly.

  It seems to me that the office of presbyter itself carries intrinsic headship authority.

Precisely!  Thanks for putting it so perfectly!

Matt+, where in your reasoning process about WO does the Old Testament figure in, regarding “Scripture interepreting Scripture”?

I don’t think you’ve answered this question yet.  If you have, I apologize for missing it and request that you point me to your response on this point.

Thanks,
Connie

Reading through this and beginning to draft some responses, I have a couple of hypothetical questions for LP and others that will help me understand your position. What would you do if your jurisdiction officially renounced the doctrine of the Trinity and on what basis would you do it?

What would you do if your jurisdiction decided to declare the moderate drinking of alcohol a sin and impose a teetotling law on the clergy?

I fail to see how these questions are on topic, but then I am not the moderator of this slightly uneven playing field.  I will pose another question.  Matt has talked over and over of what he calls women’s ordination within the context of male headship.  What exactly does this look like?  What would be the job description of a female clergyperson working under a male rector, when the two are not husband and wife?

The hypothetical questions you raise get into the area of doctrine and dogma, Fr. Matt.

The Church Catholic (Roman/Orthodox/Anglican) has affirmed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in our historic Creeds.  Rejection of this doctrine would be an act or heresy and I would have to sever my relationship with a Church who rejected this doctrine.

Actually, I think, this is a matter of dogma – a firm, rock-bottom belief that is non-negotiable.  (The late Fr. Homer Rogers of blessed memory used to explain it with an example of kid asking his mother over and over why water runs downhill.  His mother explains gravity and attraction and bodies in motion, but finally ends up declaring, “It just does!”) 

The matter of moderate drinking is neither a doctrine nor a dogma, so this is a moot point for purposes of this discussion, IMO, nor is it in any way analogous to WO.

A doctrine can be nuanced and subject to revision.  I might be persuaded to change my understanding of a doctrine.

In the matter of WO, I have yet to see any logical arguments (in the polite sense of the word) that outweigh the evidence of Scripture and Tradition.  Furthermore, I need guarantees of the efficacy of the priestly and episcopal sacraments I receive, directly or indirectly. (I perceive no such guarantee in a Eucharist confected by a male priest ordained by a woman, for instance. )  I am willing to review the arguments about women’s orders, however, I remain unpersuaded to this time that priestly or episcopal orders for women are possible or allowable.

Matt, the answers to your questions I would like are obvious: All individual churches derive their authority from the ONE Church. On matters of the Trinity and even the permisability of alchohol that Church has spoken. As a Protestant I can believe that individual churches, even popes, can err and advocate what is false. I am not bound to accept their falsehood if it contradicts the witness of the unified Church. If I am required to accept error to stay in fellowship I will choose to break fellowship with heresy to stay in fellowship with orthodoxy.

What would you do if your jurisdiction officially renounced the doctrine of the Trinity and on what basis would you do it?

In this case, the jurisdiction is *officially* denying an essential element of the faith as taught and preserved by Scripture and Tradition. This example has to do with _theology_ as opposed to WO which has to do with _ecclesiology_, but in both cases it’s impossible to stay in such a jurisdiction—in the anti-Trinity case because the jurisdiction is no longer Christian; in the pro-WO case because it is no longer catholic & apostolic.

One could digress on hypotheticals—are you under a Trinitarian bishop in an anti-Trinitarian jurisdiction?; is there the possibility of reforming the jurisdiction so that one need only have a temporary schism?; can the pro-Trinitarian minority move to a new jurisdiction in a coordinated fashion?; etc—but the ultimate answer is that no Christian can, in good conscience, remain in a jurisdiction which has denied the Trinity.

And in this we would follow not only the theological teaching but also the ecclesiological practice of the early Church, as it understood and followed the Scriptural commandments not to be yoked to unbelievers, but to separate yourself from them.

.

What would you do if your jurisdiction decided to declare the moderate drinking of alcohol a sin and impose a teetotling law on the clergy?

Here there are two issues which need to be distinguished:
* declaring the moderate consumption of alcohol sinful
* imposed a teetotling law on the clergy.

The latter is not a problem. A jurisdiction has the right to, through its due processes and canons, to impose additional disciplines on its clergy—as, for example, the Roman church has imposed celebacy.

It may not impose disciplines which go *against* the teaching of Scripture—e.g. requiring that its clergy give up prayer or that its clergy perform SSBs; and it is, I think, _foolish_ to unduly or unnecessarily burden its clergy with licit-but-not-necessary disciplines; and there should be (IMHO) reasons in Scripture & Tradition to suggest that the new discipline, though not requisite, is appropriate (as one can argue for celebacy and, indeed, even for teetotling)... but the jurisdiction does have that right.

Thus a cleric who believed the prohibition wrong and acted against it, especially if he did so publically and openly, would be guilty and ought to be disciplined—and not even just because of the drinking itself (which he’d argue wasn’t sinful), but because of the violating of a discipline which the jurisdiction has the right to impose. By violating it, he would be disagreeing not just with the teaching on “teetotaling”, but on the nature and extent of jurisdictional & episcopal authority.

The other issue is that of declaring the consumption of alcohol a sin. I assume you’re saying that the jurisdiction is not saying “believing that the consumption of alcohol is sinful is an acceptable belief in a range of beliefs on the subject” but, rather, “the consumption of alcohol is _sinful_ and if you believe otherwise you’re a heretic.”

Here, I think, you have the jurisdiction promoting a teaching as dogma which is - at the very least - not required by Scripture and Tradition and, at worst, contrary to it (if, e.g., you were to say Paul was enjoining Timothy to sin by telling him to drink wine).

On the other hand, since this teaching, in itself, doesn’t address a fundamental theological or ecclesiological doctrine (e.g. nature of the Trinity, the priesthood, or the sacraments)—and because adding a teetotaling discipline for clergy is acceptable—there’s no need to rush to another jurisdiction.

Now, one can imagine cases where this minor point could _become_ a major one. E.g. suppose the pope of Rome announced as an infallable teaching that the consumption of alcohol was sinful. Then the two issues - papal infallibility & consumption of alcohol - would become one issue and thus, if infallibility is a “jurisdiction”-level issue, so would be teetotalling. Or suppose this ban was understood to include the Eucharist as well. Then you’re dealing with a sacramental issue as well, not just a discipline. And one could also digress here on whether or not “teetotaling” as being proposed is actively contrary to Scripture or not (e.g. is Paul’s recommendation of it to Timothy a ‘medicinal’ use which, like the Eucharist, would not covered by this prohibition etc).

But I think Matt+‘s point was to simply come up with examples of “major” vs “minor” doctrinal disagreements for purposes of analogy, so such additional analysis of these hypotheticals would be unnecessary.

.

To anticipate where he’s going (and perhaps avoid the need for a few subsequent messages), I would observe:

(1) WO rises to the level of a “jurisdictional” issue, at least for those who think it to be impossible, because, even if it is not a “Trinitarian” or “Creedal” issue in itself, it touches upon an essential part of what a jurisdiction _means_—e.g. the clergy and the sacraments—and is thus a disagreement over an issue on which unity is required if you are to have a unified jurisdiction.

So, for those who accept the prohibition on WO by Scripture and Tradition, WO is more analogous to the “Trinity” hypothetical than the “teetotaling” hypothetical, despite the differences between the
“theological/Creedal” nature of the Trinity issue and the “ecclesiological/sacramental” nature of WO.

(2) By contrast, I suppose that for pro-WO people—who believe that WO is not forbidden by Scripture but recognize that it isn’t commanded by it either—being in an anti-WO jurisdiction, by contrast, would be like the “teetotaling” case above; they would not accept that the prohibition is _required_ by Scripture, but would accept it as a licit “discipline” for a jurisdiction to impose. So I can believe that a pro-WO individual might more easily be a member of an anti-WO jurisdiction than the other way around.

[This despite the view of folks like Sarah Hey who—still, to me, one of the most startling and revealing statements in this thread—though claiming to think WO non-Scriptural and SSB even more so, can remain in communion with VGR & Co. but would leave Anglicanism altogether rather than ever join a “#1” jurisdiction which actually and actively holds fast to the teaching of Scripture & Tradition on both WO and SSB.]

(3) One could argue on the “teetotaling” example that it isn’t, after all, minor—Christ encourages drinking (though not drunkenness) at Cana; wine is used in the Eucharist; Paul tells Timothy to drink wine. To say “the consumption of alcohol is sinful” thus necessarily raises some serious Scriptural issues, because there are examples where the consumption of alcohol is being recommended/encouraged by Christ and His disciples.

In the case of WO, however, there are *no* passages where WO (as opposed to women being active, and praiseworthily so, in lay activities) is being recommended or encouraged, as Matt+ has already agreed above (albeit while also holding that neither is it anywhere forbidden). In this respect, a parallel between anti-WO and teetotaling breaks down for the pro-WOers.

(4) Prohibition of clergy drinking wine or teaching that to drink wine is sinful—and a Scriptural interpretation along those lines—is not a teaching or practice supported by Tradition. The prohibition of WO is.

I hope that preemptive clarification of a few points is helpful too.

pax,
LP

It is helpful to some extent, thank you LP. One more question, returning again to the hypothetical…who is it that decides when to leave the jurisdiction and when to stay? Whose judgement, in other, words were you employing above in the matters to determine your proper response?

Matt,
This has been an absolutely wonderful discussion. Thank you!  And I thank everyone for the civility of the discussion.  This certainly comes at an opportune time.

It is helpful to some extent, thank you LP. One more question, returning again to the hypothetical…who is it that decides when to leave the jurisdiction and when to stay? Whose judgement, in other, words were you employing above in the matters to determine your proper response?

There are three questions implicit here:
* what constitutes a jurisdiction
* what authority is greater than that of a jurisdiction’s
* what issues/disagreements rise to the level of jurisdictional division

I have a sense the discussion has to address all 3 in the course of addressing WO in practice—i.e.
* what is the place of priesthood within a jurisdiction
* does a jurisdiction have the authority to approve WO or not
* is a difference over WO ultimately irreconcilable within a jurisdiction

The anglocatholic answers to these, briefly, are - respectively - central, no, yes.

.

Your immediate question is on the second issues above—“how does one decide whether or not a jurisdiction is _wrong_”—and implicitly on the third—“and what do you do about it”.

I would say that any Christian jurisdiction is bound by, in descending order of authority:
* All unambiguous teachings of Scripture
* The Creeds & Councils of the undivided church as a normative exposition of these teachings
* The practice and teaching of Tradition as a normative guide to Scriptural interpretation where Scripture is ambiguous.

As the Affirmation of St. Louis puts it:

We repudiate all deviation of departure from the Faith, in whole or in part, and bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order:
(*)The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the authentic record of God’s revelation of Himself, His saving activity, and moral demands - a revelation valid for all men and all time.
(*)The Nicene Creed as the authoritative summary of the chief articles of the Christian Faith, together with the “Apostles’ Creed, and that known as the Creed of St. Athanasius to be “thoroughly received and believed” in the sense they have had always in the Catholic Church.
(*) The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,” and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern….
In affirming these principles, we recognize that all Anglican statements of faith and liturgical formulae must be interpreted in accordance with them.
We disclaim any right or competence to suppress, alter or amend any of the ancient Ecumenical Creeds and definitions of Faith, to set aside or depart from Holy Scripture, or to alter or deviate from the essential pre-requisites of any Sacrament.

And, on the jurisdictional question, “We declare our firm intention to seek and achieve full sacramental communion and visible unity with other Christians who ‘worship the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity,’ and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in accordance with the foregoing principles.”

.

With these questions - which are important ones - we seem to be moving into a new area of discussion “what is the relationship between teaching/practice on WO and jurisdictional allignment.”

This is an important and relevant question—it’s what, for example, distinguishes the #1s in your breakdown from the other anti-WO positions.

However, I think, before branching too far afield into new aspects of the discussion, we ought to bring to at least some partial closure the aspects raised so far.

.

QUESTIONS STILL AWAITING MATT+‘S ANSWERS/CLARIFICATIONS

I think it would be best, first, to continue with those aspects already raised—and for you to answer the questions/challenges/criticisms not just I but others others as well have posed to your exposition of position #4—before we change the subject and answer questions on those aspects only with questions on new aspects.

Chief among those aspects—and issues which I’m not the only one who has asked/reasoned about—are:

* The interpretation of the particular texts (including the public vs private distinction) and whether or not they actually support the “contradiction” with an anti-WO reading you claim they do;

* Whether or not you can coherently jump, without further reasoning, from “this prohibition is not universal” to “this prohibition doesn’t apply to WO” (as Moot pointed out with the killing/abortion example above);

* How, especially, the “this proscription is not universal” argument (using the “private” context in 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18 to ‘disprove’ the implications of the “public” context 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 are talking about)—even if it is admitted as having a bearing on WO and throwing the “public” application of those seemingly unambiguous verses into doubt—can justify a pro-WO stance in the light of all the other relevant Scriptures and the thrust of Scripture as a whole;

* Whether or not “headship” can be invoked reasonably and Scripturally-consistently to come up with a “category” of junior cleric to get around the implications for WO of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2;

* Whether or not this arguing from the “ambiguity” of some texts (are 1 Cor 11 or Acts 18 actually public?) to doubting a *less* ambiguous text (1 Cor 14 & 1 Tim 2 proscribing public/ceremonial authority & teaching) to rejecting the unambiguous interpretation of Tradition is really true to a “Reformed” hermenutic (of Hooker, the Westminster Confession etc) or whether this is, actually, “private judgement” masquerading as “Scriptura Scripturae interpres”

* If, as I have tried to demonstrate from your own statements, your hermenutic is indeed that *your* judgement of what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says (on WO, SSB, or whatever) is the ultimate authority—trumping any judgements to the contrary by Tradition, 1900+ years of Christian thought, other jurisdictions, past Anglican practice, teaching of other Anglican jurisdictions, the official position of your own (or what was your own 2 months ago) jurisdiction, leading scholars & Biblical commentators (Packer vs Stott) etc.

* And that the normative “obedience to the church” is no answer to this because it, likewise, is invoked only on those issues which *your* interpretation of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” has judged is okay for the church to decide on (pace Bill Engvall’s wife… I love that routine!)—i.e. the individual judgement remains “logically prior” to this “normative obedience”. [I perceive that this particular issue is one connected to the recent questions/hypotheticals you’ve just been raising.]

* And, if this is the case—if you are indeed, ultimately, giving absolute priority to “individual judgement” (as I think I’ve shown from your own statements is, at least, apparently what you’re doing)—how this hermenutic differs from the pro-SSBers and other apostates in any “structural” or “methodological” way—i.e. differs in more than just “what Matt+ says ‘Scripture interpreting Scripture’ says” vs “what pro-SSBers say ‘Scripture interpreting Scripture’ says”.

.

Since I’m not the only one which has raised these questions/criticisms/requests for clarification, and since a number of people have spent time/energy/typing on framing those questions to you, I (for one) would like to see the discussion finishing addressing those issues (even if just to the point of “okay, we agree to disagree”) before we wander off into too many new ramifications.

.

pax,
LP

LP, as I noted, I am presently in process of framing a response to the more general questions. But as i am in process, I was just wanting to know when the use of personal judgement is “good” in your point of view and when it is “bad” from your point of view. Now I know the answer.

I too await Matt’s answers to questions raised by myself and numerous others.  But as we wait, I must commend him for giving us an excellent working taxonomy of 6 conceivable positions on the “secondary” questyion of WO.  (Somebody proposed a 7th position, but that seems to be only an intense form of #1.)  Has anybody kept tabs on what kind of representation each position has received?  1, 3, and 4, have been splendidly argued, but have we heard from 2, 5 and 6?

I have not yet finished reading every word of each comment yet but I would say I pretty much agree with LP here. I think Matt+ has constructed a tension that needs to be harmonized that does not exhist in the text. I do have one question for LP though. When you use the terms “public” or “private” do you mean them literally or that “public” is when a church meets or worships and “private” is anything outside of a meeting of a church?

What would you do if your jurisdiction officially renounced the doctrine of the Trinity and on what basis would you do it?

Leave (...yesterday).  Because the doctrine of the Trinity is not only in the Three Ecumenical Creeds, but is also mentioned (though not explicitely) throughout Scripture.  The doctrine Christ’s Baptism has the doctrine all over it.  Pretty hard to miss. 

What would you do if your jurisdiction decided to declare the moderate drinking of alcohol a sin and impose a teetotling law on the clergy?

Passively submit, of course. 

But what would you do under the same circumstances, if you strongly disagreed with using grape juice for Communion?  What if you felt that wine vs grape juice wasn’t a salvific issue, but rather one that God cared about an awful lot .. even to the point of getting angry and breaking out some lesser punishments from time to time? 

- Defy? 
- Submit?
- Strike a balance between defiance and submission, as one would do in a dysfunctional family situation?

Correction:

“The doctrine Christ’s Baptism has the doctrine all over it. “

should read,

“The account of Christ’s Baptism has the doctrine all over it. ”

When you use the terms “public” or “private” do you mean them literally or that “public” is when a church meets or worships and “private” is anything outside of a meeting of a church?

I mean more or less the latter.

Here’s how I see it—and, as these passages are the Scriptures on which Matt has based his entire defense of postion #4 (i.e. “it’s not forbidden by Scripture”), it’s important to this discussion and worth summarizing:

First, if I’ve understood Matt+ so far:
*** Matt has said that if we had only 1 Cor 14/1 Tim 2 - and not these ‘tempering’ passages of 1 Cor 11 & Acts 18 - even he would be forced to conclude Scripture proscribes WO.
*** However, Matt claims that there is a “tension” between 1 Cor 14/1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11/Acts 18.
*** This “tension”, he says, comes from reading 1 Cor 14/1 Tim 2 as “universally prohibitive”. Since we believe Scripture can’t contradict itself, those 2 texts can’t be read this contradiction-creating way.
*** He said, early on, that he isn’t sure _how_ they should be read, but that having rejected the “universal prohibition” interpretation we are entitled to say that they don’t apply to WO.
*** He has yet to show how the lack of a “universal” application for these passages can immediately imply WO-is-okay without further discussion (c.f. Moot’s challenge above with the murder/abortion analogy); he’s merely asserted that because they aren’t “universal proscriptions” they therefore don’t necessarily apply to WO.
*** He believes that a Scripturally-consistent resolution of this perceived tension, which preserves the “may not hold authority over men” but still allows WO in the “space” which the perceived tension creates, is his category of “junior female clergy under senior male cleric”.
*** He hasn’t yet shown how this ‘solution’ is consistent with the observation that _any_ cleric, junior or senior, has “authority” over the congregation (regardless of whether that junior is a deacon under a priest, an assistant under a rector, a priest under a bishop, etc) and thus not still in conflict with 1 Tim 2.
*** Matt+ is _not_ trying to show that Scripture *promotes* WO nor that it *requires* a pro-WO reading, merely that it <u>does not explicitly proscribe it</u>. That, for him, is sufficent permission to justify the innovation—or, at least, to justify letting a jurisdiction enter into a “period of reception” to adopt and “test” the innovation.
.

My interpretation of these passages which Matt has raised argue as follows, with this public/private distinction playing a key role:

*** “Public” vs “private” - i.e in the corporate worship context vs not in it - is a Scriptural distinction. In these very pasages, Paul talks about order “in the churches” when he’s describing worship and explicitly contrasts it with “at home”. We may, therefore, faithfully and consistently use this Pauline distinction in allowing “Scripture to interpret Scripture”.
*** Acts 18 is explicitly (I think) describing a “private” setting, and 1 Cor 11:4-5 at the very least not explicitly describing a “public” setting. (Cf. my comments above about how “in the churches” only starts at v. 17)
*** By contrast, 1 Cor 14 is explicitly and 1 Tim 2 implicitly (at the very least) describing *public* worship and order.
*** Thus there is _no contradiction_ between 1 Cor 14/1 Tim 2 on the one hand and 1 Cor 11/Acts 18 on the other if we take the most natural & plain reading—if we understand the former pair of texts to be refering to “public worship” with its prohibitions and the latter to be describing “private” behavior.
*** This reading is much to be prefered to Matt+‘s, as his *creates* a conflict by assuming (without further justification) a “public” context for the latter half which simply is not there (and, in Acts 18, I think explicitly not there)—and, moreover, which resolves this created conflict not by discarding these assumptions, but by importing *more* assumptions and categories to the interpretation—e.g. the “junior cleric” category.
*** The fact that 1 Cor 14 & 1 Tim 2 are not “universally proscriptive”—i.e. that they don’t say women should always keep silent or never teach—is irrelevant. We aren’t discussing “what should women ever do” - we are discussing “can women be ordained” and, thus, discussing the public/worship context. That these two passages don’t apply to some other contexts is irrelevant.
*** This interpretation is also consistent with “Scripture as a whole” (e.g. the concept of ‘priesthood’ in OT & NT; the descriptions of clerical orders in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 3—passages which Matt+ hasn’t addressed save to say that they don’t _explicitly_ proscribe WO).
*** This interpretation is _also_ consistent—unlike Matt’s—with how Tradition has interpreted these Scriptures, and consistent with the explicit teaching and practice of the early Church. (Admittedly, Matt believes Tradition may be changed to another interpretation and practice, provided that it doesn’t conflict with “Scripture interpreting Scripture”, at least as he understands it, so this point on Tradition’s rejection of WO is irrelevant to his argument.)

.

I hope I’ve fairly & objectively presented the salient points of these two different exegeses.

.

pax,
LP

p.s. on public/private

I realized, upon reflection, that there was one other consideration I ought to add in answering your public/private question and in comparing the two exegeses:

.

Matt+ has argued, in effect (and, yes, this is something of a simplification) concerning 1 Cor 14/1 Tim 2 [“the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate” / “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man”] that “these look in isolation like universal proscriptions, but from other passages we see that they aren’t universal proscriptions, therefore Paul couldn’t have intended them as universal proscriptions, therefore they don’t forbid WO.”

.

I think this is backwards. The more logical and Scripturally-consistent way to approach these passages, I think, is this:

We know from Paul’s words (epistles) and deeds (Acts) that he (and the apostolic church as a whole) had no reservations about the appropriateness of women’s private devotions (1 Cor 11), giving instruction in private (Acts 18), being important patronesses (Lydia), being well-known figures in the community (Junia - assuming, of course, that the ‘Junia’ in the text is the form of the female name “Junia” [Chrysostom] as opposed to the graphically identical form of the male name “Junias”/“Junianus” [Origen]), etc.

So Paul _couldn’t_ have intended these passages (1Cor14/1Tim2) as universal proscriptions, because Scripture, rightly understood, does not contradict itself. Yet he clearly intends _something_ by them—there is _some_ context in which gives, and for which he intends, these “blanket” prohibitions on authority and teaching.

What could that intended context be?

Well, these texts come up in passages specifically discussing order and organization in public Christian worship—1 Cor 14:33 (and passim) “As in all the churches of the saints…” ; Tim 3:14-15 “I am writing you these instructions so that… you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God”.

Accordingly, the most natural and reasonable interpretation (and that taken by Tradition) is that these proscriptions are intended to apply to that specific context being discussed in which they are made—i.e. public worship in the churches.

.

Matt+ has argued, in essence, “because these pasasges don’t apply to every context, therefore they don’t apply to the specific context in which they arise in the text.”

I’m arguing, by contrast, “these passages _obviously_ don’t apply to every context (e.g. not the private context of 1Cor11/Acts18), nor do they claim to do so—rather, and quite simply, they apply to the specific context in which they actually arise.

pax,
LP

LP, I think Matt is also making the mistake of confusing an aboslute prohibition with a universal one. Clearly 1 Cor 14/1 Tim 2 are not meant to be absolute, but that does not at all mean that they are not meant to be universal. If I say to a child, “You must never talk back to the teacher” I clearly do not mean that he must never reply when he is asked a question. I mean that he must not sass the teacher or verbally defy his authority. This is what I mean by “talk back”, and I mean it to be universally obeyed. Paul is doing the same. He does not command women to be absolutely silent in all circumstance but only in ceratin ways in certain circumstances, but in these his command is universal.

I am having a big problem with the Evangelical approach to the Church; I just cannot get my mind around it, and I never have been able to. Various commentators assure us that WO is not something over which the Church should be divided; they also say that infant versus believer Baptism are not Church-dividing, nor are predestination/Arminianism, various views of the Sacraments, church government, etc. The problem for me is that I can’t see any objective way to decide which issues are Church-dividing and which aren’t. Certainly at times in the past each of these issues have divided churches, so at that time they seem to have been sufficiently important to separate Christians; but now they aren’t. How do we know this? What standard do we use to decide what is important enough and what isn’t? And how do we decide to move things from one category to another? I’m sorry, but it looks completely arbitrary to me. Several people on this thread have said that pro-WO and anti-WO should just get along in one Church. But that assumes these are not Church-dividing issues, and for those people they aren’t. However, I can’t find any objective way to determine this. It just seems that if it doesn’t bother you all that much, then it isn’t Church-dividing. But if you feel strongly about it, then it is. Isn’t that awfully subjective? Have I missed some principle here?

This reminds me so much of discussions between EO and RCC Christians. The RCC assure the EO that there aren’t Church-dividing issues between them: the EO can keep their funny little ways and teachings as long as they recognize papal primacy. The EO insist that the issues are serious and Church-dividing and the RCC needs to scale back the papal claims. But of course, there can be no progress at all here, since the one side’s issues are not being taken seriously by the other. I think that is tending to happen here too. I can’t see any way followers of position #1 can be in the same Church with followers of #2-#5 (or #6). (Of course, I can’t see how anyone can hold #2 logically, as I mentioned yesterday.)

In any case, I am missing any objective way for the Evangelical side to explain which issues are Church-dividing. Matt’s answers to LP (with whom I agree) basically come down to saying that Tradition doesn’t matter and the issue isn’t important enough to divide over. I just don’t see how he can know that.

There is a second area of Matt’s argument which I am having trouble with. He treats the Bible as a more or less complete statement of the Christian Faith, but I wonder if this is correct. Certainly, St. Paul’s letters are nothing like a complete manual on Church organization, but we see an organized Church as early as the beginning of the 2nd century AD. So, where did this organization come from? Is there a clue in the words of the Apostle Paul: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter (II Thess. 2:15)? It seems that here St. Paul is telling us that there are aspects of the Faith which were passed on outside his letters, in addition to his letters. Church organization is one of these areas, since it is not explicit in the Scriptures, but is rather well-developed extremely early in Church history (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch). If this is the case, I would be very uncomfortable saying that my reading of the Scriptures does not positively preclude WO and I will choose to ignore the whole history and tradition of the Church on this matter, which does absolutely preclude WO. I think this is putting far more weight on the Scriptures than they can bear according to the explicit teaching of St. Paul that not everything was included in his letters, but some things were passed on orally; i.e., by tradition.

Fr S.J., we can quickly bog down in a debate over the relation of Scripture and Tradition, and the pro WO participants would surely be delighted if we did.  Suffice it to say that the adherents of Scripture-plus-Tradition have held strictly to a male Ministry and so have “Sola Scriptura” Protestants.  Is it 2 x 3 which equals 6, or is it 3 + 3?  Either way, the bottom line is the same.  Conservative Calvinists and traditional RC’s are of one mind on this matter.  The pro WO party is a majority in the apostate ECUSA, but a tiny minority in the Christian world at large.

Laurence K Wells

Has anybody kept tabs on what kind of representation each position has received?  1, 3, and 4, have been splendidly argued, but have we heard from 2, 5 and 6?

I was curious too, so I went back and reread both threads. To the best of my ability, here is the count:
Position #1: 14
Position #2:  0
Position #3:  1
Oppose WO, unable to tell which category or other reasons:  19
All opposed: 34

Undecided on deacon, opposed on priest or bishop: 1
Between #3 and #4): 4, with 1 specifying deacons only
All borderline or undecided: 5

Position #4: 10, with 2 specifiying deacons only
Between #4 & #5: 1
Position #5: 4
Position #6: 0
Support WO, unable to tell which category or other reasons: 5
All in favor: 20

I hear there are 3 bishops still in TEC who do not ordain women, which I would expect makes them #1’s. Does anyone here know which category the other Network bishops, non-Network Windsor bishops, GS Primates, and US bishops of GS Provinces (e.g. Bp Minns) fall into?

sodbuster, I counted anyone who was opposed to WO, but for some reason other than #1, 2 or 3 in the “opposed, unable to tell or other reasons” category. In order to make sure I didn’t count anyone twice, I kept a list of everyone I put into one category or other. You are included in the tally.

kyounge—

I hear there are 3 bishops still in TEC who do not ordain women, which I would expect makes them #1’s

No, they are, at best, #2s—if they are anything coherent. All the consistent #1s have already left PECUSA.

These bishops’ actions show that they do not think differences over WO require either breaking off of jurisdictional union (#1) or setting up structures to defend the integrity and functional separation of a next generation of anti-WO orthodox (#3).

Sodbuster—

those who are opposed to WO for reasons of scripture, rather than of Tradition,

I think you’ll find that the #1s _are_ opposed to WO for reasons of Scripture.

I think that most anglo- and other catholics don’t say, ultimately, “we don’t ordain women because Tradition says so” but, rather, “we don’t ordain women because *Scripture* says so, as Tradition’s interpretation and practice of Scripture makes clear.”

There are issues where Scripture is absolutely silent and, in the face of that silence, Tradition sets the precedent. WO isn’t one of them.

pax,
LP

I wrote:

I hear there are 3 bishops still in TEC who do not ordain women, which I would expect makes them #1’s

to which LP replied

No, they are, at best, #2s—if they are anything coherent. All the consistent #1s have already left PECUSA.

Right you are. It took a considerable time to read both threads, and I hadn’t had any dinner yet. I guess my blood sugar must have been getting a bit low.

Lurking about 1/2 a year.  1st-time poster.

Dear Matt, let me add my name to the list of admirers thanking you for not only opening this thread, but for your steadfast courage in fighting the good fight and standing firm against the growing apostasy and heresy in TEC.  You have been a stalwart and a tremendous encouragement to all traditional Anglicans around the world along with GG, Sarah Hey, and David Ould.  Blessings to all at SFIF!

I do recognize the difficult, calculated decision you made at the beginning of this thread in banning the p-word.  You knew some people would be offended by its ban; and you knew that some people would be offended if the word was used semi-regularly.  You were in a tough position.  Be that as it may, the ban did not prevent good and fruitful dialogue. 

Upfront:  I’m a warm and soft, yet gently firm complementarian based on Scripture.  LP has done a magnificent, indeed incredible job in providing Biblical counterpoints to your egalitarian arguments.  LP receives my highest commendation for combining both excellent biblical reasoning on sound hermeneutics and a charitable, civil, loving tone.  He has been doggedly diligent, thoughtful, thorough, and his verbosity is to be welcomed and not dismissed because he so carefully scrutinizes your arguments and desires to respond in a complete, careful, loving way.  Similar kudos to Laurence Wells, et al.

So, I won’t engage you on hermeneutics and exegesis/eisegesis and importing and apparent contradictions, etc… because LP and others have done such a masterful job.  Instead I’d like to look at other items:

o Alistair Begg.  I’ve read somewhere that you like to listen to him.  He’s a staunch complementarian.  Naturally, that doesn’t mean that you’re going to agree with him on everything, but I thought I’d mention it just in case you weren’t aware of it.

o Previously, you wrote that you would change postion on WO if those higher on the ecclesiastical hierarchy made an official ruling banning WO.  In some sense, I understand this, yet on another, I don’t understand it.  I shall provide my reasoning, and feel free to reject it should you think I’m projecting onto you, and that’s not how you reason. 

My thinking is this:  Will I only change my doctrinal position if and only if a council of theologians, priests, and scholars within my denom. hierarchy officially pronounces that WO is outside the bounds of biblical orthodoxy and is banned?  What if their reasoning, hermeneutics, and exegesis is not as sound as LP’s and others on this thread?  But because it’s “official”, then I’ll change my mind and heart.

That seems somewhat peculiar to me on an intellectual basis, but a perfectly understandable position from a human rationalization defense mechanism perspective.

What I’m saying is that if a doctrinal argument is biblically sound, logical, lovingly reasoned, why would I not yield my heart and mind to it, regardless whether the media delivery was a book, a journal article, an e-mail, a phone call, a restaurant conversation, or a BLOG thread?  Why would I have to wait for an official pronouncement from a conciliar body within my denomination?  (And I do remember that your church and you have changed jurisdictions.)

Why can’t I be convicted to move from error to non-error based on the variety of ways that the Word of God can be conveyed to me?  Why must I wait for “orders”?  This seems incongruous to me.

...continuing…

o Regulative Principle vs. Normative Principle.  I do remember Matt mentioning the regulative principle in an earlier post.  If I may venture a hypothesis, this may be where perhaps Matt and LP are talking past each other.  (I could be wrong!)  Pro-Wo seem to adopt NP while anti-WO adopt RP.

For the RP view (LP), the Scriptures are the only source we should draw our practice from. In other words, it must be commanded, or deduced by “good and necessary consequence”. And to do those things not positively commanded from God in His Word is to oppose Him.

On the other hand NP advocates (Matt) suggest as long as their practice is not contrary to Scripture, we are afforded the liberty to practice those things in addition to things not positively commanded in the Word.

So while both subscribe to the authority of Scripture, only the RP’s view it as both authoritative and SUFFICIENT.

Granted, these are not perfect principles.  They both have slippery slopes.  I.e, RP’s might become a little too legalistic and the NP’s could become too libertine or licentious.

Although I do think the NP is a far slipperier slope. There’s a lot of behaviors whereby one could wiggle around and say, “it’s NOT EXPRESSLY forbidden in the Bible, so I have freedom to do this.”

o   Matt, is it safe for me to speculate that your parish in NY has church membership requirements and that you encourage folks to become members of a church, if not your church?  You have argued that since WO is not expressly forbidden in Scripture, then its practice is permissible.  Similarly, non-membership is not expressly forbidden in Scripture either.  (Conceptually easier:  church membership is NOT expressly required in Scripture either) 

So if WO is permissible, then non-membership is permissible.  There should be no functional differences between a member and a non-member.  The non-member should be granted voting privileges, vestry privileges, etc….  S/he can claim with absolute confidence that non-membership is NOT expressly forbidden in Scripture, and hence they are entitled to any and all privileges that a church member can… based on Scripture’s lack of EXPRESS prohibition against non-membership.

Now church membership can be indirectly deduced from Scripture.  AND prohibition against WO can also be indirectly deduced from Scripture.  (Personally, I think it’s direct, but I think with Matt’s higher threshold of what is an express prohibition, I shall have to say it’s indirect.)

continuing….

o Adiaphora.  I’ve seen Sarah’s comments and I’ve read Fr. S.J.‘s comments above.  There is much to say about this.
(A)  For all who say that this WO issue is adiaphora and that UNITY among the brethren is not adiaphora, then I suggest that all those in the middle of the spectrum defer either to staunch anti-WO or to staunch pro-WO.  Since you prize unity above adiaphora issues, then just defer your staunch brother/sister.  But if you don’t defer, then it’s clearly not adiaphora to you.
(B)  Technically, I don’t believe that this is a salvific doctrinal issue.  However, this is not an argument at all to minimize the importance of the WO issue.

Matt states that he is a subscriber to the Chicago Statements. 

Article XIX states:
WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
——-
Inerrancy is also not a salvific issue.  But I would add in the same verbiage:  “Complementarians further deny that complementarianism (anti-WO) can be rejected without GRAVE consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.”

By and large (with a few exceptions), WO has overall borne bad fruit for TEc and the mainline denoms.

Arguably, WO undermines the teaching of Scripture which is salvific that it robs the salvific doctrine from its power to save.

This is why it’s not adiaphora.

continuing…

o Applicability of reasoning for Pro-WO case directly applicable to reasoning for Pro-GLBT case.

LP has already shown why this is the case.  Let me add personal experience.  I interviewed Ph.D theologian-pastor who was egalitarian.  He presented 4 reasons:
(1)  (Subjective) Giftings
(2)  Denial To or Oppression of Women
(3)  Cultural Customs of Paul and/or Jesus (or the period/culture in which the Bible was written/inspired)
(4)  Up for Debate

I refuted him as follows:

“Respectfully, I contend that each of your four arguments above could be extended to argue for the ordination of homosexuals in pastoral ministry.  It could be argued that Homosexuals are “gifted” for pastoral ministry.  It could be argued that the Bible is unfairly denying or oppressing homosexuals from offices in the church.  It could be argued that those Scripture passages against the practice of homosexuality was only specific to that particular time, place, or culture and not transcendent for all times, all places, all cultures.  It could be argued that this issue of homosexuality within the church is “up for debate” as there are Pro-Gay theologians and non-Pro-Gay theologians.”

I went on to write:

“Even further, I could respectfully contend that each of those arguments might be skillfully utilized by the Author of Confusion.  Is not the enemy “gifted”?  Is Lucifer not the most beautiful creature that God ever created?  Is not the enemy being denied or oppressed the office/role he desires?  Perhaps the sayings of Jesus regarding Satan are only culturally restrictive to Jesus’ time on earth?  Or maybe it’s “up for debate” and that’s how the Deceiver was able to persuade so many angels to join him.”

He could not refute the argument.
———
Lastly, with respect to giftings.  First, there are so many ways that a woman can share her spiritual gifts for the edification of the body and the glory of the Lord.  There are only a few offices that are denied per Scripture.

Second, “gifts” can be subjective.  If a woman is “gifted” in the secular, is it appropriate to apply these secular “gifts” in a church ministry?  How does one distinguish from “gifts” given by the Holy Spirit from counterfeit “gifts” given by the deceiver? 

From the “by their fruits you shall know them” test,  how does one distinguish God’s good “fruit” from “fruit” that looks good and tastes good, but has seeds of future destruction embedded (a little hyperbolic, but you know what I mean about a slippery slope).  Didn’t the fruit that Eve ate look good and taste good too?

I would stand with any egalitarian and yell just as loudly as they that women in WO positions have brought people into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as savior and knowledge.  I have no doubt about that.  NONE.  God is great and He’s to be praised.  I would just say that in those glorious cases that while it’s praise-worthy for those saved individuals, it’s a medium to long-term damage to the Body of Christ.

For Matt and other pro-WO’s, please know that all the anti-WO’s from LP, Alfonso, Laurence Well, Professor Tighe, Eclipse(?), Christopher Hathaway, myself, et al, we make the case for anti-WO in pure, loving, Christ-like motives. 

Please do not see them as overly restrictive or legalistic or anything like that.  We all desire to love God with our hearts, our minds, our souls, and our strength.  Obedience to Scripture, or Tradition, or Sacramental Efficacy are means to lovingly obey God which spills over into loving others as ourselves. 

We know we cannot make these arguments if there are planks in our eyes.  By making this case as strongly and lovingly as we can, it gives us all the chance for self-purification arising from self-examination. 

To Matt et al, with much love, peace, and warmth in Christ.

Previously, you wrote that you would change postion on WO if those higher on the ecclesiastical hierarchy made an official ruling banning WO.  In some sense, I understand this, yet on another, I don’t understand it.

To save poor Matt+, already with a backlog, some trouble, I think I can answer this one on his behalf from his perspective.

Matt+ is suggesting that, in addition to things which Scripture expressly forbids or expressly enjoins (however you determine these), there are things _not_ expressly in Scripture which a jurisdiction has the right to legislate and a member has a duty to follow, even if there has been, in the past, a contrary tradition.

This is not a case of a jurisdiction saying “we have decided that Scripture says X, therefore you shall believe X” - but, rather, of a jurisdiction saying “Scripture is silent on this issue; we have decided that, in our jurisdiction, we will do X.”

He’s NOT saying that he’s pro-WO because of his jurisdiction’s interpretation of Scripture _for_ it (against other interpretations)—rather, he’s decided by his own judgement that Scripture is silent on the issue, therefore decided that the practice of WO or not may be left up to a jurisdiction, therefore he’s going to follow the practice of his jurisdiction. If he _disagreed_ with his jurisdiction that something was “open” to jurisdictional experimenting—e.g. over SSBs—he wouldn’t [indeed, he didn’t!] follow it or wait for it to change.

Now, in one respect, this is no different that, say, the Roman Catholic position—i.e. that a jurisdiction may impose as “discipline” things not adjudicated one way or the other by Scripture & Tradition. Scripture doesn’t _forbid_ married clergy, nor does Scripture _require_ it (“husband of one wife” being understood to mean “husband of less than 2 wives”), so it’s not a matter of dogma/doctrine. The RC church has decided to _add_ this practice as a discipline, and has a right to do so. And it could, without contradiction, at some point decide in council or papal decree to change this discipline.

Where Matt+ differs from anglocatholics, Roman catholics, the majority of “Sola Scriptura Protestants”, etc, is not in a “dicipline vs dogma” distinction but, rather, in his interpretation of Scripture (he doesn’t think it anti-WO); in the authority given [or not given] to Tradition and its normative interpretation of Scripture; and, thus, in what practices he thinks are “open” to jurisdictional determination.

.

For the RP view (LP), the scriptures are the only source we should draw our practice from. In other words, it must be commanded, or deduced by “good and necessary consequence”. And to do those things not positively commanded from God in His Word is to oppose Him.

I’m not sure I agree with this. As Matt+ has pointed out, there are plenty of things not positively commanded, or even addressed, in Scripture which one may do without “opposing” Him. Scripture does not command me to eat chocolate doughnuts. Am I “opposing” Him if I do?... I sure hope not! (mmmmm…. doughnuts….)

For purposes of this thread/discussion, I don’t think we need to digress too far into this issue - whether someone is subscribes to RP, NP, or something in between is irrelevant if Scripture does, indeed, forbid WO. Both “camps” agree that if something is forbidden in Scripture it shouldn’t be done, regardless of how they treat other issues.

The differences between the two views is seems to be centering on, rather:
* What’s the sensible reading of Scripture on its own
* What is the norm by which a “reading” of Scripture is established—how do we decide what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” really says if people differ over it
* What is the authority (if any) of Tradition—the teaching & practice of the early Church—to understand what the right reading of Scripture is.

.

pax,
LP

A few other reactions, not as closely tied to the exchanges with Matt+:

By and large (with a few exceptions), WO has overall borne bad fruit for TEC and the mainline denoms.

(lol… I misread this at first glance as “mainline demons”)

I am hesitant to see this sort of argument used as anything more than an aside. Mankind can screw anything up, good or bad. And, anyway, at what point do you have the objectivity to see if the fruit _is_ good or bad (maybe it’s just not ripe yet?) and can you be sure that you’ve rightly deduced the _cause_ of the bad fruit.

So while the “bearing of bad fruit” is a Scriptural test—and I agree that the “bad fruit” of PECUSA’s apostasy on SSBs is a clear reflection on the “bad fruitness” of WO which was a step in that same process—I think this somewhat subjective “fruit” test needs to take a back seat to the more “objective” issue of Scriptural norms.

.

Arguably, WO undermines the teaching of scripture which is salvific that it robs the salvific doctrine from its power to save.

This use of on this site of the term “salvific” for WO discussions is one introduced, I think, by Sarah Hey, and I think it’s an inaccurate term, even for what she was trying to say by it. (We posted a few exchanges on this in a thread some time ago.)

What she was getting at in that original post (if I remember correctly) was that #1-ers see differing practices on WO as incompatible within the same jurisdiction and so—based on the assumption that anything which divided jurisdictions must necessarily be their views on “salvific” issues—she started saying “WO is a salvific issue for #1s”.

Now, this may or may not be the case—#1s might or might not bring WO into a discussion of soteriology. But the focus of the debate over this issue has not been on _soteriology_ but on _ecclesiology_—e.g. questions of jurisdictional affiliation. Throwing soteriology into the mix by the poor choice of adjective “salvific” just muddies the discussion.
.

The argument has not been that WO “undermines the salvific power” of Scripture. That is to say, even #1ers would agree that a pro-WO thinker like Matt+ still agrees that Scripture is doctrine and salvific. They think he’s _wrong_ about what Scripture has to say about WO; they may well think that the hermenutic by which he justifies WO is deviant and leads to all sorts of unfortunate consequences—but they wouldn’t hold, I don’t think, that by advocating WO per se he intends, or believes in, robbing Scripture of salvific authority and power.

For #1ers, the more _immediate_ issue raised by WO, rather than soteriology or even than Biblical hermenutic, is one of the sacraments. If WO is contrary to God’s will and is null and void, then “ordained women” are actually laity—and thus the clerical actions they take (Eucharist; ordinations, etc) are invalid have no guarantee of sacramental grace. Because (at least for anglo- and other catholics), valid sacraments are - by God’s promise - a “medecine of salvation” (as one patristic author has described the Eucharist) and an important vehicle established by God for our sanctification, the _invalidating_ of them by WO has serious consequences.

But, again, it’s not that WO is salvific _per se_ as that adjective tends to suggest (e.g. “If you approve of or practice WO you’re going to hell”), but rather that it raises issues which are, in turn, pertinant to soteriology (Biblical hermenutic; sacramental validity; nature of the priesthood & Church etc).

I would thus - yet again - urge that this use of the adjective “salvific” for WO be dropped from the discussion. It is, at best, confusing and, at worst, a red herring. Saying that it’s a “jurisdictional” or “sacramental” issue is a clearer and more accurate way of describing its immediate importance to those who oppose WO, and describes its primary consequences rather than their subsequent ramifications.

.

I would stand with any egalitarian and yell just as loudly as they that women in WO positions have brought people into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as savior and knowledge.  I have no doubt about that.  NONE.  God is great and He’s to be praised.

To be against WO is neither to deny this good nor to suggest a world in which it couldn’t have happened.

What percentage of what an “ordained woman” does—catechetical teaching; pastoral visitation; parish administration; community service and witness—couldn’t be done by a laywoman too? To oppose WO is not to take away the opportunity of laity - male or female - to do such good works or bear such good witness.

As has already been mentioned in this thread, one of the several key factors by which the revisionist teacing of WO was able to get into Anglicanism was the of a loss of understanding of, respect for and avocation of lay ministry—the sneaking “clericalism” which assumed that if you weren’t ordained then you couldn’t _really_ serve God.

.

pax,
LP

As has already been mentioned in this thread, one of the several key factors by which the revisionist teacing of WO was able to get into Anglicanism was the of a loss of understanding of, respect for and avocation of lay ministry—the sneaking “clericalism” which assumed that if you weren’t ordained then you couldn’t _really_ serve God.

Hear, hear (or is it, here, here ?) !

Gifts required by the office of priest are shared by those of us (men and women) who haven’t been called to be a priest.  The gifts are good, and the intent of the Giver is that we use them to His glory. 

Moreover, women who have ministerial gifts should be encouraged to use them on a full-time (read:  full-time salaried) basis.  Frankly, this avoids the danger involved when a male priest counsels a younger woman.

LP,
It does seem that your last answers to my hypothetical question puts us rather in the same boat in at least one way. You certainly acknowledge that when a province/jurisdiction determines to act officially in such a way that she renders herself apostate, that it is the duty of the Christian to depart from that jurisdiction. And yet when a jurisdiction makes a decision about a non-essential matter, then it is the obligation of the individual (especially in orders) to obey. So, in other words, there is a point at which, we both agree, that the individual must personally discern whether a jurisdiction has become apostate. The only discernable difference between our two positions on this matter is that you would lean on Tradition as well as scripture in making this determination. I am happy to do so as well, with the insistence that Scripture stands over tradition.

My decision to leave the jurisdictional structure of the Episcopal Church is, I think you would agree, wholly warranted using both the scriptures and tradition.

You do, however, seem to be suggesting that if scripture is the prime interpreter of scripture that there is no more warrant to leave over SSBs than there would be with regard to WO because if I employ the same methodology with regard to SSBs that I do with regard to WO, then SSBs become as open a question as WO. In other words, my decision, apart from tradition is arbitrary and based on my own personal opinion.

Of course, you must admit that my “personal” opinions about both matters do coincide with the Anglican Communion as a whole and that my “personal” opinion with regard to SSBs coincides with both Tradition and Scripture.

I think you may be begging the question of scriptural perspicuity.  Hooker, in keeping with the reformers, argued that the scriptural clarity in large part determines what is “core” or essential and what is disputable.

Since we both agree that the scriptures are clear (indeed tradition does as well) with regard to SSBs, then there is really nothing to argue about regarding my decision to change jurisdictions.

What we are disputing is whether it is equally clear with regard to WO. Tradition posits that it is. And you think that my decision to depart from tradition in this matter shows that the true guide for my decisions is, well, not the bible nor the Communion but “me” and my own interpretation of the bible.

The question here, epistemologically speaking, is, as I suggested in an earlier post, whether biblical truth is like mathematical truth. In other words, my interpretation of something is arbitrary if that thing itself is unintelligible or immeasurable. But if that thing is clear “my” determination is no longer so arbitrary.

“my” determination that say 1+1=2 is, certainly, “my” determination, but it is not an arbitrary one. It is a clear discernment of an objectively clear fact. If I were to suggest that 1+1=3, it would not, because I suggest it, be true. And, through reason, if I were reasonable, there would be a way to demonstrate this not only to me but to all who watch and listen.

The reformed assertion with regard to scriptural truth is that it is like mathematics in that using standard literary methodology, the teachings of the bible are as measurable and intelligible and objectively understood as, say, multiplication tables.

Now, like mathematics, there are some “revealed” truths that remain so complex and difficult that we have yet to resolve them. This is not to say that these portions of scripture do not reveal truth, it is to say that for our sinfulness and blindness we have yet to understand them. Think of the Reinnman hypothesis.

For these matters we cannot make hard and fast rules. Or, we can, but they are subject to testing and retesting etc…

My contention throughout has been that the question of homosexual sex is one of those 1+1 matters whereas WO is more complex and subject to testing. This is not to say that there isn’t an answer, it is to say that the answer is not readily apparent as it is with regard to SSB

The reason, I suggest, that this is not an arbitrary determination, is because using standard literary methodology you can demonstrate the truth or falsehood of both claims. It is no more arbitrary than making a scientific observation. It is testable.

I think so far, it has been easily seen that the case against homosexual sexual behavior is not only strong but indisputable. What has not been seen, from your perspective, is that the proscriptions of 1 Cor 14 and 1 tim 2:11 are not necessarily proscriptive of WO.

you asked me to address the following:

“*The interpretation of the particular texts (including the public vs private distinction) and whether or not they actually support the “contradiction” with an anti-WO reading you claim they do;”

The argument does hinge on two things. First, 1 Cor 11 must be in the context of public worship. Otherwise there is, as you rightly point out, no tension with 1 Cor 14. You have asserted that the prophesy referred to in 1 Cor 11 is not “public” but “private”.  I think you do so because of the seemingly introductory phraseology found in 1 Cor 11:17 where Paul seems to be changing the subject from a more private sort of prophesy in the home or elsewhere to public worship. The problem with this assertion is that Paul actually initiates his discussion of public worship in chapter 10 where he discusses Communion as the participation in Christ’ body and blood and the participation of some members of the Corinthian church were partaking in both Communion and pagan revelries. He continues to discuss Women prophesying in the first section of 1 Cor 11 and then goes back to the intemperate behavior of some members of the community during Communion.

It is very difficult to conceive of this sort of “prophesying” being “private” not only given the textual context which gives no indication of shifting from public to private to public again, but also from the mere nature of “prophesy” in this letter (see 1 cor 12:28) .

Paul mentions the function of prophets in public worship in 1 Cor 14:29 as a public act, “Two or three prophets should speak and the others should weigh carefully what is said…” He also notes that the “spirits of the prophets” are under the control of the prophets. In other words, if they have a message, they have the power to control it.

It is interesting that the command for women’s silence comes directly after this in verse 34. But notice that the “speaking” referred to in verse 34 is described in verse 35 not as “prophesying” but “inquiring”. Like I noted at the very beginning of this, I am not at all sure what Paul means by silence here, or the scope of it, but given 1 Cor 11 it cannot be an absolute proscription and given the description of the sort of “speaking” that women must not do in the text itself, it is certainly conceivable that Paul is forbidding disorderly speech from “ignorant” women, not the prophets of chapter 11.

It is difficult, moreover, to conceive of how women would “prophesy” publicly given that prophesy, as opposed to tongues, is by nature a public act:

“22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

Since prophesy is a public gift for the church and to be used publicly, what would the function of a female prophet be if she were to restrict her words to the home? Would she convey the prophesy to her husband and then, through him, to the church? There is no hint of that sort of clunky arrangement in the text. Every indication is that prophets spoke in church and that women did so, in order, with their heads covered and in full submission to their husbands and the male leaders.

When it comes to 1st Timothy 2:11-12, it also, if interpreted in an absolutely proscriptive sense, stands in tension with 1 Cor 11. Acts 18 (especially if the translation is in fact “invited him to their home”) also makes clear that at the very least whatever proscriptions exist or not against women teaching, they exist in the assembled body.

cont…

You go on to question:
“* Whether or not you can coherently jump, without further reasoning, from “this prohibition is not universal” to “this prohibition doesn’t apply to WO” (as Moot pointed out with the killing/abortion example above);”

I responded to Moot that the bible also teaches that life begins at conception (see Psalm 51:5) for example. So while the bible clearly teaches that warfare is not “murder” it also teaches that life begins at conception so that the proscriptions that do apply to taking human life in the 5th commandment apply also to the unborn.
As for my “jump”, I would certainly quibble with your representation of my reasoning. The “therefore” is not rightly placed. You have eliminated any discussion of the proscriptions scope and I certainly think it has scope. To say that the proscription is not absolute merely begs the question: what sort of behavior does it cover?

In fact you ask: “* Whether or not “headship” can be invoked reasonably and Scripturally-consistently to come up with a “category” of junior cleric to get around the implications for WO of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2; “

How would this look? I would suggest that the proscriptions of the two texts above certainly pertain to any speaking out that is not limited and delegated by and through the headship of a male leader. The woman does not speak without the permission and express delegation of her husband and the male leader of the congregation. And her words must be overseen by them. When a woman speaks she must be speaking as a delegate or extension of her husband. So a woman cleric preaching, preaches a message seen and approved by the male pastor and as just one more extension of his authority and teaching office. The men are not being instructed by a woman but by the pastor through the delegated authority…

to be continued later this weekend

<blockquote> He’s NOT saying that he’s pro-WO because of his jurisdiction’s interpretation of scripture _for_ it (against other interpretations)—rather, he’s decided by his own judgement that Scripture is silent on the issue, therefore decided that the practice of WO or not may be left up to a jurisdiction, therefore he’s going to follow the practice of his jurisdiction. </blockquote>

Thanks LP for your responses.  But this comment above doesn’t summarize what I’m saying on this particular point.

As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong Matt), Matt will only change his mind from pro-WO to anti-WO if the jurisdiction his church belongs to makes an official decree on this doctrinal practice.

That’s what puzzles me.  I personally have, and many others have too, changed their doctrinal positions on issues without having to wait for an “official” jurisdictional decree.

truth unites,

thank you. I think that in matters that are disputable, provinces and jurisdictions have the freedom to determine practice. While my personal opinion of WO may remain the same when/if the jurisdiction of which I am a member decides to end WO, because it is a disputable matter, I will obey the decisions of my jurisdiction.

Certainly it is possible that we could be persuaded that WO is wrong before that and if we were so persuaded, Anne would surrender her collar before any official decision is made. WO is “authorized” not required. But, again, since this is not an essential matter, I would certainly not leave my jurisdiction if we came to an anti-WO position and the jurisdiction remained pro-WO.

<i> I don’t think, that by advocating WO per se he intends, or believes in, robbing scripture of salvific authority and power. <i>

Of course not LP.  It’s not a matter of <b> intentional belief <b> that pro-WO robs Scripture of salvific authority and power.  It’s the exact opposite.  It’s not being aware that it does so.

Analogously, let’s take the case of the Islamipalian in Washington state.  She does NOT intend or believe that her adoption of Islam is robbing Scripture of its salvific authority and power.  But I think she is <b> unaware <b) that her adoption of Islam is greatly weakening the gospel message of Scripture.

That is what I’m contending about pro-WO.  Corporately, it weakens the message of Scripture.  Both in its practice and the hermeneutics employed to rationalize its practice.

A question for anyone who knows the answer:

Do the nuns in the Roman Catholic Church belong to a holy clerical order or do they belong to a lay order? I worked for several years as an administrator for a hospital run by the Sisters of Charity of Nazerath. In the course of my duties, I saw nuns performing last rites, offering blessings and absolution and performing any number of other things that might have, based on some of the comments here, been reserved for priests. The hospital did have two priests who served as chaplains.

I apologize for not understanding how to format properly.  Please forgive me.

>>> My contention throughout has been that the question of homosexual sex is one of those 1+1 matters whereas WO is more complex and subject to testing. <<<

Dear Matt, this raises two questions for me:

(1)  I know that you’ve delineated where SSB and WO are dissimilar.  Obviously yes, they are different.  But in many other respects they are not different.

A pro-GLBTer can take your sentence above and state the same thing in essence for his/her position:  “My contention throughout has been that the question of the historical fact of Jesus’ physical resurrection is one of those 1+1 matters whereas SSB and GLBT ordination is more complex and subject to testing.”

(2)  Testing. 
(a)  What is the objective measurable criteria for this test?
(b)  How long is the test?
(c)  Who makes up the test?
(d)  Who grades the test?  etc….

Pax in Christ alone.

>>>  Certainly it is possible that we could be persuaded that WO is wrong before that and if we were so persuaded, Anne would surrender her collar before any official decision is made. WO is “authorized” not required. But, again, since this is not an essential matter, I would certainly not leave my jurisdiction if we came to an anti-WO position and the jurisdiction remained pro-WO. <<<

Thanks for this excellent clarification Matt!

“As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong Matt), Matt will only change his mind from pro-WO to anti-WO if the jurisdiction his church belongs to makes an official decree on this doctrinal practice.

That’s what puzzles me.  I personally have, and many others have too, changed their doctrinal positions on issues without having to wait for an “official” jurisdictional decree.”

Then it appears that Matt, as regards practice in such matters as WO (whatever he may continue to believe in theory) would attribute a “stronger” sense to Article 20 of the 39 Articles, viz., “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.  Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same it ought not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation” than you (or probably Sarah) would do.  I reckon that if Matt belonged to a “jurisdiction” (whatever that means in this context if it differs in any sense from “denomination”) that decided neither to practice WO nor to recognize as “ordained” any “ordained women” that might join it, he would accept that, whatever he might continue to think about WO in theory or about the prudence of that decision of his “jurisdiction.”  My question for him would be his attitude in the event that his “jurisdiction” made an official statement along the lines of that of the Presbyterian Church of Australia some years ago, or the Lutheran Church of Poland (and I believe certain other Lutheran bodies in Central and Eastern Europe) to the effect that WO is contrary to the Scriptures and to the Confessions (i.e., the confessional declarations recognized as authoritative in those bodies—always bearing in mind that in some conservative Reformed and a few conservative Lutheran bodies there is a tension between a “quatenus” [“insofar as”] and “quia” [“because”] subscription to those confessional standards, that is, subscription to the confessions “insofar as” they are in agreement with Scripture or precisely “because” they are [i.e., in point of fact, and completely] in agreement with Scripture), and therefore that WO will not be practiced in them, that advocacy of or favor of WO is an error incompatible with membership of, or at least ministerial status in, such “jurisdictions” and that communion fellowship (or, as the Lutheran term is, “Altar and Pulpit Fellowship”) between bodies that practice WO and those that do not is forbidden.  There may not a difference that reaches so high as “necessity of Salvation” in this disagreement (most Lutherans, at least in my experience, would not say so), but that is only because God alone knows minds and hearts, but I think that they would all allege that there is a fundamental or essential divergence on the nature of Christian Faith and Practice underlying it—on which I am in total accord with them.

In practice, of course, at least among Lutherans, there is not complete accord on the implications of this.  Here in America, the two most conservative Lutheran bodies, the “Missouri Synod” and the “Wisonsin Synod” are neither of them in communion with the liberal ELCA because of what they both regard as the latter’s practical abandonment of Lutheranism, not only with regard to WO but in regard to the ELCA’s communion fellowship with ECUSA, on the one hand, and the UCC, PCUSA and RCA, without requiring adhesion to Lutheran Confessions on their part; but “Missouri” and “Wisconsin” are not in communion with each other, either, because while Missouri regards agreement in all essential doctrinal matters as necessary for such fellowship, Wisconsin regards agreement on ALL doctrinal matters as required.  As to the Central and Eastern European Lutherans, they appear to have tacitly embraced the position that they can remain in communion with Lutheran churches that practice WO (which of course allows room for advocates of WO in their own “jurisdictions”), but a number of them have made it clear—as did the Archbishop of the Latvian Lutheran Church when I interviewed him in 1999 and spoke with him in 2000; see

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-04-031-i

for the interview itself, an abbreviated version of what was originally
a three-hour tape-recorded session)—that once a Lutheran body formally agreed to practice SS (my abbreviation for the “blessing” of homosexual “partnerships” or “sanctified sodomy” for short) they would immediately and formally break all fellowship with those churches.  (This had not happened yet, if only because the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian Lutheran State Churches have as yet allowed SS informally, although certainly openly enough—but the Swedes are slowly but surely bringing themselves to then point of formally endorsing it.)

“Do the nuns in the Roman Catholic Church belong to a holy clerical order or do they belong to a lay order?”

Nuns, like unordained monks (most monks in the Catholic church are, in fact, ordained), are laymen, no more and no less.

“I saw nuns performing last rites, offering blessings and absolution and performing any number of other things that might have, based on some of the comments here, been reserved for priests.”

If so, then this was a gross abuse and contrary to both Catholic doctrine and Canon Law.  Laypeople (both men and women) can baptize in cases of emergency, and can “witness marriages” if specifically authorized by the bishop to do so.  Only bishops (or priests by delegation from a bishop) can confirm; only bishops and priests can hear confessions and pronounce absolution; only bishops, priests or deacons can normally witness marriages; only bishops can ordain; and only bishops and priests can administer the “last rites” or “anointing of the sick.”  Anyone whomsoever can “offer a blessing” or “say a prayer.”

First, an allegory.

Two politicians were told to show up for a debate prior to upcoming elections.  One was told that the debate would be held on the fifth floor and the other was told that the debate would be held on the sixth floor.  Since each assumed that the other had declined to show up, each assumed that he had won the debate.

Friends, might I suggest that threads on WO will only take place on a surface level until we are on the same floor of the building?  I think it has to be recognized that right now, there are <i>sola scriptura</i> folks and “scripture and tradition” folks in this thread who are attempting to speak each other’s language without ever engaging the substantial difference between each other’s starting assumptions.  I’ve been merely lurking up til now, but find that the elephant in the room is the principle of <i>sola scriptura</i>.

My suggestion is that rather than surface-debate, we begin to be honest about our differences as conservative Anglicans about the authority of scripture, whether the Sacred Scriptures are the sole source of authority or one among two or several sources.

there are sola scriptura folks and “scripture and tradition” folks in this thread who are attempting to speak each other’s language without ever engaging the substantial difference between each other’s starting assumptions.

I’m not sure this is the case.

Those who oppose WO—even those anglocatholics who would say Tradition in binding in matters where Scripture is silent—don’t argue, re. WO, “Tradition says so, therefore that’s that.”

Rather, they say “_Scripture_ forbids WO”. Now, granted, they are certain that Scripture forbids it because they believe that interpretation of Scripture which is normative is the one which Tradition endorses. But the prohibition on WO comes, ultimately, not from Tradition but from Scripture—Tradition merely assists in pointing out what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” actually says through its normative teaching and practice.

Now, it _is_ the case that, for Matt+, unless someone can show him that Scripture _explicitly_ forbids WO, he’ll continue to believe it’s okay—as long as he can see “wiggle room” or “ambiguity” in Scripture on the issue, he won’t be convinced. Likewise, for the anglocatholics, unless someone could show them that WO is explicitly _approved_ by Scripture, they’ll continue to oppose it, because, as long as anti-WO is a reasonable interpretation, Tradition’s endorsement of that interpretation is normative.

This doesn’t mean, however, that they cannot productively engage in a discussion of what Scripture, rightly interpreted, says. And, in fact, if they came to an agreement that Scripture was _unambiguous_, one way or the other, then they’d wind up agreeing on WO.

pax,
LP

p.s. I’m sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but is there any chance that the formatting tags are EVER going to be fixed on this thing? It virtually never allows nested formatting, frequently chokes when 2 codes are used serially in the same paragraph, and often ignores (or requires an artificial line-break) single codes. I realize this is probably something out of SF’s control; I’m wondering if whatever outfit has provided the html/java code used on the site has said anything about plans to fix its inadequacies.

LP,

I would say, as an Anglo-Catholic, that the scriptures are clear on WO, but the Tradition is clearer - and in point, give us a clear picture of the Scriptures.  Matt, correct me if I’m wrong, but you would say that the Scriptures are unclear, but since the Tradition is only authoritative insofar as it is substantiated by the Scriptures, the Tradition basically is a moot point.

Matt is clearly in the sola scriptura camp.  While there are some ACs who fit this description, I would say most are in the opposite camp.  So, LP, I respectfully disagree.

“It is clear from those requirements as one reads through them that women may not be ordained to become pcensoreds. Neither can new converts. Neither can unmarried men like myself, for we have not had the opportunity to show that we can manage our own households well and that our children are not psychologically damaged by how I and my not-yet-existant wife have raised them. It cuts more than one way.”

I have never heard of any Lutheran body that has refused to ordain suitable unmarried men, and I certainly know of no church “ubique ... semper ... ab omnibus” that has ever had such a requirement.  In fact, such an exegesis of that passage itself, I think that I can state with absolute confidence, is wholly known to the Fathers (and I suspect to the Reformers as well).  The predominant strand of Patristic exegesis is that it is merely requiring the bishop to have been married only once, not in the sense of excluding polygamy, or even remarriage after divorce and/or separation, for both were taken for granted as requisite for all Christians, but excluding remarriage after widowhood.  All of the authentic acts of the martys from the earliest times (cf. Polycarp ca. 155) take for granted that celibacy, being “married to one’s church,” is the ideal for bishops, and one does not find many, or even any, married bishops until after the “Peace of the Church” in 313.  So while one cannot term such an exegesis as yours textually “impossible” or “absurd” I regard it as in the same category as those novel ideas of the 17th century and onwards among the sectarian fringe of Protestantism about Saturday as “the Christian Sabbath” or about adult Baptism as the only true baptisms.

You certainly acknowledge that when a province/jurisdiction determines to act officially in such a way that she renders herself apostate, that it is the duty of the Christian to depart from that jurisdiction. And yet when a jurisdiction makes a decision about a non-essential matter, then it is the obligation of the individual (especially in orders) to obey.

Yes—and on this I think RCs, Eastern Orthodox, even most Protestants agree. Well, those protestants, anyway, who have any sort of “normative” teaching—so it wouldn’t include Unitarians or the leaders of PECUSA (for whom only the church’s Canons are given such authority).

.

So, in other words, there is a point at which, we both agree, that the individual must personally discern whether a jurisdiction has become apostate.

No, here we disagree. You put your personal interpretation over that of your jurisdiction. I do not. If I judge my denomination in error or apostate, it is because it is violating *higher* authorities—e.g. Tradition, councils, creeds, Scripture. If I judge it violating Scripture, it is based not on _my_ interpretation of Scripture as opposed to my jurisdiction’s but, again, based on the interpretation by *higher* authorities.

This is why I left PECUSA over 15 years ago when I first got a sense of just how pervasive, indellible, and terminal the rot was even then. I saw that in approving of and advocating SSBs and WO; in denying a normative belief in Christ’s divinity; in the utter corruption of most of its seminaries (including the toleration of black masses and witchcraft done by its students) that it had departed from the faith and was apostate. But that determination was made not by *my* personal belief on those particular issues, nor by *my* interpretation of the Scriptures, but rather by seeing the conflict between the teaching & practice of PECUSA on the one hand and the _higher_ authority of Tradition, creeds, councils & Scripture (as interpreted by these authorities) on the other.

.

You do, however, seem to be suggesting that if scripture is the prime interpreter of scripture that there is no more warrant to leave over SSBs than there would be with regard to WO because if I employ the same methodology with regard to SSBs that I do with regard to WO, then SSBs become as open a question as WO. In other words, my decision, apart from tradition is arbitrary and based on my own personal opinion.

No, not quite, I’m suggesting that if Scripture is the prime interpreter of Scripture then there is warrant to leave over *both* WO and SSB because both are forbidden by it - not, perhaps, explicitly (“do not ordain women”; “do not marry naturally homosexual same-self couples into a committed relationship”) but certainly implicitly.

Rather, I’m saying that given your methodology—by which a good-conscience individual judgement that there is “ambiguity” is sufficient warrant to decide that a practice is open to a church’s innovation—then there is as much reason for PECUSA to introduce “reception” on SSB as there is for it to have introduced “reception” on WO.

.

Of course, you must admit that my “personal” opinions about both matters do coincide with the Anglican Communion as a whole and that my “personal” opinion with regard to SSBs coincides with both Tradition and scripture.

Yes, but I’ve also pointed out - through careful examples from your posts - that, in your methodology, your personal judgement on what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says trumps the Anglican Communion and even Tradition or other authority’s interpretation of Scripture. Thus appealing to them to support your position on SSB is irrelevant to establishing or commending your position, because in your arguments for WO you’ve shown that they don’t actually carry any weight with you—or, at least, not enough to make any difference when they disagree with your personal judgement on Scripture.

This is why I raised the issue of your switching jurisdictions—not because I disagree that that is the right move (I don’t), nor because I think you are incorrect on SSB (I don’t). Rather, it is to show that your personal judgement on “Scipture interpreting Scripture”—what you claim to be “perspicatious”—trumps what your jurisdiction says. I use that example to show that, for you, your judgement > your jurisdiction’s judgemetn, just as I used the example of WO to show that, for you, your judgement > Tradition.

For me and other anglocatholics, of course, Tradition does carry weight—since individual < jurisdiction < Tradition < Scripture. But, by the same token and for the same reasons, they *disagree* with you on WO. You cannot appeal to Tradition to prove “hey, I’m right on anti-SSB” only to turn around and dismiss Tradition as authoritative when you try to prove “hey, I’m right on pro-WO”.

.

<blockquote>My contention throughout has been that the question of homosexual sex is one of those 1+1 matters whereas WO is more complex and subject to testing. This is not to say that there isn’t an answer, it is to say that the answer is not readily apparent as it is with regard to SSB</blockquote>

Again, not quite.

I <u>understand</u> that you are saying “WO is ambiguous in Scripture, SSB is not” and then, based on that, reaching your various conclusions about church authority, acceptable practices & teaching, whether or not to leave a jurisdiction, etc.

I think that the “ambiguity” which you see in Scripture isn’t actually there—that you have created an ambiguity by importing assumptions and then ‘solved’ that ambiguity by accepting WO. So I have engaged you in discussing the various texts along these lines.

But if your hermenutic is, ultimately, “if it’s not explicitly rejected then it’s okay” then, because St. Paul doesn’t _explicitly_ come out and say “women should not be ordained” in precisely those words, then you’ll never be convinced, regardless of what Tradition says the right interpretation is; regardless, even, if you are personally convinced that the anti-WO reading is _more_ likely but not the only possibility.

This is why I"ve turned to the analysis of your hermenutic. NOT to disprove your statement “WO as such is not *explicitly* rejected by Scripture as such in exactly those words, therefore it’s okay” through an attempt to show that it _is_ explicitly rejected in the extremely rigorous way you are demanding—but, rather, to show that, IF your argument and methodology is acceptable for WO, THEN by the *same* argument and methodology, SSB is okay.

You say “Scripture is ambiguous on WO but clear on SSB therefore…”. When I raise this methodological objection, I"m not saying, for purposes of that discussion, “No, Scripture *isn’t* ambiguous on WO”. Yes, I do think Scripture is unambiguous on this point (though not “unambiguous” in the rigorous “it must be explicitly rejected” way you insist upon), but I"m not addressing that on this methodological argument, nor even trying to contest your assertion about what you judge Scripture to be saying.

Rather, I’m pointing out that the *pro SSB-ers* say, with equal personal conviction, “Scripture is ambiguous on WO *and* on SSB”—that they then, using the exact same methodology as you do, say that a jurisdiction may enter a period of “testing” on the practice.

And when you say “No, it’s not ambiguous on SSB” they disagree with you and reject your arguments/conclusions in precisely the same way as you do those who are anti-WO.

.

I think you may be begging the question of scriptural perspicuity.  Hooker, in keeping with the reformers, argued that the scriptural clarity in large part determines what is “core” or essential and what is disputable.

I <u>understand</u> that you believe yourself, on SSB, to be appealing to something which is “objectively” true and perspicatious, and therefore that your rejection of it is not an arbitrary “personal judgement” but in fact carries the authority of Scripture itself. By contrast, you believe that the proscriptions on WO _aren’t_ perspicatious in this way. I get it.

My point in this “methodological” discussion is that the pro-SSBers (at least those who haven’t simply rejected the Bible out of hand) <u>disagree</u> with you. They think that a prohibition of SSB _isn’t_ “clear and perspicatious” in the Bible any more than you think a prohibition of WO is. 

And they “disprove” a rejection of SSB in precisely the same way as you “disprove” a rejection of WO—by putting their personal judgement of what is “clear and perspicatious” in Scripture (or, rather, of what *isn’t* clear) ahead of Tradition and all other authorities.

Scripture, they say, does not come out and explicitly say “naturally homosexual individuals should not be joined in a ‘monogamous’ same-sex union”—heck, Scripture doesn’t even ‘conceive’ of such a union, always talking about marriage in terms of male and female—just as Scripture, you say, does not come out and explicitly say, in so many words, “women should not be ordained”—heck, Scripture doesn’t even ‘conceive’ of WO, always talking about ordination in terms of male.

(continued…)

(... continued)

Now, you _keep_ responding to this methodological argument by saying “oh, but they’re wrong” and “look, you agree with me about SSB” and so forth. Of course they’re wrong. Of course I agree with you that SSB is contrary to Scripture.

That’s irrelevant.

In “isolating” yourself from what Tradition and any other authority judge “Scripture interpreting Scripture” actually says—in making your personal judgement about what is or is not “clear” normative—you have no way to argue that *your* judgement should be given preference over *theirs*—or, for that matter, the anglocatholics’.

The fact that I or other jurisdictions or Tradition agree with you about SSB is irrelevant—since you reject any relevance when I or other jurisdictions or Tradition _disagree_ with you on WO.

What other thinkers, other jurisdictions, history and Tradition have to say about the right understanding of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” on WO - what *they* think is “clear and perspicatious” in Scripture on this matter - is, for you, trumped by your private judgement that WO is okay because you are genuinely, honestly & piously convinced that “Scripture interpreting Scripture” doesn’t forbid it, that it isn’t clear and perspeciatous.

But having rejected these other authorities, you cannot, then, cite anything but that personal judgement to argue against the pro-SSBers when they - employing the same methodology - conclude that prohibitions on a modern understanding of homosexuality _likewise_ aren’t “clear and perspicatious” and that SSB is okay (despite what other thinkers, other jurisdictions, history and Tradition have to say about the right interpretation), because *they* are genuinely, honestly & piously convinced that “Scripture interpreting Scripture” doesn’t forbid it.

The only difference between the two cases is that, from their perspective, <u>you</u> are numbered among those “other thinkers” whose judgement about what is “clear” is not normative.

I’m not trying to say they’re right. I’m even not trying to say that your approach is inherently inconsistent. I’m saying that, objectively speaking, your hermenutic is such that there is no reason for a third party to accept your view and reject theirs, or vice versa.

In fact, to a third party, your view and their view are, ultimately, both irrelevant—for to someone who uses that same hermenutic which you and the pro-SSBers share, all that actually matters is what that third party himself personally judges “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says. Agreement with you may be of interest where they share your views, but it will be dismissed as “incorrect” and “irrelevant” when they disagree with your judgement about what “Scripture interpreting Scripture” says—just as you dismiss the judgement of Tradition on the one hand and the pro-SSBers on the other when they disagree with your judgement about what is “clear and perspicatious”; just as the pro-SSBers dismiss your judgement on homosexuality in favor of their own.

.
.

All the above on the “methodological” questions, as opposed to the analysis of Scripture questions. And as you finish your last with “to be continued”, it looks as if you have more to add on that portion of your reply.

Not having much time now to take up that second category of the discussion (texts vs methodology), I"ll close this one here and pick up with that second category later, perhaps after you’ve had time to finish posting your latest response.

.

pax,
LP

frlee—

I would say, as an Anglo-Catholic, that the scriptures are clear on WO, but the Tradition is clearer - and in point, give us a clear picture of the Scriptures.

Oh dear, I must have been unclear. I agree with you on this.

I was trying to say that _on the issue of WO in particular_, that anglocatholics believe Scripture, even considered in itself, to be clear. Thus the objection the earlier poster raised (“oh, anglocatholics think Tradition is normative, therefore you’re talking past each other”) doesn’t apply.

Yes, when a discussion boils down to “what does Tradition say” then the “solas” and the “catholics” are talking past each other. But because the anglocatholic _does_ believe Scripture is clear on the issue (even if Tradition is clearer) then there _is_ at least some common ground for discussion between the two parties—i.e. examining what Scripture says—despite their differences on the normative authority of Tradition.

That’s all I was trying to say—I wasn’t trying to suggest that Tradition isn’t relevant to the anglocatholic, either in its clear understanding & explanation of Scripture or in its explicit prohibitions of WO in its teaching and practice.

pax,
LP

+Matt,

I responded to Moot that the bible also teaches that life begins at conception (see Psalm 51:5) for example. So while the bible clearly teaches that warfare is not “murder” it also teaches that life begins at conception so that the proscriptions that do apply to taking human life in the 5th commandment apply also to the unborn.

It’s the first I’ve seen of your response, but I’ll cut you some slack since you’ve done a lot of writing lately. 

Okay, so then either: 

a)  Abortion and war belong to different categories;  so the 6th Commandment applies differently to the different categories, or

b)  War is an exception to the 6th Commandment.

Either way, the categories of abortion and war are treated differently, with respect to the 6th Commandment.  To my mind, the only way that we can distinguish between the categories, is to look to the context of the passages in question. 

1 Tim 2:11 is followed by I Tim 3, speaking of ordained offices.  I would suggest that the application of 1 Tim 2:13-15 wrt the ordained offices, is that men only be considered for ordination. 

1 Tim 2:13-15 clearly applies to the situation of Priscilla and Aquilla, as well.  Priscilla isn’t teaching Apollos on her own - she’s teaching with her husband.  That’s got the creation principals Paul speaks about in 1 Tim 2, written all over it. 

Priscilla can’t be an exception to 1 Tim 2, because she’s not ordained.  And the application of 1 Tim 2 that we find in 1 Tim 3, does not apply to Priscilla because .. the situation is different (i.e., she’s not seeking ordination, simply helping her husband to teach Apollos). 

I admit that this isn’t the kind of crystal clear that would qualify for our 21st Century definition of perspecuity.  However, I don’t believe that Scripture imposes this strict of a requirement upon its own hermenuetics (c.f. e.g., Matt 2:15). 

The context has to be granted exegetical priority in determining application.  That’s why we can tell the tea-totallers that 1 Cor 3 applies to sexual immorality, not to smoking and drinking.  That’s why abortion isn’t on the same moral footing as war.  And that’s why the question women using God-given gifts (gifts which are required for the office of priest) isn’t on the same Scriptural-warrant footing as the question of ordaining women. 

I do applaud you and Anne for integrating Paul’s historical argument into how you apply ordination.  But respectfully, I must say that it doesn’t go far enough. 

That said, I thank God for the gifts and the courage he has given to both of you, in serving Him and His bride.

Matt wrote this before:
>>> My contention THROUGHOUT has been that the question of homosexual sex is one of those 1+1 matters whereas WO is more complex and subject to testing. [All caps added] <<<

In response since it’s a central, recurring theme, I wrote:

(1) I know that you’ve delineated where SSB and WO are dissimilar.  Obviously yes, they are different.  But in many other respects they are not different.

A pro-GLBTer can take your sentence above and state the same thing in essence for his/her position:  “My contention throughout has been that the question of the historical fact of Jesus’ physical resurrection is one of those 1+1 matters whereas SSB and GLBT ordination is more complex and subject to testing.”

(2) Testing. 
(a) What is the objective measurable criteria for this test?
(b) How long is the test?
(c) Who makes up the test?
(d) Who grades the test?  etc….
———-
I pray that Matt et al would at least stop, pause, and reflect on those 2 counterpoints since it’s been Matt’s contention throughout.

I should like to add a third counterpoint. A counterpoint that shows the strong parallelisms between WO and SSB/GLBT ordinations.  Matt writes, “... WO is more complex and subject to testing.”

I would like to ask how is this functionally different from the infamous “Listening Process” that the GLBT advocates have urged.  “Listening” has been (appropriately) mocked, parodied, satired by traditionalists as a gauche attempt to foist GLBT acceptance upon Anglicans.

Now I’m aware that there is a nuanced difference between a “Process of Reception” versus a Lambeth 1.10 “Listening Process”, but the nuance is really quite lost when you think about the facts on the ground.

Pax in Christ alone.

LP,

again, I am not going to be able to respond to everything right now, but I tend to think we are running into a wall with methodology. You say:

“Now, you _keep_ responding to this methodological argument by saying “oh, but they’re wrong” and “look, you agree with me about SSB” and so forth. Of course they’re wrong. Of course I agree with you that SSB is contrary to Scripture.

That’s irrelevant.

“In “isolating” yourself from what Tradition and any other authority judge “Scripture interpreting Scripture” actually says—in making your personal judgement about what is or is not “clear” normative—you have no way to argue that *your* judgement should be given preference over *theirs*—or, for that matter, the anglocatholics’.”

NO, it is entirely relevant. You seem to be missing the point entirely. You say, “tradition says____about WO. I could very well turn around and say, “no it doesn’t” and produce all sorts of spuroious pieces of evidence as some have done.

Why is your take on “tradition” any better than theirs” because tradition is testable. You can produce evidence to show that, in fact, the Church never ordained women.

So yes, they can claim anything they want. But the question is: “does the evidence support them”

The same is true for any argument from scripture. Ultimately the measure for the accuracy of any interpretation is scripture itself. And I can make an argument with just as much warrant and force from it as you can from tradition.

Both sources are susceptible to misuse and revision, but both are objective standards against which any claim can be measured.

It really doesn’t matter that people say the Church used to ordain women before the second century. They are wrong. That is both my personal opinion and verifiable fact. Nor does it matter whether they believe the scriptures are ambiguous in the same way I believe they are regarding the role of women. They are wrong. That is both my opinion and verifiable fact…not by appeal to tradition, although it certainly supports this view, but by appeal to the scriptures themselves which reveal the orthodox position to be true. And they do that whether tradition agrees or not.

I had a close friend, over thirty years ago, who ws the state youth director for the Church of God in Colorado, who served as a ‘licensed minister’ in the CoG.  When he stood for his ordination, he was refused because he had never been the ‘husband of one wife’.  He subsequently wooed a young lady in Louisiana, where we both then ministered, married her, was ordained in the Church of God, Cleveland, and after a few years, made shipwreck of marriage and disaster of ministry…the last I heard of him, he was selling burial insurance policies and miserable.

Matt+—

I’m afraid the parallel you try to make between Scripture & Tradition in your last simply doesn’t hold up.

You say, “tradition says____about WO. I could very well turn around and say, “no it doesn’t” and produce all sorts of spuroious pieces of evidence as some have done.  Why is your take on “tradition” any better than theirs” because tradition is testable. You can produce evidence to show that, in fact, the Church never ordained women.

I can produce evidence to show that the Church explicitly forbade ordaining women, and explicitly said that they (including deaconesses) were among the laity. So Tradition is explicitly clear and explicit against an argument which says “Tradition doesn’t condemn WO” or “Tradition says deaconesses were clergy” etc.

This example of Tradition explicitly condemning something is not parallel to the case of Scripture implicitly condemning something.

This is so two ways - first the explicit vs implicit. Second - authority.

.
(1)Explicit/explicit:

I’ve drawn a parallel between your eisogesis of Scripture to prove “it doesn’t condemn WO” and the SSBers eisogesis to prove “it doesn’t condemn modern SSB”.

_They_ argue that there are concepts which Scripture doesn’t address (naturally homosexually oriented individuals) and categories/relations its condemnation doesn’t address (such individuals in a committed relationship) - just as you work by arguing that there are concepts which Scripture doesn’t address (WO) and categories/relations its condemnation doesn’t address (junior cleric under a senior). Etc. Each of you claims that Scripture doesn’t “expressly condemn” the position (WO or SSB) you are defending.

You say that Scripture forbids SSB but not WO. They say that it forbids neither SSB nor WO. You both make arguments about what is “clear and distinct” in Scripture; about what is “objective” or not to support your differing private judgements.

.

Now, you are saying that they are “objectively” wrong. That there is an “objective interpretation of Scripture” which disproves them. Not because Scripture comes out and says _explicitly_ (the way Tradition says WO is forbidden) “monogomous relations between two naturally homosexual individuals is forbidden”, but because given what it *does* say about homosexual interaction, taken as a whole and read consistently with itself, Scripture is unambiguous.

However, similarly, anti-WOers say that *you* are objectively wrong on WO. That there is an “objective interpretation of Scripture” which disproves you. Not because Scripture comes out and says _explicitly_ that “the ordination of women as a junior cleric under a senior one is forbidden”, but because what it does say about the ordained ministries and women’s roles in public worship, taken as a whole and read consistently with itself, is unambiguous.

And, along the same lines, some SSBers make an argument that what Scripture has to say about homosexuality and marriage, taken as a whole and read consistently with itself, doesn’t condemn the modern concept of SSB.

In other words, we are left with 3 competing claims for what is “clear” and “objective” in Scripture.

.

And they will make their pro-SSB claims with just as much vehemence as you make your pro-WO and anti-SSB claims, and with the same appeal to whether Scripture is or is not explicit and applicable—and with virtually an identical argument to support SSB against Scriptural passages which you judge to forbid SSB as you make to support WO against Scriptural passages which the majority of Christendom judges to forbid WO.

.

We have, in fact, 2 “methodological” questions here:

* What constitutes a clear & unambiguous proscription or enjoinder by Scripture - one which no jurisdiction or individual may dismiss? How explicit does it have to be?

* In the case of differences of opinion over what is actually “clear” and “perspicatious”, how do we determine which opinion is objectively correct?

The first question of those two is one that several other posters have challenged you on and which I haven’t gone into, as such, too much. I’ll continue to leave that portion of the discussion entirely to others.

.

(2) Authority.

The second question one brings us to the question of authority that I’ve already raised.

Now, I AM NOT SAYING that you claim to be elevating your <u>opinion</u> or unreflective preferences over these authorities. Not saying that your argument is “oh, I think it should be this way, therefore tradition to the contrary is irrelevant.”

I am saying, rather, that you are elevating your **personal judgement about what is clear and perspicatious and objective in scripture** over what these *other* authorities judge to be that clear, perspicatious, and objective meaning.

You say, about both Scripture and Tradition, “Both sources are susceptible to misuse and revision, but both are objective standards against which any claim can be measured”. I think everyone would agree. But who does the measuring? Who decides what is an accurate assesment of the objective standard and what is a misinterpretation or misuse?

The SSBers measure what is objective and conclude, in their judgement, that neither WO nor SSB is completely forbidden by Scripture. You make your measurement and conclude, in your judgement, that WO isn’t completely forbidden but SSB is. Anglocatholics and Orthodox and Romans and many Protestants and the Tradition of the early Church measure what is objective and conclude, in their judgement, that both WO and SSB are completely forbidden by Scripture.

Which measurement is right? Which claim to articulate the “clear” and “perspicatious” and “objective” meaning of Scripture is correct?

.

Now, for “catholic and apostolic” Biblical Christians, the solution to such a conflict is easy. In cases where Scripture is ambiguous (or apparently ambiguous), Tradition provides a normative guide to interpretation which has authority over these individual, or even jurisdictional, interpretations. (Thus, e.g., the passage from the _Affirmation of St. Louis_ which I quoted above).

But you don’t have such clarity. As I showed with my step by step quotations from your posts, for you it is your judgement about what is “clear and perspicatious” in Scripture which is given final authority, not Tradition.

Thus when Tradition and jurisdictions and scolars disagree with you on WO, you judge them wrong because they say that something is “clear” in Scripture (prohibition of WO) which you don’t think is clear. When jurisdictions and scholars disagree with you on SSB, you judge them wrong because they say that something isn’t “clear” in Scripture (prohibition of SSB) which you think is clear.

It’s always your judgement about what is “clear” and “perspicatious” and “objective” which is made normative.

No, you are not elevating a __personal opinion__ over these other positions. You are elevating what you thoughtfully and honestly believe to be __objectively clear in scripture__ over these other positions.

But this still remains ***your personal judgement about what is ‘clear’ and ‘objective’ or not in scripture***—a judgement which differs from the judgement of patristic history and the majority of Christendom and Christian jurisdictions in time and space.

And this is why I say your position on WO is entirely analogous to the SSBers position on SSB—the only difference between you is what _you_ believe is “clear and objective” (or not) in “Scripture interpreting Scripture” and what _they_ believe is “clear and objective” (or not) in “Scripture interpreting Scripture.”

.

So, yes, you can continue to object that Scripture, objectively, forbids SSB but not WO. On this “methodological” discussion I"m not trying to disprove this interpretation of Scripture. (Though I think it _is_ incorrect, that’s for a discussion on the passages themselves, perhaps also including the question above on “how explicit must something be to constitute a prohibition”.)

I <u>understand</u> that you are advancing your pro-WO anti-SSB position based on what you believe to be not mere personal opinion, but on what you believe the “clear” and “objective” meaning to be. I get it. I’m not disputing that this is what you base your judgement on.

What I am saying, rather, is that there are *competing* claims for what is “clear” and “objective” in Scripture—and that, given you view on “authorities” revealed by your former posts, there is (in your methodology) no independent standard to turn to when confronted with these different individuals present differing judgements on what is “clear” and “objective” in “Scripture interpreting Scripture.”

You can argue texts with each other until you’re blue in the face; you can cite logic; you can allude to Tradition and jurisdictions and scholars when they support your position and dismiss them when they don’t. And so can they. But ultimately, in your hermenutic, it comes down to an individual judgement on what is “clear” and “perspicatious” in Scripture.

Yes, you are claiming that this clarity is “objective”—but that’s still an __individual judgement__ about what is or isn’t objectively clear and perspicatious. Other indivdual judgements about what is or isn’t objectively clear and perspicatious in Scripture _differ_.

Thus ultimately all you can say, within your methodology, is that you think, based on what you judge Scripture to be saying “objectively”, that they are wrong—just as they will say, using the same methodology, that you are wrong.

.

pax,
LP

Matt,

Just so - I’m clear - do you admit that WO didn’t exist before the 2nd century while holding that there are examples of ordained women in the Scriptures?  Did I miss something?

Sodbuster,

Every time you post on a topic with a historical dimension you demonstrate that you simply are unaware of the most elementary facts.  You can assert all that you like that you know “what God has said and written” and then interpret it in accordance with your own conjectures, uninformed by any historical knowledge, exactly as an antipaedobaptist or a “Saturday sabbatarian” might think that his, or his group’s, understanding of “what the Bible says,” even though nobody ever heard of it until yesterday, last year or 300 years ago, is “what God has said.”  In the case of bishops and marriage I already mentioned the predominant Patristic exegesis of that text, with a small minority thinking that it might be directed against polygamy, and so there is no need to repeat it here.  But you go on now to claim, or observe,

“and even though this gnostic despisal of marriage has infected much (but not all, the Ayssrians and Protestants don’t follow it)”

and thereby simply confirm what I said above.  In reply, I would say:
(1) to speak of a “gnostic despisal” implies the celibacy was somehow linked with Gnosticism, but Gnosticism does not seem to have arisen in a Christian milieu before the 130s AD, whereas St. Paul himself gave reasons to wish that all Christian men could be as he was, that is, unmarried, which is long before Gnosticism;
(2) the Assyrian Church requires bishops to be celibate monks and had done so for upwards of a thousand years, and while it is true that among the Assyrians, alone of pre-Reformation Christian churches, deacons and priests can marry as well after ordination as before it, this goes back only two two successive Synods of Seleucia in 484 and 496 AD, which not only permitted, but even required, deacons, priests and even bishops to marry (and did not allow anyone to become a monk or a nun until begetting or giving birth to at least two children), thus altering their previous and ancient discipline, which was that those being ordained not only could not marry or be married, but had never to have been married; that is to say, that they had to be virgins (if born and bred Christians) or at least (if originally pagans) completely celibate since baptism; and this was not based on Scripture, but was simply an attempt to ease persecutions from their Zoroastrian Persian rulers, who regarded celibacy and abstention from procreation as a particularly vile vice (just as later on, in the 14th century, the Assyrians removed all iconography from their churches in the face of increasing Muslim persecution of them as “idolaters”);
(3) where you write

“When you take the cultural context, where a man who is unmarried past about 22, unless he is studying to become a rabbi, is considered to be in sin, it becomes even less possible to follow the gnostic disdain for the marriage bed.”

you actually show little awareness indeed of the “cultural context” of very Early Christianity, which in the matter of sex, procreation and celibacy showed itself to have much more in common with Essenian and other strains of “ascetic Judaism” than it did with the self-assertive Pharisaic party which eventually monopolized the determination of Jewish Orthopraxy after 70 AD and which thereafter showed itself to be inveterately hostile to Christianity.

I have always thought that the Reformed strain of Protestantism (to a degree) and the Radical strain (to perhaps a greater degree) have always shown themselves prone to a kind of Judaizing (to which Lutherans have been largely and happily exempt) which has led them again and again to come down on the side of the rabbis, and which reached in dispensationalism its reductio ad absurdum, against the Fathers, and of which your posting is simply another ill-informed example.

frlee,

I do not think that there were ordained women in the 2nd century. Nor do I think that there are any examples of ordained women in the NT. I readily agree that there is no precedent in scripture or tradition for WO.

LP, I do not think you have dealt with the point I made in the post above. You say:

“Now, for “catholic and apostolic” Biblical Christians, the solution to such a conflict is easy. In cases where Scripture is ambiguous (or apparently ambiguous), Tradition provides a normative guide to interpretation which has authority over these individual, or even jurisdictional, interpretations. (Thus, e.g., the passage from the _Affirmation of St. Louis_ which I quoted above).

But you don’t have such clarity. As I showed with my step by step quotations from your posts, for you it is your judgement about what is “clear and perspicatious” in Scripture which is given final authority, not Tradition.

Thus when Tradition and jurisdictions and scolars disagree with you on WO, you judge them wrong because they say that something is “clear” in Scripture (prohibition of WO) which you don’t think is clear. When jurisdictions and scholars disagree with you on SSB, you judge them wrong because they say that something isn’t “clear” in Scripture (prohibition of SSB) which you think is clear.

It’s always your judgement about what is “clear” and “perspicatious” and “objective” which is made normative.

No, the measure, again, is scripture itself. In the same way, the measure for whether or not Tradition is as uniformly negative toward WO as you say it is, is Tradition itself.

There are controversies with regard to what the Church has “always done” just as there are controversies with regard to scripture, but both are extant objectively and both have a true revelation. That truth is not obscured by false interpretations any more than the proposition that 1+1=2 would be obscured or made false by a full scale social movement involving every authority known to man promoting the answer as 3. “Authority” in that case wouldn’t really matter. The equation is true and let every man be a liar.

What you say about private judgement regarding scripture could, in fact, be said regarding tradition

“When we turn to controversies regarding the tradition of the church…you can argue texts with others until you’re blue in the face; cite logic; cite Tradition and jurisdictions and scholars for support. But ultimately, it comes down to your individual judgement on what is “clear” and “perspicatious” in Tradition.

Yes, you can claim that this clarity is “objective”—but that’s still an __individual judgement__ about what is or isn’t objectively clear and perspicatious. Other indivdual judgements about what is or isn’t objectively clear and perspicatious in Tradition _differ_.

Thus ultimately all you can say, within your methodology, is that you think, based on what you judge Tradition to be saying “objectively”, that they are wrong—just as they will say, using the same methodology, that you are wrong.

Who is to decide?

the Church? The Magisterium?

I am fully prepared to admit that I may be in error on WO. I do not think that I in error, but I am prepared to admit that I am should my jurisdiction move in that direction.

But in the interpretive sense, there is no interpretive authority that stands over the text to tell us definitively which is true just as there is no necessary interpretive authority standing over tradition. Both “texts” have objective content that are not contingent on external interpreters or interpretation.

Tradition is there for all to read and study and claims that are false will be shown to be false. The same is true for the scriptures. The very same epistemological quandry you pose exists also on the Catholic side of the matter.

Matt, we all know you are very busy (although you have somehow found time to write several posts today, some of respectable length) and therefore I understand why you have managed time to answer several questions I have proposed.  For your convenience I will summarize these.
(1)  What in your view keeps Holy Scripture from becoming a “nose of wax,” subject to individual interpretations?  I believe I have amply demonstrated that various theologians come to different conclusions about WO, all appealing to the authority of Scripture.
(2)  You allege a tension between certain Pauline texts and the “Priscilla and Aquila” reference of Acts 18.  Why do you insist that Acts 18 has something to do with WO?  Can you think of a single NT scholar or systematic theologian who supports you in this? 
(3)  You argue for a form of WO rather different from what female clergy are usually like, or perceived to be like.  I refer to “WO within the limits of male headship.”  Can you tell us what this looks like, when the female cleric is not the Rector’s spouse?  Could you give us a brief job description?
(4)  Your wife is a member of the clergy.  You and she enjoy a co-ministry, which God has seen fit to bless and make fruitful.  (My wife and I also enjoy a co-ministry, but “Matushka” does not feel called to become a cleric and regards WO with genuine abhorrence.)
Why should we view your arguments on WO as objective and dispassionate?
I will be grateful for any attention you may be able to give these questions.

LKW+,

you said:

“Matt, we all know you are very busy (although you have somehow found time to write several posts today, some of respectable length) and therefore I understand why you have managed time to answer several questions I have proposed.”

I imagine that you meant to add a “not” in the paragrap above. But as it turns out I have actually addressed most of your points in various responses above. And, correct me if I am wrong, I sense just a small bit of sarcasm in that bit about my time. Truth is, I am quite busy, but that is probably true of you as well. But a person with a normal schedule would likely find himself too busy to respond to every query and challenge if he were to be the only “pro” interlocutor in a debate against as many as 5 different “con"s who are all interested in having their specific question specifically addressed.

In any case,
 
“(1) What in your view keeps Holy Scripture from becoming a “nose of wax,” subject to individual interpretations?  I believe I have amply demonstrated that various theologians come to different conclusions about WO, all appealing to the authority of Scripture. “

The scriptures are not “subject” to anyone’s interpretation. Arithmatic equations are generally not “subject” to individual interpretations either. Both scripture and math contain objective content and reveal objective truths. There is a definitive answer to the question of WO. My contention is that the definitive answer is unclear. Thus, it is possible for so many using a faithful, not revisionist, hermeneutic to arrive at different conclusions that perhaps this particular equation is more like the reinnman hypothesis than addition.

This is not, of course, to suggest that the presence of different interpretations necessarily means that the matter is a “disputable” one. It is quite possible to assert that white is black but that does not make the question a “disputable” one.

 
“(2) You allege a tension between certain Pauline texts and the “Priscilla and Aquila” reference of Acts 18.  Why do you insist that Acts 18 has something to do with WO?  Can you think of a single NT scholar or systematic theologian who supports you in this? “

Not one scholar that I know of suggests that Acts 18 has something to do with WO. Thank goodness I never alleged that it did. You have not read that section of my argument closely enough.

“(3) You argue for a form of WO rather different from what female clergy are usually like, or perceived to be like.  I refer to “WO within the limits of male headship.” Can you tell us what this looks like, when the female cleric is not the Rector’s spouse?  Could you give us a brief job description?

I answered this several posts above in one of my replies to LP.

(4) Your wife is a member of the clergy.  You and she enjoy a co-ministry, which God has seen fit to bless and make fruitful.  (My wife and I also enjoy a co-ministry, but “Matushka” does not feel called to become a cleric and regards WO with genuine abhorrence.)
Why should we view your arguments on WO as objective and dispassionate?

Did I claim to have no bias or passion? Of course I do. I broadcast this fact right up front so that there would be no mistake. Judge my arguments on their merits. Am I, similarly, supposed to assume that those who departed for the continuum in the 70’s because of this very issue have a “dispassionate and objective” view of the subject?  Of course not. Does that make the argument from the continuum any less valid? Of course not. It stands or falls on its merit.

Matt+—

You keep ducking the point I’m making by repeating “no, it’s Scripture which interprets itself.” I’m not sure if this is because you don’t undrestand me; that you’re coming from such a vastly different perspective that we’re talking past each other; or that you’re simply avoiding the question.

.

Look, you keep coming back to this “1+1=2” thing and saying that both “Scripture forbids SSB” and “Scripture does not forbid WO” are examples of such clarity. Thus, whenever you disagree with Tradition, jurisdictions and scholars (on either WO or SSB), you respond that no, this is a 1+1=2 case (WO isn’t proscribed; SSBs are) and that your opinion has the weight of “Scripture interpreting Scripture” behind it and that others are wrong.

When I reply “but this is *your* judgement that these are 1+1=2 cases; others honestly believe Scripture to ‘clearly’ and ‘objectively’ forbid WO (with 1+1=2 clarity); still other honestly believe Scripture ‘clearly’ and ‘objectively’ does *not* forbid SSB (with 1+1=2 clarity)”, you replay “ah, but I judge that Scripture says it’s a 1+1=2 case that WO is permitted and SB is not, and if they say otherwise they’re wrong.”

Says who? Tradition, other jurisdictions, 1900 years of Christian practice and teaching have all been rejected when you accept WO. You rejected the interpretation of your own (former) jurisdiciton on SSB. Who, then, says your judgement on what Scripture “clearly” and “objectively” says is correct? There’s nothing left—it’s the Magisterium of Matt+.

Well, guess what, Tradition & 1900 years & those who hold to that teaching all say—in response—“we believe Scripture ‘clearly’ and ‘objectively’ says that WO is proscribed, so <u>Matt+</u> is wrong.”

.

I recognize that think that it matters that Tradition rejects WO, because you think that if Scripture is judged silent or ambiguous on an issue, it’s okay to change a tradition. So you bring out your exegeses of 1Cor11 and Acts18 and say “see, look, WO isn’t absolutely forbidden by Scripture, therefore it’s okay, and that’s clear on the 1+1=2 level and so I can reject Tradition on it.”

In turn, <u>they</u> analyze the Scriptures, present their interpretation of the passages, conclude that it isn’t silent or ambiguous, say that “no, WO _is_ forbidden” and that it is “clear” and “perspicatious” in Scripture alone, point to Tradition as additional confirmation and certainty that this interpretation is correct, and reply “no, you’re wrong, it _is_ clear on the 1+1=2 level from Scripture that WO is proscribed.”

You say

That truth is not obscured by false interpretations any more than the proposition that 1+1=2 would be obscured or made false by a full scale social movement involving every authority known to man promoting the answer as 3.

and so reject the anti-WO interpretation as a “false interpretation” which is giving the answer 3.  They, for precisely the same reason, reject your pro-WO interpretation as a “false interpretation” (and a novel and revisionist one avocated by a full-scale social movement at that) and say that, no, it’s *your* answer on WO which is the 1+1=3.

Okay, who’s right? Whose answer is “2” and whose answer is “3”? How do we judge?

Anglocatholics, at least, can point to something other than “because I say so”—can point to Tradition as having normative authority when questions about “does Scripture mean A or B?” arise. If an anglocatholic is in genuine doubt over which of these interpretations is correct, he or she looks at Tradition, see the normative interpretation of Scripture it provides in both preaching and practice, and so says “ah, WO is indeed proscribed.”

You cannot make any such appeal. For you, those questions are left up to the personal judgement to decide—this determination is _prior_ to the authority (if any) of Tradition, and so all you’re left with is “no, you (and Tradition) are wrong because Scripture doesn’t clearly and perspicatiously proscribe it because I say so.”

.

On the flip side, the SSBers approach Scripture and, despite Tradition and 1900+ years of teaching and exegesis, announce that they judge Scripture _not_ to prohibit modern SSBs.

You object. You claim that it is clear—on the 1+1=2 level—that Scripture forbids SSBs and present your interpretation of Scripture to that effect.

But they disagree—they turn to the relevant passages of Scripture, introduce nuances and suggest conflicts with other passages, contextualizing, new categories, more limited definitions etc—exactly as you argue concerning WO—and conclude that Scripture does not unambiguously reject modern SSB (just as you’ve concluded that Scripture does not unambiguously reject WO, e.g. the junior cleric)—argue that because it’s not expressly forbidden it may be “received” and “tested” (just as you’ve concluded WO may be received and tested).

And when you object to them “no, SSB is proscribed”, they respond “you’re wrong to think that such a proscription is ‘1+1=2’ clear, it’s ambiguous, and therefore it’s okay to reject Tradition and adopt the revision”—exactly as you’ve argued with WO.

Now the anglocatholic, once again, in challenging the SSBers, can turn to an “objective” and non-personal norm for authority and Scriptural interpretation - Tradition. The anglocatholic looks to Scripture and Tradition, sees them unequivocally reject homosexual activity, and so concludes that those who think Scripture “clearly” and “perspicatiously” forbids SSBs are giving the “1+1=2” answer and that the SSBers are giving the “1+1=3” answer.

But, in your case, once again, there is no authority beyond the individual claim, just as was the case when you rejected Tradition’s interpretation of Scripture on WO. You say to the SSBers “you’re wrong; Scripture clearly forbids SSB; this is a 1+1=2 case; you can’t adopt an innovation”—and they reply “no, <u>you’re</u> wrong; Scripture doesn’t clearly forbid SSB in the modern sense; your claims to the contrary are saying 1+1=3 and may be ignored; we _can_ adopt this innovation because Scripture isn’t clear”—and make this claim with precisely the same justification as you yourself adopted WO.

You say they’re wrong to be pro-SSB; they say you’re wrong to be anti-SSB—and that’s as far as you can get. He said; she said. End of discussion. You share the same methodology, and all that differentiates you is that you claim one thing about what Scripture says concerning modern SSBs, they say another.

.

So please stop answering my objection with variations on “No, the measure, again, is scripture itself” themes.

I get that you’re saying this. You don’t need to keep repeating it.

My point is that *you* claim “Scripture itself” says one thing and anyone who disagrees with you is advocating that 1+1=3; *they* (the SSBers) claim that “Scripture itself” says another thing and that anyone who disagrees with them (like you) is advocating that 1+1=3; and Tradition provides the answer that “Scripture itself” clearly says no-WO and no-SSB, and that both of you, when you argue the contrary, are advocating the 1+1=3.

And while the apostolic & catholic Christian can, in issues of doubt or conflict, turn to the normative authority of Tradition to determine who has the math right, you and the SSBers, who have put personal judgement on “what does Scripture ‘clearly’ and ‘perspicatiously’ say” before all other authorities, have no other recourse than to go back and forth with “you’re wrong”; “no you’re wrong” - because you share the same hermenutic and both lack any norm beyond that personal judgement about Scripture to which to appeal.

And you can claim that your position on WO—a 1+1=3 position—is really a 1+1=2 position (despite what Tradition says) over and over again. That doesn’t make it so, Number One, that doesn’t make it so.

.

pax,
LP

ps—

I should amend my last post slightly to take your latest into account, since I think there I was writing in the mode of Matt+ saying, in effect, “it is 1+1=2 true that Scripture does _not_ proscribe all WO”, which was, perhaps?, an overstatement of his case.

Thus the hermenutic parallel, based what he’s just posted to Fr. Wells, should be clarified as being drawn between:

#1-ers say that WO is proscribed with “1+1=2” clarity; Matt+ says it isn’t, provides a Scriptural exegesis to substantiate his claim, concludes that (regardless of what Tradition says) WO is ‘debatable’ and so may be explored

and

Matt+ says SSBs are proscribed with 1+1=2 clarity; pro-SSBers say it isn’t; provide a Scriptural exegesis to substantiate their claim; conclude that (regardless of Tradition) SSBs are ‘debatable’ and so may be explored.

.

The argument Matt+ makes against the #1ers on WO is, in structure and methodology, precisely the same as the argument the SSBers make against Matt+ on SSB, the only difference being between what each of them claims is ‘clear’ and ‘perspicatious’ in Scripture and what isn’t.

.

The difference between the two cases is this: the #1ers reply “WO _is_ proscribed by Scripture”, give their own interpretation, and appeal to the corroborating authority of Tradition to confirm their claim. Matt+ disagrees that Tradition has such a corroborating authority (because he’s judged that WO is debatable in Scripture, he therefore rejects Tradition as providing normative guidelines on the issue)—but at least the #1ers have something to appeal to other than just “I say so”. Matt+ has nothing to appeal to save what, in his judgement, Scripture “objectively” does or doesn’t say.

In the second argument, however, Matt+ vs the SSBers, there is no such independent authority for either side to appeal to. Matt+ says the SSBers are wrong because they think SSB isn’t clearly proscribed by Scripture when, in fact, it is (just as the #1ers said to him about WO); the SSBers reply that Matt+ is wrong to think modern SSBs are proscribed by Scripture (just as Matt+ said that his “junior female cleric” isn’t proscribed by Scripture) and thus that it’s okay.

But, in this case, since they both share the “individual judgement about what Scripture really says is the final authority” approach, neither of them can offer any further authority or support to their argument beyond their mutual competing and contradictory claims. Matt+ says their view on SSBs is claiming “1+1=3”; they respond that, no, it’s *Matt+‘s* claims which are “1+1=3”—both of them appealing to what Scripture does or does not ‘clearly’ and ‘perspicatiously’ and ‘objectively’ say… and disagreeing with each other about what this clear meaning is.

.

pax,
LP

Matt wrote, “I do not think that there were ordained women in the 2nd century. Nor do I think that there are any examples of ordained women in the NT. I readily agree that there is no precedent in scripture or tradition for WO.”

This acknowledgment was slow in coming, but there is is, nevertheless.  My next question will be, What significance, if any, do you find in these facts?

Matt writes further, “This is not, of course, to suggest that the presence of different interpretations necessarily means that the matter is a “disputable” one.” 
Huh?  So when Packer and Stott arrive at different views on WO, is this only a friendly discussion in the faculty room?  If Holy Scripture has such a mathematical simplicity that its teachings are self-evident and unarguable, the whole discussion would be meaningless.  This analogy to mathematics steps far out of a truly Reformed view of Scripture and right into fundamentalism. 
And like LP, I also feel that you are ducking questions.  While I did omit a “not” in my opening greeting, please believe there was no sarcasm.  My late acknowledgment of your wife’s valuable ministry should have corrected that impression.  You do notice that there are several of us arguing against your position, which is a compliment in itself to you.  But is there a message there somewhere?  The advocates of WO have become strangely silent.  Maybe they have taken a good look at KJS.

LP:

Not ducking anything at all, I’m just not going to agree with you that the bible is a subjective measure. The reason I keep restating myself is because nothing you say seems to touch on the point much less defeat it. You are vastly missing my point. I do NOT think the bible is an open and shut case with regard to WO. The precise opposite. It is a very difficult matter. Hence the “disputable” moniker.

So, in any case, I’ll continue to restate my argument until you present an argument against it.

...okay, I see you’ve gone back to rearticulate my point that you mischaracterized.

you said:

“Matt+ says SSBs are proscribed with 1+1=2 clarity; pro-SSBers say it isn’t; provide a Scriptural exegesis to substantiate their claim; conclude that (regardless of Tradition) SSBs are ‘debatable’ and so may be explored.
The argument Matt+ makes against the #1ers on WO is, in structure and methodology, precisely the same as the argument the SSBers make against Matt+ on SSB, the only difference being between what each of them claims is ‘clear’ and ‘perspicatious’ in Scripture and what isn’t.”

This is becoming somewhat repetitive from your side as well. No, the difference is twofold. 1. The anti-SSB argument is demonstrably correct when tested against the light of scritpure. The pro-SSB argument is not. 2. The SSB’s import extra biblical categories into the section of the text prior to the prohibitions that cannot be found in the text at all. I do not.

Let me give you 2 illustrations:

1. There is a red barn. I claim the barn is red. the ssbers claim that it is green. We go to the barn and find that it is, in fact, red. The SSB’ s splash some green paint on part of the barn and then repeat their claim.

2. There is a red barn. I claim that the barn may not be completely red. LP claims that it is entirely red and pulls out travel journal after travel journal describing the red barn. We go to the barn. We find that, in fact, the barn is red but the door is white. LP agrees that the barn is not completely red.

OR

we go to the barn and find that, in fact, the barn is completely red. I agree with LP that the Barn is utterly red.

The bible is the barn.

“Matt+ has nothing to appeal to save what, in his judgement, Scripture “objectively” does or doesn’t say.”

Actually, no, I have lots of “authority” to which I might appeal, the Anglican Communion and various prominent NT scholars like Ben Witherington III and NT Wright etc…who both take a stronger pro WO position than I… Where ever did you get the idea that I would not appeal to authority? My point was simply that the scriptures provide their own interpretation.

LKW+,

It was not slow in coming at all. I never claimed otherwise and freely admitted that in one of the first exchanges on this thread.

What significance? They did not have electric organs in the 1st century either. The question is whether the use of electric organs is forbidden in the scriptures.

Further LKW+, please read what I wrote. I did not say that the truths of the Holy Spirit are uniformly simplistic like 1+1. In fact, the point I made is that some are so complex as to be irresolvable.

Perhaps this point has already been made, but I will repeat it.  Has anyone noticed that when Paul describes the qualifications of bishops and deacons in the Pastorals, he commonly uses the term anhr (man as opposed to woman) rather than anthropos (human as opposed to animal).  II Tim. 2:2, I admit, is an exception, with pistois anthropois for faithful men.  The texts with anhr, “husband of one wife” are usually quoted in another debate altogether, but the term anhr may be important in itself.  Anhr is also the term used in Acts 1:21, concerning the election of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot, “Wherefore of these men [males] which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.”  Pray forgive if I repeat someone else’s research, I cannot remember everything written here.  Peter’s words excluded (is forbade too strong a term?) a female, although there were some excellent ladies available for the job.

The bible is the barn.

But what if you both go to the barn and still can’t agree on its color? After viewing the barn from every angle and discussing the issue ad nauseum, frustration begins to set in (it hasn’t earlier, because you’re both very patient people!). Eventually it occurs to you that one of you might very well be suffering from color-blindness. LP points to journal article after journal article from respected scholars about this very famous barn, some of which explicitly describe the entire barn as red, and others of which don’t explicitly describe it as such, but seem not to make sense if the barn’s entire redness isn’t assumed.

Should Matt acknowledge that he’s probably color blind, or should LP acknoweldge that he and the entire contingent of Red Barn scholars are?

J. I. Packer’s View of WO is stated in an article entitled “Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters,” Christianity Today, 11 Feb 1991.  Here is a key sentence:
““the present-day pressure to make women presbyters owes more to secular, pragmatic, and social factors than to any regard for biblical authority.”

This to me is self-evident and unarguable.  But even among “reappraisers,” Zeitgeist reigns.

This is becoming somewhat repetitive from your side as well. No, the difference is twofold. 1. The anti-SSB argument is demonstrably correct when tested against the light of scritpure. The pro-SSB argument is not. 2. The SSB’s import extra biblical categories into the section of the text prior to the prohibitions that cannot be found in the text at all. I do not.

I’ve already addressed both these issues.

(1) “Demonstrably correct”

*You* claim that the anti-SSB argument is “demonstrably correct when tested against the light of Scripture”. The SSB-ers claim it is not. In their view, SSB’s place in Scripture is precisely like WO’s place in yours—i.e. that what they mean by SSB in the modern context, despite some negative texts relevant to related issues, is not itself forbidden.

This is what brings us to the question of authority.

You keep asserting that “no, Scripture forbids SSB but not WO”. I point out that people disagree, faithfully, on both points and ask “how do we judge who has the right of it?” You do not answer this question, you simply reassert “Scripture forbids SSB but not WO and this is the clear and objective meaning.”

This does not answer my question nor address my objections to the coherence or authority of your position.

To illustrate this incoherence, I bring up the parallel between your argument on WO and theirs on SSB. You’ll notice, above, that I explicitly said that I was not, for purposes of demonstrating that analogy, debating that you believe Scripture to be WO-neutral but anti-SSB or even trying (at this point) to show your interpretation to be wrong (though I think it is). So your restatement of your belief in WO-neutral/anti-SSB as the “clear” meaning of Scripture is irrelevant on _this particular point_—this point is, as it were, logically prior.

Rather, for purposes of this “methodological” discussion I have simply pointed out that we have conflicting claims:
* anglocatholic—the WO-neutral case is demonstrably incorrect when judged against Scripture; Scripture is clearly against both WO and SSB
* Matt+—the WO-neutral case passes Scriptural tests but SSB is clearly forbidden by Scripture
* SSBers—both WO and SSB are not forbidden by Scripture

Each of these positions defends their interpretation by presenting an analysis of Scripture. Each of these positions has advocates who learnedly hold that _their_ position is the clear meaning of Scripture (or, at least, that Scripture clearly forbids what they claim it forbids and is clearly ambiguous on what they claim it is ambiguous). The anglocatholics, unilke the other two, invoke Tradition as an independent, higher authority which confirms the objective validity of their interpretation.

Now, I again ask “how do you judge between these”. You reply in effect, by simply restating your position, “I’m right”. You give no criteria of judgement or argument on which to base that determination other than saying that Scripture _really_ objectively says what you (unlike all these other interpreters) say it says.

In an effort to find “why does Matt+ think he’s right?” I’ve gone through your posts to examine your treatment of other possible authorities—Tradition, other jurisdictions, your own jurisdiction, other scholars, etc. In every case, where this other interpretation differed from what _YOU_ believe the “clear and objective meaning of Scripture is”, you dismissed them as plain wrong.

Why? Because, you say, “Scripture clearly doesn’t say that.”

Yet again, this answer doesn’t respond to the question “how do we judge which of the conflicting interpretations of Scripture—each presented as the ‘clear’ and ‘perspicatious’ and ‘objective’ meaning of Scripture is—is correct?” Rather it simply responds by saying “I’m right.”

Both the anglocatholic and the SSBers could answer, in reply to this question, “no, *I’m* right” and have presented, thereby, an argument every bit as weighty and convincing as your own.

Your latest reply—“The anti-SSB argument is demonstrably correct when tested against the light of scritpure. The pro-SSB argument is not”—is nothing more, once again, then yet another assertion from you of “I’m right”.

This is what I mean when I say I believe you are dodging (or ignoring or failing to comprehend) the question.

.

(2) Categories

2. The SSB’s import extra biblical categories into the section of the text prior to the prohibitions that cannot be found in the text at all. I do not.

Again, this is simply not true.

You _do_ introduce such “extra biblical categories”. You have said yourself that you believe that Scripture nowhere directly addresses the issue of ordained women. Whenever it talks about clerical orders, it does so _explicitly_ in terms of “male”. So the entire discussion is, by your own accounting, over an “extra-biblical category” which has been imported into the text—i.e. WO.

On SSBs, one likewise observes that Scripture *never* talks about a same-sex couple which is married. The SSBers can thus argue, exactly as you do about WO, that because Scripture never explicitly addresses the issue of same-sex marriages, because it is a category not found in the text, it thus does not forbid them.

You have imported a category into the text every bit as much as they have. My analogy holds.

.

Similarly on the prohibitions of same-sex interaction. Scripture says that these are sinful. Scripture also says - in passages you yourself have admitted proscribe WO if read on their own - that a woman should not teach or have authority over men.

You analyze these passages about women, compare them to other passages of Scripture, put them in the context of Scripture as a whole (you invoked the ‘progressive’ thrust of the NT or something like that as part of your presentation of your defense of postion #4, I forget the exact term) and then—by introducing a new category “junior cleric under the headship of a senior male cleric”—argue that the Scriptural passages do not proscribe that category.

The pro-SSBers likewise pick out several passages for comparison, look at what they believe to be the sense/thrust of Scripture as a whole, introduce a new category (“same-sex couples, naturally homosexual, in a committed relationship”) and argue that the Scriptural passages do not proscribe that imported category.

Again, an exact parallel.

.

Thus, concerning the two ways in which you say there is a difference and the analogy doesn’t hold, I reply that (1) is irrelevant [it dodges the question] and (2) is quite simply wrong.

(continued…)

(...continued)

THE BARN ANALOGY

Thus, let me modify your “barn” analogy accordingly.

There is a barn.

We have a New Travel (c) travel guide which describes the barn. The guide says that “the barn is red, roofed just like the other buildings on the farm”. Elsewhere the NT guide describes the other buildings on the farm as “roofed in black slate” and refers to the “slate roof” of the barn.

We also have several reports from visitors who have seen the barn, even give pictures. They describe, and their pictures show, a barn painted entirely red with a black slate roof.

Now, I say “aha, the NT clearly says that there is a red barn [anti-SSB] with a black slate roof [anti-WO]. This is confirmed by the visitors’ reports and photographs [Tradition].”

You reply “not at all! I agree that the barn is red, but the NT does not *explicitly* say that it has a black slate roof, it just says “roofed”. This may reasonably be interpreted to mean merely that, like the other buildings on the farm, the barn has a roof, not necessarily that the barn’s roof is black slate. It may have a brown slate roof. In fact, the barn later described as having a “slate roof” could be a completely different barn, not the red one at all, which could (consistently) be thought to have a yellow thatch roof. The guide is ambiguous. I realize other people disagree about this ambiguity, but that doesn’t matter. *MY* interpretation is that the NT is ambiguous, that this is clearly and objectively the case—and because the NT is not (in my view) explicit, I do not accept as normative the visitors’ reports and photographs [Tradition].”

The SSBers argue “well, we agree with Matt+ about the thatch roof and the dismissing of the authority of visitors’ reports on this matter [Tradition]. But we disagree about him on the ‘red’. Red could mean only that the barn is mainly red. Or maybe the author of the NT didn’t see the whole building, only a red part. In fact, he might have been colorblind—the barn could actually have been green but he couldn’t tell the difference. Therefore we accept the possibility that the barn is, in fact, painted (at least in part) *green* and that this is a possible interpretation of the NT on the barn color, just as the “brown slate” or “yellow thatch” interpretations are possible interpretations of the NT on the barn roof.  Because the NT is possibly ambiguous on this matter of “red”, we thus conclude—like Matt+—that we may reject the visitors’ report and photos [Tradition] on this issue as well.”
.

Now I, the anglocatholic, say to the other two - look, you’re both taking unreasonable interpretations. The most consistent view is that the barn is all red and roofed in black slate, just like the NT says. You’re importing unnecessary assumptions, nuances and categories into the text to come up with your objections and avoid the simplest and plainest reading of a text that was intended simply and plainly. Anyway, look at the visitors’ explicit reports and photographs!!—all red barn; black slate roof.

Matt+ replies “nope, those reports are irrelevant if there is doubt in the NT. It is not ‘clear’ and ‘perspicatious’ in the NT that the roof is black slate—it never says so *explicitly*. Sure, it’s a red barn, but it’s okay to assume the roof isn’t black, or even slate, at all and procede accordingly. This is the ‘objective’ interpretation of the text and it is the correct interpretation, regardless of what anyone else thinks or the visitors’ reports say.”

And the SSBers reply “nope, Matt+, you’re wrong about the red. It as just as consistent to accept that the barn might be partially red, or even entirely green, as it is to accept that it might have a yellow thatch roof. And *this* interpretation of the NT is the correct and objective interpretation, regardless of what anyone else thinks or the visitors’ reports say.”

And when I ask Matt+ “how do you know, especially when you dismiss the visitors’ reports and photographs, that what you claim is the objective meaning of the NT guide is correct and what I or the SSBers claim is the objective meaning of the NT guide is incorrect?” he merely repeat “becuase my interpretation is what the NT guide really and objectively says, and I’m just obeying it.”

Which, incidentally, is exactly the same reply the SSBers give me when I ask them why they believe that *their* interpretation of the NT (rather than mine, Matt+‘s, or Tradition’s) is the correct one.

.

Now, in your analogy you say we should just go look at the barn to solve the dilemma.

Yes—that’s when we die, go (God willing) to heaven, and can ask St. Paul “so, what did you really mean?”

Until then, what we have to work with is the NT guide, the visitors’ reports & photographs, and the differing personal interpretations.

I, for one, am going to go with the most reasonable and straight-forward interpretation of the NT, which happens to be the one also supported by the visitors’ reports and photographs.

.

pax,
LP

I have a couple of thoughts which I hope I am not too tired to express clearly:

First, Matt, you claim that Scripture is clear enough to understand its meaning without the need for Tradition. Yet the results of your objective reasoning on the text is that passages that have been clearly understood for centuries now are opaque to you. You cannot tell us what Paul means by “keep silent” or what he is forbidding in 1 Tim. Does it not seem troubling to you that your unaided reason is making Scripture less understandable?

Secondly, you say that the church has declared WO to be adiaphora, so it doesn’t matter to you whether WO is accepted or rejected in your jurisdiction. But SSB is not adiaphora, so what your church decides to do matters, hence your leaving TEC for another juridiction. But who is deciding what is adiaphora and what isn’t? Is it the church or is it you? It is you who has decided that TEC’s claim that SSB is adiaphora is a false claim, while your new jurisdiction’s decision that WO is adiaphora is right. You are church hopping in accordance with your understanding of what is adiaphora. You can’t very well claim that you are upholding what the wider Anglican church has decided because any observation of Anglican history will show that Anglican decisions evolve. It wasn’t too long ago that WO was unthinkable. Times change. Time could change for SSB. Your decision to put your foot down against such change is admirable, but not logically consistent with your acceptance of change on WO. It is your reasoning, not the church’s, which is operative.

I see no stable ground to stand on with your epistemology. You trust in your own judgment and in that of the church which agrees with you, which is simply trusting yourself all over agian.

Dear Fr. Matt,
I am still wishing to read where the Old Testament figures into your interpretation on WO.  If “Scripture interprets Scripture”, doesn’t that mean that the WHOLE of Scripture (OT & NT) interprets any particular Scripture? 

When God created the world, He made male and female.  After the Exodus, He established the priesthood, which was solely male.  This priesthood reaches its ultimate pinnacle in the Person of Jesus and is discussed particularly in the book of Hebrews.

So, what does your reading this entire record of salvation history (the Holy Bible)  say to you about the priesthood and God’s plan for it? 

YSIC,
Connie Sandlin

Dear Matt et al,

Borrowing Sarah’s phrase, in a sense you are a “Worthy Opponent!”   

You are a gamer, and on this issue, you are like Merseymike and Taomikael, to the orthodox complementarian.  D’oh!  I kinda, sorta felt sorry for you because numerically you’re outmatched, and from this evaluator’s perspective, you’re also outmatched biblically, theologically, logically, and lovingly.  I wanted to tell you to call Dr. Ephraim Radner to give you some assistance because he’s also married to a woman who’s ordained.  (But it would only be for moral support because even if you had gotten ABC Williams to make arguments with you, the case for egalitarianism would still not be able to withstand scrutiny.)

I realize you’re so overwhelmed for time that you’re not gonna be able to respond to my posts, or Laurence Wells, or Christopher Hathaway’s, etc…. 

You choose to respond to LP and I understand that.  I just had funny image of LP putting you in a headlock and wrestling you to the ground.  Then placing both knees on your chest and pinning down your wrists and saying, “Matt, just say ‘uncle’ or ‘anti-WO’ and I’ll let you back up.”

But you refuse, even though you’re beat theo-logically.  You’re not gonna give the complementarians the satisfaction.  (In all honesty, I don’t think complementarians want ‘satisfaction’ in that sense of personal victory.  They want the glory to go to God).  It’s just like Merseymike or Taomikael or Fr. Jake.  Even when they’re beat theo-logically, they’re just not going to acknowledge it.

But there’s one other thing I’d like to add that I haven’t seen before on this thread.  And it’s the idea of Burden of Proof. 

Outside a legal context, “burden of proof” means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is NOT sufficient to say “you can’t disprove this.” Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else’s responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it.

I posit that it is the egalitarians who bear the burden of proof.  It is their responsibility in making the bold claim for WO to prove it from Scripture. 

LP et al kept banging away against your argumentative methodology that Scripture is silent, that Scripture is unclear, that Scripture has contradictions that can only be harmonized with the introduction of WO, that Scripture is culturally conditioned, and that those passages are not transcendent. 

And so by claiming “wiggle room” (which btw the other side does not grant) from Scripture being silent or unclear or disputable, you claim that WO is then permissible.

I now direct the argument to a higher threshold, not only for you, but for all egalitarians.  It is Egalitarians who bear the burden of proof for their “innovation” and that they must show and prove from Scripture that women must be ordained and that male headship in the church and the home is to no longer be the norm.

And if egalitarians can’t meet this burden of proof from Scripture, then I respectfully and humbly submit that the practice of WO cease.

Seeking to lovingly obey the Written Word and the Living Word.

I am still trying to get clear in my own mind the role that Tradition plays in all this.
For example, Wm. Tighe wrote:

All of the authentic acts of the martys from the earliest times (cf. Polycarp ca. 155) take for granted that celibacy, being “married to one’s church,” is the ideal for bishops, and one does not find many, or even any, married bishops until after the “Peace of the Church” in 313.

and in the first WO thread, LP wrote:

Tradition, in this sense, is described by Scripture itself as the normative teaching and preaching and practice of the early Church (snip)  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 ... to the teaching and practice of the early Church.

What am I to make of the fact that at a very early period, the ideal was for bishops to be celibate, while the Biblical qualifications seem to assume that they will be married? After the Peace of the Church, was the church correcting an earlier error, or simply responding to changed circumstances?

How does this apply to decision making today? LP says that when the Christian has questions about the proper interpretation of Scripture s/he should turn to the practice of the early church. I don’t really have any question about the proper interpretation of Scripture with respect to whether bishops are allowed to marry—to me it seems completely plain from 1 Tim 3:2 that they are.

So, do I conclude that where the Bible is so plain, there is no need to consult Tradition? Or that, since the early church changed its practice, Tradition does not speak clearly on the question of whether bishops may marry? Or that the early church changed their practice in response to a change in the surrounding conditions, so changing practice for that reason is normative and we ought to do so, too?

But mostly, I wonder how Tradition can be normative, if sometimes the early church did the opposite of what the Bible says. What if they were just plain mistaken?

some brief rejoinders to various comments..

LP:

You say:

“You keep asserting that “no, Scripture forbids SSB but not WO”. I point out that people disagree, faithfully, on both points and ask “how do we judge who has the right of it?””

No, you keep missing the point and your entire response misses the point. SSB’s do not use a faithful hermeneutic.  They must add something to make there case. I am adding nothing.

“First, Matt, you claim that Scripture is clear enough to understand its meaning without the need for Tradition.”

No, that is not what I claim. I claim some parts of it are clear and others are not. In the realm of those that are not, the Church has the authority to act.

” But who is deciding what is adiaphora and what isn’t? Is it the church or is it you?”

No, as Hooker pointed out,what is clear is essential what is not is disputable.

Connie Sandlin: The OT priesthood is no more. Christ is our great high priest. The levitical priesthood and all the requirements of the Temple sacrificial system have been fulfilled in him.

truth unites
” I wanted to tell you to call Dr. Ephraim Radner to give you some assistance because he’s also married to a woman who’s ordained.  (But it would only be for moral support because even if you had gotten ABC Williams to make arguments with you, the case for egalitarianism would still not be able to withstand scrutiny.)”

Which is good, because I would never make the case for “egalitarianism”. Perhaps your evaluation is what it is because you have imposed this “egalitarianism” on my argument from the start.

I hadn’t planned to comment here but I will since I don’t completely agree with LP. I am not nearly as good a writer nor as eloquent as most on here so please forgive me for being long winded or repeating the obvious.  This is what the texts clearly say at least as far as I am concerned. I don’t claim know to be a theologian or an authority.

I would state things in a slightly different manner from LP. Matt’s original assumptions regarding the texts used are not correct in that there is no tension between these texts and so there is nothing that needs to be harmonized. The thing to bear in mind is that a group of people are only a church when they meet together to worship. Worship for these early churches according to the texts was not what people today would consider a service. Worship for them was virtually everything a church does. They not only worshipped but decided what was normative, that is what was authoritative for worshippers, during worship. Worship was all types of service, teaching, prophecies and speaking in tongues and a church council rolled into one. Almost nothing was a separate function as it would soon come to be. So instead of using the terms public and private as LP does I would say during Worship, that is as a “church”, or Non-Worship. We do many things in a public but not in a Worship setting, as in not as a Church. Some things Paul states, it is clear from the text themselves, were never meant to apply to a Non-Worship setting. So there were never universal. There are absolute however during Worship or as a church. Tension only arises when you equate all actions that happen during worship, They aren’t equal.

1 Corinthians 14
Paul here speaks of “when you come together” and “in churches” so when he says “34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” It is clearly meant that women should not speak IN church. But not speak at all? No, Paul has already said they can prophesize and pray so be silent what way? Again it’s clear, they should not ask questions and must be in submission. That is they should not question what is happening nor question what is determined by worship or for worship. Women should play no direct role on what is authoritative for the church. Their concerns must be presented by their husbands. Overseers and Deacons can not be excluded from this same process so it’s clear that women can not be Overseers and Deacons. What is the point of ordaining a woman when she can not question what the church does and so is not able to directly determine what that church is?

1 Corinthians 11
Is this meant as during Worship? I would say yes because Paul speaks of the Lord’s Supper both before and after it and that is only during worship.  Paul says women can pray and prophesize but is that speaking out or questioning, I don’t think so. Prophecy, at least until it’s determined to be false, is from God, not the person. Anyone, man or woman, can prophesize. Only a fool would think Paul would attempt to proscribe prophecy, no matter it’s source. The same for prayer. Prayer is not being non-submissive or questioning. It is a plea.  Prayer is also a direct gift from God to all people and all prayer should be directed towards him not towards the worshippers.  So while women are allowed to pray and prophecy during worship Paul is quick to point out that is must be done by women with the head covered? Why? So no one could ever construe this as speaking out or questioning, that is acting with authority.

Women can speak if they say what has been approved by an authority. Be it prayer or prophecy by God or what to say during worship by the church. 

So with relations to these 2 passages I do not see any tension as Matt suggests so there is no need to harmonize them. Speaking and questioning are not the same as prophecy and prayer so there is no need to bring them into harmony. To equate all these things is pretty much calling a Paul an idiot IMHO. He specifically allows one thing and then seemingly proscribes it a few paragraphs later? Hardly likely, this is all from the same letter after all.

CONT’D

Acts 18
“When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.”

A woman is clearly teaching here but is also clearly in a non-church setting. Their home may have been regularly used as a church but it was only a church when the church met or worshipped there. Clearly this is no group meeting or teaching. The only authority here is Aquila.
This is not part of church or worship. Apollos may listen to Priscilla but there is nothing which says he must accept what she says to be part of the church.

1 Timothy 2

Here it is important to note that Paul says first that what he wants is “men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. “.
Men, plural,  lifting up their hands in prayer clearly calls to mind public Worship.
Also Paul describes how women must dress. Again I would say this is for Worship. It would be very odd to think Paul is saying how women must dress universally. Has any church ever demanded that women not braid their hair or wear gold, pearls or expensive clothes ever? Maybe but I don’t think so. He also goes on next to who can be overseers and deacons so he is clearly covering church here. 

“11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Since it’s fairly clear worship is being discussed here then these instructions for women must be during worship or church. Is this universal? Should women submit and be quiet in all learning? Never ask a math question? Never teach anything or ever have authority or a man? A mother can’t show her grown son how to make bread or use her authority to criticize him when he burns it? To think this is universal is silly.
Women are clearly not to teach during worship or church nor teach what is taught in worship or church WITH authority. What would one think is taught then? Scripture and what worship is and the exact form it will take as needed for salvation. Paul asks that it be “without anger or disputing.”
Imagine anyone having anger or dispute over this!

Now I’ve said that an authority can determine what a woman can say during worship. Also that women can teach outside of Worship but not with authority over a man. So Matt+ could say that a woman as junior cleric can say or teach as long as an authority, a senior male cleric, grants it. But that is not the same as having the authority. And authority is needed so that everyone can know this is correct. Everything a priest does as part of church, not just the homily, can be seen as teaching the correct way to worship. Without authority why is a priest even needed? Any member of the church could conduct service.
I have said a lot here about scripture but no one need ever accept it to attend the same church as I do because I am not a priest.  I have no authority. Paul clearly states women can not have such authority so there is no way for anyone to grant it to her. So, she can not be a priest.  I would say that by this woman should not even be a GC delegate nor teach a class to grown men that is required by the church such as for ordination.

Anyway that is IMHO.
Rocks

SSB’s do not use a faithful hermeneutic.  They must add something to make there case. I am adding nothing.

That’s an assertion, not an argument, and it serves only to highlight the reasonableness of LP’s question: “how do we judge which of the conflicting interpretations of Scripture—each presented as the ‘clear’ and ‘perspicatious’ and ‘objective’ meaning of Scripture is—is correct?”

No, as Hooker pointed out,what is clear is essential what is not is disputable.

Some Episcopalians argue sincerely and non-duplicitously that Scripture isn’t clear in its opposition to SSBs. I agree with you that it is. Who decides?

“That’s an assertion, not an argument” No, I’ve argued my case throughout. LP has asserted that I have added “ordained woman” to the text. I have shown that I have not.

“Some Episcopalians argue sincerely and non-duplicitously that Scripture isn’t clear in its opposition to SSBs. I agree with you that it is. Who decides?”

Some Christians believe that there is evidence that the early church ordained women and blessed same sex relationships but that the 3rd century church shut the doors on this inclusivity. LP and I both think they are wrong.

Who decides?

Matt writes:  “Which is good, because I would never make the case for “egalitarianism”. “

Maybe this is why you aren’t a Presbyterian, Matt.  They insist, in their “argument” against “prelacy” on what they call the parity of Ministers.  Your concept of “WO within the limits of male headship” would be inconsistent with their polity.

And while I have your attention, exactly where in Scripture do you find SSB’s condemned?  While Scripture condemns homosexual practice in numerous places, it seems to me the disapprobation of SSB is just as inferential as disapprobation of WO.  I can just hear the sentimentalist whining argument, “Well, I disapprove of their lifestyle, but it’s their conscientious decision, and if we only support them we can keep them within a loving redemptive community, and maybe they will come to a better understanding of God’s will for their lives.”  So granting that SS practice is gravely sinful, what is your Biblical evidence against that SSB are totally wrong? 

And I wish to all a blessed observance of the Feast of the Nativity of St John Baptist, which has precedence over Trinity III.  I hope you are singing today “On Jordan’s bank the Baptist’s cry.”

SSB’s do not use a faithful hermeneutic.  They must add something to make there case. I am adding nothing.
—-
That’s an assertion, not an argument, and it serves only to highlight the reasonableness of LP’s question: “how do we judge which of the conflicting interpretations of Scripture—each presented as the ‘clear’ and ‘perspicatious’ and ‘objective’ meaning of Scripture is—is correct?”

Precisely—I am asking Matt+ “how do you know that _your_ claim for what is ‘clear’ in Scripture is correct”, and he is, once again, simply reasserting his claim. He’s offered no reasoning or methodology to support his claim beyond his repeated reassertions that his interpretation on WO - unlike that of the many who disagree with him - is correct.
The SSBers will, on SSB, make exactly this same “argument by assertion.” You ask them why they think their interpretation on SSB is correct and Matt+‘s incorrect, and, ultimately, all they can reply is a reassertion that *their* view of Scripture on SSB is correct, just as Matt has simply reasserted that *his* view of WO is correct.

If an anglocatholic, by contrast, is asked to justify his interpretation, he replies “because my interpretation of Scripture is in accord with the teaching and practice of Tradition.” Now, the others may, as Matt+ has, reject the authority of Tradition. They may, as Matt has, say “Tradition is irrelevant when I judge Scripture to be ambiguous” (and, of course, as it is irrelevant when Scripture _isn’t_ ambiguous, this is tantamount to saying “Tradition is irrelevant”). But at least the anglocatholic has a reason and methodology to appeal to some authority other than his own say-so.

.

LP has asserted that I have added “ordained woman” to the text. I have shown that I have not.

No, this is not the parallel I have drawn.

You have faulted the SSBers for adding a “category to the text” which is not there—i.e. their concept of “modern SSBs”. But they haven’t added this concept to the text—rather, they’ve said that this modern concept isn’t addressed at all by the Scriptures (which only conceives of a man and woman getting married), and so isn’t forbidden by them, and so may be accepted. This is exactly what you’ve done with “ordained women”—you yourself have said, just as the SSBers say about SSB, that “the concept of ‘ordained women’ isn’t addressed by Scripture at all (which only conceives of a male getting ordained), therefore it isn’t forbidden by it, therefore it’s okay to ‘test’ and ‘receive’ the practice.”

If you judge the SSBers to have “added” a category to the text, then you have done so as well. If you have not done so then neither have they. The place of “ordained women” in your analysis and “same-sex married couple” in theirs is precisely analogous.

.

pax,
LP

kyounge1956 wrote:

“What am I to make of the fact that at a very early period, the ideal was for bishops to be celibate, while the Biblical qualifications seem to assume that they will be married? After the Peace of the Church, was the church correcting an earlier error, or simply responding to changed circumstances?

How does this apply to decision making today? LP says that when the Christian has questions about the proper interpretation of Scripture s/he should turn to the practice of the early church. I don’t really have any question about the proper interpretation of Scripture with respect to whether bishops are allowed to marry—to me it seems completely plain from 1 Tim 3:2 that they are.”

Well, I don’t know what you are to make of it, but what strikes me in these two paragraphs is how you are willing to prefer your own two “seem to assume” and “to me it seems completely plain” to the whole weight of Early Church practice, as though your own individual reading of biblical passages could somehow compete with the of the Early Church as a whole.  I have already provided information about the dominant Patristic “take” on this passage, and I have also asserted that interpreting them in a manner to suggest that “the bishop” must be married is unknown to all the Fathers of the Church. (Btw, if anyone can contradict these assertions in point of fact, I would welcome it, but I don’t expect to see it.)  Which, then, is more likely to be mistaken—the meaning that the biblical passages “seem” to you to have, or the interpretation of both the Fathers and (implicitly) of the Church as a whole when it acted on the assumption that what it meant was that “if the would-be bishop is a married man, he must have been married no more than one time?”

And you concluded:

“But mostly, I wonder how Tradition can be normative, if sometimes the early church did the opposite of what the Bible says. What if they were just plain mistaken?”

Which I would transpose as:

But mostly, I wonder how contemporary Bible-readers can take their conjectures as normative, when both the Early Church acted in a manner in direct opposition to them and it is clear that nobody among the Fathers shared them?  What if their conjectures, lacking any historical evidence to support them, are just plain mistaken?

What am I to make of the fact that at a very early period, the ideal was for bishops to be celibate, while the Biblical qualifications seem to assume that they will be married? After the Peace of the Church, was the church correcting an earlier error, or simply responding to changed circumstances?

My understanding was that, while celibacy had always been a prefered state, especially for clegy (stemming from Paul’s discussion of it in the NT), it wasn’t the “requisite” state for clergy anywhere until well into the 5th century, and that this requirement, in practice, lapsed for much of the Middle Ages, though it was a frequent component of various efforts at reform. I vaguely recall reading something about a 5th century bishop who, upon his election, agreed to be ordained provided he wasn’t forced to “put away” his wife—suggesting that, though the practice was becoming ‘customary’ by then, it still wasn’t ‘requisite’.

At any rate, here is a situation where Scripture is _clear_—celibacy may be preferable for clergy (for the reasons Paul gives) but it is not requisite (as the NT also makes explicitly clear). The “tradition” of the Roman church is thus a matter of “discipline”—something not required by Scripture but added by the jurisdiction—rather than of “dogma”. It is not *contrary* to Scripture & Tradition that clergy be celibate, but neither is it *required* by them.

pax,
LP

kyounge—

To clarify—I think Dr. Tighe is NOT making a case that Tradition says, as dogmatic, that bishops *must* be celibate. I think he is arguing against Sodbuster who has claimed that it is dogmatic that bishops must be *married*. (They can correct me if I’ve mischaracterized what’s going on in these exchanges.)

Dr. T. is thus presenting the examples of celibate clergy not to prove that an unmarried clergy was normative in the early church (it wasn’t, at least until into the 5th century), but rather that, from the earliest days, the understanding of Scripture and the practices of the Church were _not_ that all bishops must be married (pace Sodbuster)—and that, thus, the traditional and patristic understanding of Scripture’s “husband of one wife” to mean “not married more than once” is correct and that Sodbuster’s “must be married exactly once” interpretation is incorrect.

pax,
LP

LP,

You are correct about my intention and meaning.  And I would add:

1.) the “5th century bishop” to whom you refer was the Platonic philosopher Synesius of Cyrene, whom the Cyrenians wanted as their bishop: Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, insisted that he had to “put away” his wife in order to be consecrated, but Synesius refused, and there was a standoff for some time before Synesius was consecrated (and died just a couple of years after becoming bishop, around 410)—and we don’t know whether it was Theophilus or Synesius who yielded in the end.

2.) the practice of the “Church of Rome” itself, regarded as immemorial custom by the time of Pope Siricius’ Ad Himerium of 385 AD, was that married men who were ordained deacons, presbyters or bishops could continue to live with their wives, but both had to make a solemn undertaking to forego sexual relations after ordination, and live thereafter in complete continence “as brother and sister” (whereas in the East the requirement, at least for bishops, was to separate, with the wife usually becoming a deaconess); hence the phenomenon of a pope being the son of an earlier pope (e.g., Silverius [536-7] was a son of Hormisdas [514-23]).  It was part of the grab-bag of indictments for “innovations” that the Presbyter Hippolytus made against Pope Callistus around 215 AD (in his “Philosophumena”) that the latter in a couple of cases allowed presbyters to continue to have sexual relations with their wives after ordination, or even to marry.

3.) there was a strong trend to making celibacy normative in both the East and the West from the Fourth Century onward; in the West it had at first less success than in the East, and in fact the evidence for priests and even bishops marrying and procreating children after ordination, absent before the Fifth Century, increases in Gaul, and even Italy, from the Seventh Century onward till the Eleventh, perhaps at its height in the Ninth (although the Roman Church never yielded in its own discipline, despite the grossly immoral lives of some popes in the period 880 to 1040); and the response of monastic reformers to this was to campaign for requiring celibacy as a condition for ordination, which Rome embraced in 1074 and imposed on the rest of the Western Church in 1123.  In the East, where the promotion of married men into the episcopate became much more frequent in the Fourth Century than it did in the West (but where there is the same lack of evidence for it prior to Constantine), at some point in the late Sixth or early Seventh centuries it became the normative practice that only monks could become bishops, thus ensuring episcopal celibacy; this was codified at the Council in Trullo in 691/92.  At the same time, the struggle for a celibate lower clergy, as well as the attempt to get married ordinands to separate from their wives, was abandoned, and the same Council in Trullo imposed the rule of no marriage after ordination for deacons and priests, but that deacons and priests could retain “the use of marriage” with their wives, so long as they eschewed sexual relations during the night preceding any day on which they were to celebrate (in the case of presbyters) or assist at (in the case of deacons) the Liturgy.  The other non-Chalcedonian Eastern churches (Armenians, Copts, etc.), except for the Assyrians, adopted the same discipline around the same time.

>>> Which is good, because I would never make the case for “egalitarianism”. Perhaps your evaluation is what it is because you have imposed this “egalitarianism” on my argument from the start. <<< - Matt

Good-natured grin and chuckle.  Forgive me in advance for saying so, but this is a rather interesting tactical manueuver.  I now acknowledge that you’re not intending to make the case for egalitarianism, and that you state that my evaluation is flawed because I’ve mistakenly imposed or imputed “egalitarianism” upon your argument from the start.

Many responses.  Hope I can remember them all. 
(1)  Regardless of whether it’s egalitarianism as a whole, or WO in part, I would still contend that your argument bears the burden of proof from Scripture.  So even though you said that you would never make the case for egalitarianism, perhaps hoping that this would avoid shouldering the burden of proof, WO is still a historically recent “innovation” and still merits a biblical burden of proof.
(2)  Honestly, I do not think casting your argument as egalitarian is an unfair imposition or imputation on my part.  By behavior and practice, your endorsement of WO is an egalitarian position.  So even though you don’t want to make the biblical case for egalitarianism, your behavior in supporting women for ordination to the clergy clearly demonstrates that you are egalitarian.
(3)  Your position is in No Man’s Land.  Complementarians do not accept your reasoning.  And staunch egalitarians do not accept your reasoning.  No way that #6’s accept any idea of “male headship.”  When they conceive of WO, they mean no “male headship” whatsoever.  Eg. Bishop Tanner and PB Schori.  (And some woman cleric in Atlanta or Georgia, I can’t remember her name). 

To the staunch egals or pro-WO’s, your position is a “useful idiot” position for them.  They love the fact that you endorse WO, and will readily discard your stipulation that it be under male headship.
(4) You wrote the following previously:

“I would suggest that the proscriptions of the two texts above certainly pertain to any speaking out that is not limited and delegated by and through the headship of a male leader. The woman does not speak without the permission and express delegation of her husband and the male leader of the congregation. And her words must be overseen by them. When a woman speaks she must be speaking as a delegate or extension of her husband. So a woman cleric preaching, preaches a message seen and approved by the male pastor and as just one more extension of his authority and teaching office. The men are not being instructed by a woman but by the pastor through the delegated authority…”

I would politely and respectfully take issue with only two words in the quote above.  They are “woman cleric”.  Why must the woman be a cleric?  This is the crux of the issue of WO?  Why not a non-cleric for you?  There have already been posts about “clericalism”.  I won’t repeat them. 

But why not substitute “woman laity” for “woman cleric” in your paragraph above?  Why the staunch, adamant attachment by you that it be a “woman cleric”?  If you say that I’m imposing this attachment unfairly upon you, then I would simply ask, “Matt, would you be okay with the proposition that women are to speak out, teach, and preach ONLY AS LAITY under the headship of a male clergy? 

By limiting or restricting to a lay office, this really enforces the idea of male clerical headship, wouldn’t you agree?

But if you disagree, then I don’t think it’s unfair to characterize your position and argument as egalitarian with respect to WO.

I would suggest that the proscriptions of the two texts above certainly pertain to any speaking out that is not limited and delegated by and through the headship of a male leader. The woman does not speak without the permission and express delegation of her husband and the male leader of the congregation.

This is the other “importation” of a foreign category required Matt+‘s eisogesis—the one I’ve said is analogous, in its use, to the SSBers’ “naturally homosexual” vs “naturally heterosexual” distinction.

There is nothing in 1Cor14 or 1Tim2 which says women must “be silent in public worship… *unless* they’re under male headship” or “must not have authority over men… *unless* they’re under male headship”. In fact, to the contrary, inasmuch as these passages appeal to headship (which they explictly do), they appeal to it as a reason *for* these proscriptions, not as an excuse to dismiss them as not applicable.

1Cor11 makes no reference to this concept; Acts 18 may be thought to be consistent with such an imported category in that Priscilla and Aquilla do the private catechizing together (though, again, there’s nothing in the text which requires importing this category to make non-contradictory sense out of it) it’s still irrelevant to the “worship” context of the ordination/cleric issue.

Yet, despite this, Matt+ introduces this category into these passages and says that the prohbitions—which do not make any allowances either implicitly or explicitly for “woman” vs “woman under headship of a man” in their application—don’t apply to the category (“junior cleric”) which he’s introduced into the text.

In a nearly perfect analogy, the SSBers introduce the “inherently homosexual” vs “inherently heterosexual” distinction into their analysis of passages about homosexual activity. Despite the fact that the NT proscriptions on homosexual activity make no such distinction—the passages make their adjudication based on behavior rather than ‘orientation’ (just as the passages relevant to WO rule based on gender rather than on ‘hierarchical circumstances’ )—the SSBers introduce this category (“inherently homosexual”) and say that the prohibitions in Scripture don’t apply to it.

pax,
LP

LP: 1 Cor 11 makes no reference to what concept? Headship. I hope that is not what you meant?

truth unites:

THANK YOU for asking this question (below). Perhaps it can help, once and for all to dispell the misperceptions under which LP seems to be laboring regarding the importation of foreign categories:

“But why not substitute “woman laity” for “woman cleric” in your paragraph above?  Why the staunch, adamant attachment by you that it be a “woman cleric”?  If you say that I’m imposing this attachment unfairly upon you, then I would simply ask, “Matt, would you be okay with the proposition that women are to speak out, teach, and preach ONLY AS LAITY under the headship of a male clergy?”

I would be absolutely fine with it…pleased as punch, no problem at all. Because, in fact, I am not “staunchly” or “adamantly” insisting that the woman be a cleric. I am not advocating, in fact, for WO at all.

My argument rather has been the ordination of women to ministries limited by male headship would not violate scriptural proscriptions. Do you see the difference? There is one.

LP,

I do not think we will be able to resolve this for several reasons, cheif among them is your insistence, unfounded, that my argument that WO would not violate implicit or explicit proscriptions is the same as the SSB argument that blessing these unions would not do so.

First, whether SSBers do or do not import foreign categories (and they do) is almost, but not quite, beside the point. The biggest difference between the pro=SSB argument and my own is that there is no mitiagtion of the proscription found anywhere in the text. So there is no space into which SSB’s might possibly exist. Despite the categories Paul may or may not have known about, his proscription (as well as that in Leviticus and 1 Cor 6) is clear and unqualified. There is not one text that even comes near possibly causing tension, that comes close to calling for harmonization. The bible is unmitigatingly anti-homosexual sex.

The bible is not unmitigatingly negative with regard to the ministry of women.  Women are told to be silent and quiet and yet women prophesied in the Church with their head covered. Women catechised men. These are tensions that need harmonization.

This does NOT mean that the bible teaches WO is “okay”. It doesn’t mention WO. It does mean that the barn door is white, to return to my earlier illustration.

The question is whether or not WO can fit through that barn door.

I say it may with strict limits. You say it cannot.

It does mean that the barn door is white, to return to my earlier illustration.

Since you bring up the barn door, have you had a chance yet to look at my question about color-blindness?

>  “truth unites:  THANK YOU for asking this question.”

Matt, you’re most welcome.

>  “My argument rather has been the ordination of women to ministries limited by male headship would not violate scriptural proscriptions. Do you see the difference? There is one.”

Yes.  I’m keenly aware of the difference. 
FWIW, I just discovered Anne’s musings earlier today:
http://undercurrentofhostility.blogspot.com/2006/11/in-defense-of-limited-womens-ordination.html

Would Anne be okay with LWO to a deacon position? 

>  “I would be absolutely fine with it…pleased as punch, no problem at all. Because, in fact, I am not “staunchly” or “adamantly” insisting that the woman be a cleric. I am not advocating, in fact, for WO at all.”

Hearty smile and hearty chuckle.  Goodness gracious Matt!  Why didn’t you say so earlier?!??!  Would’ve saved me some time and prayer…. I’d still be lurking on SFIF instead of out in the open!

I thought you were advocating for WO.  Since you’ve clarified your position…  We’re definitely cool! 

Blessings and peace upon you, your family, and the sheep under your pastoral care.

Matt writes:  “The question is whether or not WO can fit through that barn door.  I say it may with strict limits. “

1.  Who sets the limits?
2.  What is the likelihood of their being observed?
Matt,
LP has referred to your position as that of a “useful idiot” who opens the door for radical feminism.  That’s not a personal attack, for you are a very bright guy, Matt, but that is exactly how the #6 party views you.  Remember how Bishop Graham Leonard “ordained” a bunch of female deacons just before he decamped to Rome. Many of these ladies repaid his confidence by getting themselves priested as soon as it was legal.  He was a “useful idiot” to the party he had battled against.  You further write, “I am not advocating, in fact, for WO at all.”  I find that hard to reconcile with your earlier statements and with the sheer volume that you have written.  Amazing that you would have to tell us that at this late stage in the discussion!  This is clearly the sign of a collapsing argument, a movement in retreat.

Has anybody kept tabs on what kind of representation each position has received?  1, 3, and 4, have been splendidly argued, but have we heard from 2, 5 and 6?

Fr. Lawrence,

I’m way late to this discussion.  I have never made any secret that I hold a position something like Matt’s #5.  I have also said in the past that I will not argue it here.  FWIW, I received communion from an ordained Episcopal woman this morning.  When I lived in Arizona for six months last year I attended a Lutheran parish where I regularly received communion from both a man and a woman, neither one of whom would be considered to be in the apostolic succession from most in this discussion.

Matt+, despite what you seem to think, I believe everyone who has responded to you <u>does</u> understand your position. Your answers which keep restating your position aren’t advancing the discussion.

Look, you say

My argument rather has been the ordination of women to ministries limited by male headship would not violate scriptural proscriptions.

We get this.

You’ve done this by taking a look at the proscriptions in Scripture which appear to—and are held by many to—prohibit WO. To wit: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent” (1 Tim 2:12); “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches.” and “For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:33)

These are pretty explicit and unambiguous prohibitions.  As explicit and unambiguous, in themselves, as any of the passages condemning homosexual activity. But claim there that there is, nevertheless, is a difference “between the pro=SSB argument and my own is that there is no mitiagtion of the proscription found anywhere in the text”—i.e. there is no mitigation of the pro-SSBers and there is one for the pro-WOers.

You claim there is this “mitigation” for the WO position in 1 Cor 11 and Acts 18.

<u>We get this.</u> We understand it. We see where you’re coming from.

Now, your argument to this effect has been challenged - not just by me but by a number of posters - on three basic points.

I do not believe you have yet adequately responded to any of these challenges—you have simply restated your position. True, often with a more nuanced or careful exposition of that position—and this has been helpful—but still merely a restatement, not a response to these challenges.

.

The three challenges have been these:

(1) METHODOLOGICAL

** Granted (for purposes of #1): you think WO is “mitigated” by Scripture and SSB is not.
** Granted (ditto): you think this is shown by the “clear and perspicatious” sense of Scripture.

Before challenging your interpretation to that effect by textual analysis (which are the next challenges), let us ask the more general question - by what authority do you claim that your interpretation (i.e. that WO is mitigated, or not forbidden, etc) is “clear and perspicatious”.

The anti-WOers say that their interpretation forbidding WO is “clear and perspicatious.” The SSBers say that _their_ interpretation, that SSB is “mitigated”, is the clear & objective one. What, if anything, makes <u>your</u> interpretation clearly right and these others clearly wrong?

You’ve rejected, in your own anaysis, appeals to Tradition, history, jurisdiction (yours or others) and other scholars as normative. Are you giving any other support to your argument beyond “here’s my argument, and I think it’s the clear meaning of Scripture” - especially since, having rejected those authorities as having normative authority or interpretation on the WO issue, you can’t appeal to them to support you on on SSB.

The anti-WOers and the pro-SSBers also give *their* arguments on Scripture, and each of them says, with as much conviction and honesty as you, “here’s _my_ argument, and I think it’s the clear meaning of Scripture.” What makes them wrong and you right?
<u>
Can you give any answer to this question other than repeating “They’re wrong because my interpretation of what is ‘clear’ in scripture is the correct one and theirs isn’t”?</u>

.

(2) BURDEN OF PROOF

You have claimed that the doubts you have raised about the anti-all-WO implications of 1Cor14 & 1Tim2 are sufficent to decide that “therefore Scripture does not forbid WO.”

You have claimed that this category of yours—a female cleric under the local headship of a male cleric—is not forbidden by Scripture. (“My argument rather has been the ordination of women to ministries limited by male headship would not violate scriptural proscriptions.”)

Now, several posters have challenged you about whether you have given sufficient Scriptural support to this revisionist interpretation—one contrary to Tradition, to the interpretation of all Christians for 1900+ years, to the interpretation of Rome, the East, anglocatholics, and many evangelical Protestants—for it to be a reasonable consideration.

You’ve been asked by one poster about how this fits in to “Scripture considered as a whole” (as you claim you believe in doing) with the OT. You’ve been asked by another how this fits with the fact that at times when bishops and deacons are being discussed, the gender-specific ‘anhr’ is used rather than the gender-neutral ‘anthropos’.

To all these objections based on other passages you have replied, insofar as you’ve replied at all, “these do not expressly forbid WO”. You’ve even gone so far as to argue “WO is never even considered by Scripture, therefore it can’t be forbidden by it!” (To which several have pointed out that the SSBers say the same thing about SSBs.)

You’ve also been asked to elaborate on how such a “restrictive” notion of “proof”—one which allows WO, even limited WO, on the basis of such a slim doubt as you provide (this connects with #3 below)—is consistent with _rejecting_ arguments that Scripture can, in the same way, be interpreted to forbid abortion or SSBs, given that, for those issues as well, it can be said to be “ambiguous” because it doesn’t “explicitly” forbid them.

I’ve argued that this creating of a tension by bringing in assumptions (e.g. that 1Cor11/Acts18 are ‘public’ enough to conflict with the proscriptions in 1Cor14/1Tim2 on women’s roles in public worship) and then solving them by importing a category (i.e. “junior cleric under senior male cleric”) is both not adequate proof or doubt to conclude that churches may legitimately adopt WO (challenge #2) and is an argument structurally identical to that of the SSBers who (with assumptions and imported categories) conclude that modern SSBs aren’t forbidden and may be adopted (challenge #1).

And you’ve been asked to specify just what amount and kind of ‘doubt’ can justify concluding that something is permitted by Scripture despite closely-related proscriptions.

(continued…)

(... continued)

(3) INTERPRETATION

Finally, you’ve been challenged on your interpretation. To be fair, I think you’ve given a fair bit of space to directly addressing this challenge (albeit, I think, unconvincingly), unlike the other 2 challenges.

On this challenge, the main thrust of the argument & objections (and not just mine) has been that:
** the ‘catholic’ proscription on WO stems from the public/worship context of the 1Tim2/1Cor14 passages about “teaching” and “authority” (as well as other passages about bishops/deacons & the sense of Scripture as a whole)
** the objections you have raised don’t apply to this public/worship context—Acts 18 is explicitly “private”; 1 Cor 11 isn’t discussing a “authoritative” or “public teaching” example
** your appeal to “headship” to create an exception is expressly contrary to the notion and use of headship in these very passages
** various other objections as well (I won’t try to summarize them all)
** all of which mean that, though these 2 passages provide some ‘context’ for the intended scope of 1Cor14/1Tim2, neither of them create a contradiction which would require, for the sake of consistency, limiting the proscription of those passages on WO.

And in most if not all of your responses to this third challenge, you’ve simply restated (though with additional nuancing/articulating) your belief that there is an explicit contradiction and argued that this means that 1Cor14/1Tim2 don’t necessarily forbid the kind of “limited WO” you are advocating.

.

At which point, your respondants either have elaborated their own understanding of these texts [challenge #3]...

... or have challenged you by saying that this ‘possible’ contradiction does not rise to the level of making this revisionist interpretation a revisionist one, especially in the light of other relevant Scriptures (and Tradition) [challenge #2]...

... or have said that, if such a “limited” or “unlikely” or “merely possible” contradiction is going to be judged to permit concluding “WO is not expressly prohibited by Scripture,” how then is the revisionism of SSB—based likewise on an argument that a particular category (i.e. modern SSBs) aren’t expressly prohibited by Scripture; based likewise on a particular constituency’s good-faith belief about what the clear meaning of Scripture (and what is or is not expressly proscribe) objectively is—how then is this other revisionism going to be rejected by anything beyond a repeated assertion of “no, they’re wrong, I"m right”? [challenge #1]

.

I’m becoming inclined to think we’re going to make no more progress on challenge #3.

You haven’t added any more substance to the “contradiction”—or even “possible conflict”—that you’re claiming exists between 1Cor11/Acts18 and other WO-relevant texts, and your responses (perhaps out of frustration) are increasingly amounting to nothing more than a mere restatement of your position and a claim that “this is what Scripture objectively says and doesn’t say.”

Perhaps we should simply conclude that you simply aren’t going to accept the merit of any other interpretation - including that of Tradition; that you’re not going to change your belief that there is a ‘conflict’ in those texts regardless of what any patristic author or jurisdiction or scholar says to the contrary, because your unshakable and authoritative personal judgement is that it is ‘clear’ in Scripture that there is a contradiction there (or, put another way, that it is ‘not clear’ in Scripture that those passages prohibit WO), regardless of other authorities and arguments.

And that’s a fair ‘conclusion’ for a discussion to reach—sometimes one party is convinced by the other; sometimes you simply reach a discernment of the unresolveable fundamental differences or prior assumptions.

.

If this is the case, perhaps we might still, at this point, profitably turn to a closer discussion of challenges #1 and #2—challenges which a fair number of posters have raised.

.

pax,
LP

.

p.s. A quick answer to a brief question:

1 Cor 11 makes no reference to what concept? Headship. I hope that is not what you meant?

No, the ‘concept’ I"m talking about in that section is “junior cleric”. Not even to argue that it’s incompatible, simply to argue that it isn’t there in Scripture—i.e. that you’ve imported that category, even though you, above, had claimed you weren’t importing categories.

LP has referred to your position as that of a “useful idiot” who opens the door for radical feminism.

Hey, hey… that wasn’t me. That was someone else.

I’d never say that about someone in a forum like this.

I might *think* it, but I wouldn’t say it.

pax,
LP

I am a female priest and an evangelical and conservative.  I will not use the term orthodox as that raises an argument that I don’t want to enter into.  I hold most traditional views.  I serve on a team with my husband; however, am willing to lead a church in a vicar or rector position but only a church that was happy to have me serving it.  I ascribe to #5 from the previous post.  I hold that females may be ordained to the priesthood—but not that they must; however, males don’t qualify for that either.  It is a calling that is recognized by the larger body and confirmed through discernment. I further hold that those holding a different view
“must” be given an alternative to being under a female ordained person of any order.  I find nothing in scripture other than Paul’s teaching on being quiet in church that supports women not being ordained.  There are certainly cultural implications in biblical times.  I find Jesus to be very empowering of women.  Unfortuantely for those of us who hold my views—this time of realignment could leave many of us out.  I do not support “grandfathering (or mothering) in exisiting while not being open to ordaining others.  I would find a clear definition one way or the other more acceptable.  Should WO be resinced; however, I of course would be limited by the situation in areas for ordained ministry.  I would not renounce my orders, as I, my husband and my community are confident in my priesthood. I would not choose to stay in TEC just to have an altar.  This is not offered to solicit argument but it offers a position that some of my female priest friends also hold.

The rhetoric coming from Episcopal women who participate in parades, carry Episcopal Church banners, and politically support the RCRC (which supports abortion, including partial birth abortion) is disillusioning to those of us who welcomed Women‘s Ordination and thought they would uphold Christian theology.  Even though I am a woman I am beginning to wonder if it was a good idea to ordain these women who seem to reject the best traits of womanhood and aspire to the worst traits of men.

Betty See—there are many male priests who participate in the activities you have mentioned.  There are many female priests (myself included) who do none of the things you mention.  Just as there are females who do not uphold Christian theology many men do not.  I certainly respect anyone’s right to not agree with WO; however, many of us do not at all fit the stereotype you have described (including Matt’s wife).  Many of us do not reject the best traits of woman hood.  We are faithful wifes, mothers, grandmothers and enjoy caring for our homes.  We wear bras and makeup and love to shop!  I personally am very comfortable and appreciative of being a woman and do not desire to be a man.

Fr. Wells wrote:

“Remember how Bishop Graham Leonard “ordained” a bunch of female deacons just before he decamped to Rome. Many of these ladies repaid his confidence by getting themselves priested as soon as it was legal.  He was a “useful idiot” to the party he had battled against.”

Women deacons were first ordained in the Church of England in 1987; Graham Leonard “decamped” in 1993 or 94.  He was, however, vocal in supporting women deacons and ordained a large number of them as soon as it was possible to do so.  In or about 1995 GL spoke to a group called “the Catholic Writers’ Guild” in London.  An old Cambridge friend of mine was a member and I asked her to ask him why he had been so forward in that cause.  He answered her that he had been misled by those who had provided him with information on the topic that there had been “women deacons” in the Early Church and that the Church of England was simply restoring an earlier women’s ministry, but he went on to say that he now realized they he had been mistaken and that, as a Catholic, he believed that women were no more “ordainable” to the diaconate than to the presbyterate and episcopate.  In 1998 I was in England and when I happened to be dining with a priest of the Church of England, a retired NT Professor at a provincial university (but more of a liturgist by training than a NT specialist), and an Anglo-Catholic (who in 1946 had been given a private pre-ordination retreat by Dom Gregory Dix) when I told him the tale of my friend’s question and GL’s answer.  The response was electrifying: he sat bolt upright and burst out “but that can’t be true!” and went on to tell me how when word got out around 1985 that GL was prepare to support passage of the Women’s Ordination (Diaconate) Measure at the 1986 General Synod sessions the late Garry Bennett called together a group of scholarly Anglo-Catholics (of whom my friend was one) to put together a collection of essays theological, historical, doctrinal and practical in an attempt to disabuse him of the notion that there was any basis in the Fathers or Catholic theology for his stance, and to dissuade him for what proved to be his influential (and ultimately, come 1992, calamitous) advocacy for that cause.  All in vain, for although the essays were delivered into the hands of the bishop’s chaplain, they were never acknowledged and their arguments did not seem to make any impression upon him whatsoever.

Sorry, LP.  It was Mr. Truth-Divides who wrote,

“(3) Your position is in No Man’s Land.  Complementarians do not accept your reasoning.  And staunch egalitarians do not accept your reasoning.  No way that #6’s accept any idea of “male headship.” When they conceive of WO, they mean no “male headship” whatsoever.  Eg. Bishop Tanner and PB Schori.  (And some woman cleric in Atlanta or Georgia, I can’t remember her name).

To the staunch egals or pro-WO’s, your position is a “useful idiot” position for them.  They love the fact that you endorse WO, and will readily discard your stipulation that it be under male headship.”

I thought it was an astute observation.  Before anyone goes ballistic over imagined rudeness in the phrase “useful idiot,” this was how hard-line communists in the era of Stalin (or was it Lenin?) commonly described American liberals, who played into their hands.  It surely describes how hard-line feminists look upon “reasserters” who tolerate or defend WO.

Bill Witt writes

“I’m way late to this discussion.  I have never made any secret that I hold a position something like Matt’s #5.  I have also said in the past that I will not argue it here. ” 

Sorry, Bill, you comma late to da ball game you no eata da watermelon.
The ballot box has been closed and your vote is ineligible for the count
(</tongue-in-cheek>  Seriously, why are you reluctant to enter this discussion?

I’ll let Bill speak for himself—but for me I am always reluctant to enter these discussions on this site also.  Often when I do because I take the #5 position I am ridiculed and insulted.

Julia, both have been forbidden and you can be assured that if you are ridiculed or insulted the offender will be warned and then, if he/she persists, banned.

I have given some commenters more leeway with me than I would with you or another commenter.

Bill, as I understand Matt’s taxonomy, I believe he is a 4, not a 5, as 5 allows the possibility of a female bishop.

Fr. Wells wrote:

“this was how hard-line communists in the era of Stalin (or was it Lenin?) commonly described American liberals, who played into their hands.”

It was Lenin’s phrase, and originally referred generally to those “bourgeois liberals” who facilitated communist revolutions against their own “class interests”—and who, he went on to observe, would be among the first to be “liquidated” as “social parasites” once the revolution had succeeded.  It is indeed an apt analogy.

Julia,
I am glad that you posted the following: “There are many female priests (myself included) who do none of the things you mention.”
I am glad you are responding to this site because we NEED to hear more from female priests who uphold Christian theology instead of feminist rhetoric. We need that reassurance, especially now that the Presiding Bishop is assailing us with the “New Thing”.
I pray that God will provide leadership from women who are truly Christians and hope you and other female priests like you will have more of a voice in our future.

Betty See—there are many male priests who participate in the activities you have mentioned.  There are many female priests (myself included) who do none of the things you mention.  Just as there are females who do not uphold Christian theology many men do not.

I’d like to second Julia here. Just because some ordained women are ‘wacky’ doesn’t either prove or disprove the validity of WO—just as the heretics & apostates like Spong & Bennison & Pike don’t prove or disprove ordination of men. (I think I even said as much earlier in this whole thread, but I’m not about to wade back and go looking for it! ).

The flip side of this, of course, is that the presence of ordained women such as Julia or Anne (who do _not_ support other “revisionisms” such as abortion and who do _not_ buy into an apostate theology) doesn’t _prove_ the appropriateness of WO any more than the liberal ones disprove it.

The matter ultimately has to be addressed not by “personalities” or “individual test cases” one way or the other—but by dealing with Scripture and Tradition when they say things like “I do not permit a woman to have authority over men” as 1 Tim 2 does.

pax,
LP

I agree with LP.  The issue of WO can be treated within the fold, as a problem that is independant of the old/new Spongian attacks against the Creeds. 

In American Presbyterianism e.g., the problem that came first was erosion of core beliefs - especially the belief in the Virgin Birth.  The problem of WO came many decades later, within the same mainline body.

Bill, as I understand Matt’s taxonomy, I believe he is a 4, not a 5, as 5 allows the possibility of a female bishop.

Lawrence, what I meant by Matt’s # 5 is #5 on Matt’s list.

My decision not to participate in discussions about WO’s goes back to rather fruitless discussions years ago on the Episcopalians United web board with members of what were then called Episcopal Synod of America.  It is the same reason I do not participate in discussions on Al Kimel’s Pontifications about the infallibility of the pope or justification by faith.  It is the same reason I tend to stay out of discussions about politics on these forums.

I have strong convictions on all of these issues, but I have found that web discussions of these topics in particular more often emphasizes disagreement and heat rather than light and mutual understanding with those with whom I am otherwise in essential agreement.  Face to face dialogue often has the opposite effect. 

It’s the nature of the internet unfortunately.

As usual, Bill, you make excellent sense.

and only bishops and priests can administer the “last rites” or “anointing of the sick.” Anyone whomsoever can “offer a blessing” or “say a prayer

Mr. Tighe

Thank you for your response. It is quite possible…nay, probable…that the rites I saw the Nuns performing may, in fact, have been blessings or simply prayers asking that God forgive the individual of his sins.

Thank you for speaking out Julia.  I too usually refrain from these discussions for the very same reasons (although due to Matt’s diligence, this one has been much more civil.  Thank you Matt) It appears positions on WO are very entrenched…both ways.  There are very few fence-sitters who will be convinced in either direction.  The arguments seem circular and no new positions have been offered.  To continue to debate this seems rather pointless to me.

Was there a time limit set on the discretion of diocesan bishops to deny ordination to women per the GC that approved their ordination? This question may have been addressed numerous times before. If so, I apologize. However, this is a question I have wondered about for the longest time.

My recollection [probably incorrect] is that the GC that approved the ordination of women but “permitted” bishops to deny their ordination within the confines of their diocese did not set a time limit. Then, if memory serves me correctly, a subsequent GC “decreed” that all bishops could not deny their ordination.

The answer to this question seems relevant to me to the question of how long bishops will be “permitted” to deny ordination to non-celibate gays/lesbians and to those who deny what we regard as the basics of Christian theology.

Again, I apologize if this question has been addressed before.

People might be interested in Anne Kennedy’s blog which talks about WO and feminism, etc.

Sodbuster—

I hate to say it, buddy, but you are now doing what Matt+ has done—ignoring or arguing away the clearer meaning of Scripture, and the meaning supported by Tradition, based on the authority of your own interpretation & assumptions about more ambiguous passages.

Now, let me hasten to say that I agree with you that, especially in the West, there was a hellenizing tendency to say (or, rather, imply) “marriage is evil”—something not supported by Scripture. Likewise, the _requirement_ of a celebate clergy is not enjoined by Scripture—indeed, given the “husband of one wife passage”, it is _explicitly_ not enjoined (regardless of whether you think that passages means married exactly once, or married no more than once, or married to only one wife at a time.)

However, Scripture clearly states (and is as clearly supported by Tradition) 1 Cor 7:1-2,6-9:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband…. I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

This is quite clear. Paul says:
* It is better to be single than to marry.
* Not every one is given this gift of self-control. If they are not, they should marry.
* He says “everyone should marry” as a _concession_, not a command. He wishes everyone could be as he is (single) but recognizes that not all are called to the celibate state.

In fact, the command for couples to have sex with each other which you cite is the in the digression on “it is better to marry than to burn” in vv. 3-5—SMACK IN BETWEEN two explicit statements that, for those to whom that gift is given, celibacy is better than marriage.

This unambiguous teaching is supported by Tradition universally, both East and West, in the patristic period. Indeed, it was this very Scriptural notion—marriage is a good and celibacy a higher good—which lent itself to the misinterpretation that because celibacy is a higher good, marriage is an evil.

Just as the faithful Christian who counts himself part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” is bound by Scripture and Tradition in matters of divorce & remarriage, WO and SSBs, so too such a Christian must accept the clear Biblical teaching that, for all that marriage is a good state, blessed by God, celibacy is—for _those who are called to it_ (which isn’t everyone)—a good state too.

Now, I will happily admit that this principle, per se, does not mean that *clergy* may (or may not or should or should not) be celibate. I’m not here addressing the “husband of one wife” passage one way or the other—and, in fact, I suggest that discussion be “bracketed” in this thread, since this is the offical WO thread and we don’t want to get _too_ far afield on separate (albeit related) questions like “singles’ ordination” or something.

But your statement that “I believe that the Scriptures demonstrate that unmarriedness is never a preferred state” is so wildly contrary to Scripture—not in saying that marriage is a good but in saying that unmarriedness is never preferred to it—that I felt it needed quick correction.

pax,
LP

Well, I don’t know what you are to make of it, but what strikes me in these two paragraphs is how you are willing to prefer your own two “seem to assume” and “to me it seems completely plain” to the whole weight of Early Church practice, as though your own individual reading of biblical passages could somehow compete with the of the Early Church as a whole.

OK, no more “seems”: Paul specifically allows the bishops to marry, by describing the characteristics of their relationship with their wives and families (1 Tim 3:2ff).

But the early church at least in some cases (as you described in another post)
...required married priests to promise not to have sex with their wives, which is the opposite of what Paul clearly tells married couples (1 Cor 7:5);

...ordered a man to put away his wife before he could be a bishop, which is contrary to the command of 1 Cor 7:10-11 (which Paul says comes not from him, but “from the Lord”) that the married woman is not to depart from her husband nor the husband to divorce his wife.

...eventually required all clergy to be celibate (although I can’t tell whether this began during the era that is the source of Tradition or afterward) despite the fact that Paul only says he “wishes” all men were like himself in that respect but recognizes that not everyone has that particular gift (1 Cor 7:7), and by describing the clergy as married men, leaves ordination open to those men who do not.

I have already provided information about the dominant Patristic “take” on this passage, and I have also asserted that interpreting them in a manner to suggest that “the bishop” must be married is unknown to all the Fathers of the Church. (Btw, if anyone can contradict these assertions in point of fact, I would welcome it, but I don’t expect to see it.)  Which, then, is more likely to be mistaken—the meaning that the biblical passages “seem” to you to have, or the interpretation of both the Fathers and (implicitly) of the Church as a whole when it acted on the assumption that what it meant was that “if the would-be bishop is a married man, he must have been married no more than one time?”

I did not intend to argue that they must marry, but that they are permitted to marry. That may not have been clear because of where my post fell in the sequence of messages. Nor do I dispute the accuracy of your description of early church practices. What I do argue is that to forbid what the Bible permits is just as wrong as to permit what the Bible forbids, and that in requiring celibacy for the clergy, the church did so.

And you concluded:

“But mostly, I wonder how Tradition can be normative, if sometimes the early church did the opposite of what the Bible says. What if they were just plain mistaken?”

Which I would transpose as:

But mostly, I wonder how contemporary Bible-readers can take their conjectures as normative, when both the Early Church acted in a manner in direct opposition to them and it is clear that nobody among the Fathers shared them?  What if their conjectures, lacking any historical evidence to support them, are just plain mistaken?

I wouldn’t call concluding from a description of the bishop which includes a wife that bishops are permitted to marry “conjecture”. That is what Paul wrote, isn’t it? I am glad I live in a time and place where the Bible is freely available to me, to read for myself and see what it says. If the Bereans were commended for examining the scriptures to verify even the words of the Apostle Paul himself, it’s OK for me to do the same with Tradition.

I’m also not setting myself up as normative. I’m human and I could be mistaken. But likewise, so also were the Early Church Fathers human and they could be mistaken. For that reason, I don’t see Tradition as normative either. I guess that makes me an “Anglo-Protestant”. 

Ooops—correction:

This is quite clear. Paul says:
* It is better to be single than to marry.
* Not every one is given this gift of self-control. If they are not, they should marry.
* He says <u>”these” (i.e. those who are tempted to immorality - i.e. fornication - if they remain single) “should marry”</u> as a _concession_, not a command. He wishes everyone could be as he is (single) but recognizes that not all are called to the celibate state.

.

By the way, you should go on and read the rest of this chapter carefully too, Sodbuster, esp. vv.25-35, and consider well whether you can keep claiming that “the Scriptures demonstrate that unmarriedness is never a preferred state”.

.

pax,
LP

Wm Tighe wrote:

...when word got out around 1985 that GL was prepare to support passage of the Women’s Ordination (Diaconate) Measure at the 1986 General Synod sessions the late Garry Bennett called together a group of scholarly Anglo-Catholics (of whom my friend was one) to put together a collection of essays theological, historical, doctrinal and practical in an attempt to disabuse him of the notion that there was any basis in the Fathers or Catholic theology for his stance, and to dissuade him for what proved to be his influential (and ultimately, come 1992, calamitous) advocacy for that cause.  All in vain, for although the essays were delivered into the hands of the bishop’s chaplain, they were never acknowledged and their arguments did not seem to make any impression upon him whatsoever.

One wonders whether they ever got past the hands of the bishop’s chaplain….

I’m also not setting myself up as normative. I’m human and I could be mistaken. But likewise, so also were the Early Church Fathers human and they could be mistaken. For that reason, I don’t see Tradition as normative either. I guess that makes me an “Anglo-Protestant”.

I think you’re blurring the line between Roman and anglo-catholics here kyounge.

I think it’s fair to say that anglocatholics believe:

* In Scripture as the highest source of authority, being divinely inspired. (The debate on the exact nature and mechanics of that inspiration is a subordinate issue to this general principle)

* In the Creeds and doctrinal teaching of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church as a normative explanation of central and essential dogmatic issues.

* In the “consensus of the Fathers” as a normative guide to the interpretation of Scriptures where there is ambiguity. (And, yes, this phrasing in terms of ‘consensus’ means it’s fuzzy around the edges.)

* In the practices (liturgical, disciplinary, personal) of the early Church as _acceptable_ but (when not required by Scripture) not _mandatory_. (Thus, for example, a preference for celibate clergy is _acceptable_ but not _mandatory_ for the anglocatholic. You don’t have to practice it; you don’t even have to believe it is preferable; but you may not condemn the practice or pious opinion.)

.

It’s this last point which is where anglocatholics and angloprotestants cannot, ultimately, be reconciled.

For example, the early Church clearly practiced and approved of the veneration of icons & relics, prayers for the departed, some Marian devotions, etc. The anglocatholic, seeing this, says “these practices are pious and acceptable - but not mandatory. They aren’t required by Scripture (either in its explicit statements or in its ambiguous statements as clarified by Tradition), but they are compatible with it and, given their use in the first decades and centuries of the Church, commendable.”

The angloprotestant, however—having accepted some of the errors of the Reformation (along, of course, with some of its good points)—_condemns_ these traditional practices and pieties of the early Church. Indeed, the whole time he fulminates against the anglocatholics for preserving and admiring practices not ‘required’ by Scripture, he himself is calling for _condemnations_ not required by Scripture either.

The result is the following irreconcilable conflict: the anglocatholic says “these practices and pious beliefs of the Tradition of the early Church (—list of practices/beliefs—) are acceptable but not mandatory. You don’t have to practice them; you do have to believe they are okay.” The angloprotestant says “these practices (—same list of practices/beliefs—) are unacceptable. You may not practice them; you must believe that they are anathema/heritical/condemned.”

.

pax,
LP

As an Angloprotestant I have to say that worship of man made icons does appear to be idolatrous as described in the first commandment.
The word veneration is very close in meaning to the word worship.

LP wrote

I think you’re blurring the line between Roman and anglo-catholics here kyounge.

I could be, I suppose. I was just using celibacy of the clergy because that’s the example that came up in the thread. I am also not sure which commenters on Stand Firm are Roman Catholic and which are Anglo-Catholic, unless they identify themselves, so I may be thinking of some positions as A-C that are really RC. I didn’t think A-C’s advocate mandatory celibacy of the clergy, if that’s what you meant. Sorry if I gave that impression.

It’s this last point which is where anglocatholics and angloprotestants cannot, ultimately, be reconciled.

For example, the early Church clearly practiced and approved of the veneration of icons & relics, prayers for the departed, some Marian devotions, etc. The anglocatholic, seeing this, says “these practices are pious and acceptable - but not mandatory. They aren’t required by Scripture (either in its explicit statements or in its ambiguous statements as clarified by Tradition), but they are compatible with it and, given their use in the first decades and centuries of the Church, commendable.”
The angloprotestant, however—having accepted some of the errors of the Reformation (along, of course, with some of its good points)—_condemns_ these traditional practices and pieties of the early Church. Indeed, the whole time he fulminates against the anglocatholics for preserving and admiring practices not ‘required’ by Scripture, he himself is calling for _condemnations_ not required by Scripture either.

Oh dear! Was I really fulminating? I did try hard not to. It’s the “mandatory” I was objecting to. I hear there is an old motto about Confession (I think) that says, “All may, some should, none must”. I hope that the future of Anglicanism in NA takes the “all may, none must” position with respect to other things too—including veneration of icons or prayers for the dead. By describing myself as an Anglo Protestant, I meant: “All may, none must, I don’t”.

The result is the following irreconcilable conflict: the anglocatholic says “these practices and pious beliefs of the Tradition of the early Church (—list of practices/beliefs—) are acceptable but not mandatory. You don’t have to practice them; you do have to believe they are okay.” The angloprotestant says “these practices (—same list of practices/beliefs—) are unacceptable. You may not practice them; you must believe that they are anathema/heritical/condemned.”

I don’t say they’re anathema or condemned. I think they are erroneous or mistaken, the same way I think Dispensationalism is mistaken, or that churches who require members to be teetotalers are mistaken. I do not believe that they are heretical. To me, “heretical” means outside the boundaries of Christianity altogether, so that a person who believed in it was not saved. Even though I think a church that requires teetotalism is wrong, and wouldn’t join such a church, I don’t think that their mistake endangers anyone’s salvation. What does that make me, an Anglo-neither-fish-nor-fowl? 

To bring this back around to the topic of the thread (sort of), I hope that in an orthodox Anglican future in NA, that extra, stricter-than-Scripture” restrictions on female lay ministry such as women lay readers, girl acolytes, etc, are given an “all may, none must” status, not enforced throughout the whole body.

A further thought on WO.  In the exegetical discussion between LP and Matt, at one point Sarah felt called upon to say that Anglicans do not adhere to the Puritan-Calvinist “regulative principle,” which requires a specific Biblical warrant for practically everything. Therefore the Puritan-Calvinist types will ban musical instruments from worship, as violating their “regulative principle of worship.”  They are quite serious in this, and I have actually seen an internet debate on the propriety of using tuning-forks and pitch-pipes in those churches where organs and pianos are verboten.  I cannot imagine LP espousing such a principle as RPW!
As we all know, Anglicans in Hooker’s heritage appeal to Scripture, Tradition and Reason (and I will not delve right here into the vexed question of how these are to be properly related to each other).
Scripture has been explored, exegeted, eisegeted and misappropriated in this thread.  Tradition is perfectly clear, and we have been spared of any claims of female presbyters in the early Church (a fantasy of T. F. Torrance in his old age, along with others).  So I would like to bring up the contribution of Reason in this debate.  So I ask:
1.  Is WO a reasonable innovation, when it splits the Anglican Communion even further from the overwhelming preponderance of the Christian world, RC, EO, and Classical Protestant?
2.  Is Wo a reasonable innovation when it creates new and insurmountable ecumenical obstacles with other Churches of the apostolic succession/historic episcopate?
3.  Is WO a reasonable innovation when it constitutes a rupture with all previous Christian history?
4.  Is WO a reasonable innovation when it has generated a generation of division, turmoil and grief within the Anglican family itself?
5.  Is WO a reasonable innovation when it is somehow linked (we plainly disagree as to exactly how) to blatant revisionism and creeping apostasy within the Anglican churches?

As an Angloprotestant I have to say that worship of man made icons does appear to be idolatrous as described in the first commandment. The word veneration is very close in meaning to the word worship.

On the contrary, the word veneration is, in fact, quite distinct in meaning from the word worship.

Moreover, in this context, these are translations of <u>technical</u> terms from, ultimately, Greek (‘dulia’ and ‘latria’ ) which make explicitly clear that the reverence or ‘dulia’ one gives to images is not _worship_ (latria) but is rather an honor given to these images on behalf of the one they represent. In the same way, for example, that a young woman might kiss a locket around her neck which holds a picture of her fiance, or a mother take special care for to guard and preserve and display the favorite childhood toy of a son fighting in Iraq. The young woman is not kissing the locket because of its composition, nor is she kissing it because she’s in love with the photograph—she’s honoring it because of the love she has for the one it represents. The childhood toy is not being guarded and preserved and displayed because of its composition, nor because of its immediate subject (the mother’s maternal love is not for teddy bears or even bears) but because of the one it represents.

So this sort of distinction is part of normal, every-day human existence. Our love - like all love - casts reflections which illuminate.

.

Now, its true that this distinction can get blurred and the practices confused. There probably are people out there who verge on giving “latria” to images—though I’m sure that if you asked even the most simple “is this icon your God?” they would say “of course not, don’t you understand anything? God is in heaven” or words to this effect.

Another source of confusion is the occasional RC use of the word “pray” for dulia—e.g. to “pray” to the saints or to “pray” to Mary. Of course, if someone were to say (rather archaicly) to you: “I pray you, help me out of this hole, I"m stuck!” you wouldn’t think that they were _worshiping_ or _praying to_ you in the religious or ‘latria’ sense; you’d understand, from context, what they meant. “Pray”, in English, has uses beyond “to address worship or requests to God”—and it is in these ‘lesser’ senses that one may rightly talk about “praying” to the saints.

The problem is, in the religious context, such a use of the English word “pray”—even though technically correct—is, at best, misleading. For purposes of clarity, it would be better if people could stick to the proper and technical terms ‘venerate’ or ‘ask to intercede’—but the informed listener, who wants to know what is actually taught rather than merely looking for rhetorical excuses to catholic-bash, should understand that “pray to Mary” and the like is simply a shorthand for the more awkward “ask Mary to intercede by her prayers on our behalf.” (And, yes, this raises other issues—I"m not addressing those here, merely the dulia/latria and related ‘praying’ issues.)

And if we rejected every Christian doctrine which has been, at times, misunderstood or misused, there’d be nothing left—no Trinity, no Eucharist, nothing. Thankfully, the confusions or misuses by various individuals or groups does not disprove doctrines nor overthrow the authority of God and His Church.

.

Now, this issue of the appropriate use of images was explicitly taken up by an Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church—the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D., which taught that the long-standing tradition and practice of the Church—the ‘veneration’ of icons—was both pious and appropriate, provided that the latria/dulia distinction was understood.

This council is one which—putting their own interpretations of scripture and personal authority over that of Tradition—many Protestants reject. Calvin—in his “my interpretation trumps all authorities and other interpreters” approach (very much like Matt+‘s approach in this thread, which has rightly been called ‘Calvinist’ elsewhere)—rejected the dulia/latria distinction.

But regardless of the revisionist interpretation of these Reformation thinkers—who put their own interpretations before all others and ruled, on that personal authority, what was or was not consistent with Scripture—the ancient and established teaching and practice and official determinations of the apostolic & patristic Church is quite clear and explicit—and not just in the appropriateness of the veneration of icons, but in this precise dulia/latria distinction.

Yes, it can be a subtle distinction, especially to folks who only hear it in passing, or who have been indoctrinated by the anti-Tradition anti-catholic Protestant propaganda on the issue. So I can understand, Betty, why you might find this distinction troubling, especially as you mistakenly understand and describe the practice as “worship of man-made icons” which is exactly and <u>explicitly</u> what it is NOT—worship being the English translation of ‘latria’ rather than ‘dulia’.

But despite your (or Calvin’s) reservations, the distinction and practice is both ancient and official, and even a subject explicitly addressed by an Ecumenical Council. The matter has been settled for over 1200 years.

.

Here’s what that council says:

To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.

One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another’s message.

Given this state of affairs and stepping out as though on the royal highway, following as we are the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the catholic church—for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit who dwells in her—
we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways, these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men.

The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects.

Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.

So it is that the teaching of our holy fathers is strengthened, namely, the tradition of the catholic church which has received the gospel from one end of the earth to the other.

So it is that we really follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the entire divine apostolic group and the holiness of the fathers, clinging fast to the traditions which we have received.

So it is that we sing out with the prophets the hymns of victory to the church: Rejoice exceedingly O daughter of Zion, proclaim O daughter of Jerusalem; enjoy your happiness and gladness with a full heart. The Lord has removed away from you the injustices of your enemies, you have been redeemed from the hand of your foes. The Lord the king is in your midst, you will never more see evil, and peace will be upon you for time eternal.

<u>Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise innovations, or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel or the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr’s holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the catholic church, or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people.</u>

* If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
* If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
* If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
* If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

pax,
LP

LP,

There is, of course, as I expect you would be aware, a problem about the attitude of the Church of England towards the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Nicaea, 787).  The Elizabethan Settlement forbade treating as heresy except that which was not contrary to the Scriptures or contrary to the first four ecumenical councils (Nicaea I, 325; Constantinople I, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451) or contrary to “anything hereafer determined to be heresy by the authority of Parliament.”  Most Anglican divines of the 16th and 17th centuries had no objections to the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils (Constantinople II, 553; Constantinople III, 681), regarding tham as “postscripts” to the fourth.  However, a lot of them rejected the Seventh Council outright, as endorsing “idolatry” or at least leaving the door open to it.  Almost all the Elizabethan divines (including Jewel) took this stance, and most of the Jacobeans as well. (I can’t remember if Hooker made any statments about it.)  The “Caroline divines” were divided: some of them rejected it, more of them regarded it as relevant only to the East and a few accepted it, sort of, and used it to attack “Puritan” iconoclasm.  (Those of them that rejected it did not reject it, as their predecessors had done, on the grounds of its alleged endorsement of “idolatry” but claimed, on the basis of Charlemagne’s local “Council of Frankfurt” of 794, which had rejected it on the basis of a botched Latin translation of the council’s Greek definition that made it appear that the council had declared that images were to be worshipped in exactly the same manner in which God is to be worshipped, that the English Church had never “received” it.)  Some “Anglo-Protestants” and even a few “high-churchmen” (such as John Johnson of Cranbrooke) went so far as to say that if there was a “seventh ecumenical council” it should be the “Council of Hiereia” of 754 which endorsed iconoclasm and absolutely forbade the veneration of imagres of any sort in any way.

The best treatment of this issue (written from an anti-papal anglo-Catholic perspective) is C. B. Moss’s fine little booklet *The Church of England and the Seventh Council* (1957), which is, however, quite rare.  One rather inexpensive copy can be purchased here, for those who are interested in the question (which, although undoubtedly a bit recherche, does, I think, expose one of the perduring faultlines in Anglican ecclesiology ever since 1559):

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=lPQmtf8tuMBEG4f1THyQ71QB.KU_0666319992_1:8:51

There is, of course, as I expect you would be aware, a problem about the attitude of the Church of England towards the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Nicaea, 787).

Yes, I was rather simplifying the issue, especially as it represents a digression from the official topic of the thread. Perhaps I should have simply pointed out that the ‘dulia’/‘latria’ distinction was ancient and explicit—that the idolatrous ‘worshiping’ of icons was never taught nor intended by the early Church—and left it at that.

For the Continuing Church movement, of course, the matter is “settled” (inasmuch as anything in that venue is settled) by the recognition by the _Affirmation_ of the normative authority of all 7 councils - an anglocatholic position which, while within the wide-ranging ‘umbrella’ of views tolerated by Anglicanism and characteristic of some of its members and thinkers, is certainly not consistent with them all - which may indeed (as far as some thinkers are concerned) be out toward the dripping edge of that umbrella.

As I think you’re quite right to point out, the issue of the “status” of the 7 Councils—along with issues such as WO, the Prayer Book, the acceptable range of liturgical practices, etc—all provide “faultlines” in Anglicanism which any reunifications (be it into one or several jurisdictions) need to address head on, explicitly, and unambiguously. Being “anti” something (e.g. SSB) may be enough for people to have a common enemy. That “negative” doesn’t, however, provide the sort of “positive” unity needed to form a coherent jurisdiction.

pax,
LP

p.s. Moss’ essay on the 7th council, which Dr. W.T. cites above, can be found online at: http://anglicanhistory.org/cbmoss/seventh.pdf

pax,
LP

Forgive me if this has already been noted, it’s near impossible for me to say that I have read all of these excellent posts.

For what it is worth, the Anglican extraordinaire, C.S. Lewis, wrote this interesting article on “Priestesses”, as he called them.

He, apparently, was in camp no. 1.  Unless of course he changed his mind at a later date, which is entirely possible, but not likely.

Priestesses in the Church?

And yes, I am in a church that subscribes to camp no. 2

LP,  I am NOT one who is “looking for rhetorical excuses to catholic-bash“.  I think religious icons should be preserved and respected. 
The first commandment tells us not to worship graven images. I believe there is a fine line between veneration and worship that we should not cross.  The worship of worldly material things, whether they be religious icons or wealth, has always been and still is stumbling block to mankind and we should not be so awed by worldly things that we are distracted from the worship of God.

BettySee—

My comment about “catholic bashing” was (at least was intended) to be about the phenomenon in general, not about you in particular. Sorry if it sounded otherwise.

There’s nothing in your last post that _any_ Orthodox, anglocatholic or Roman would disagree with—save, perhaps, to observe that while the line between ‘veneration’ and ‘adoration’(worship) may appear a fine one to people, it is, in fact, a huge, vast, and indellible line in _fact_ and _being_ (despite possible similarities at times in appearence)—for ‘veneration’ is merely respect given to one thing on account of another (and, ultimately, this is true of all our loves—for nothing is ultimately loveable but God), wheras ‘adoration’ (worship) is the response of the creature to the Creator and the Creator alone.

.

Amia_newbie:

The fact that CSL disliked “p-delted-s” is interesting; but the fact that the early Church explicitly forbade them, in accordance with Scripture and Tradition, is far more important.

I sometimes fear that the AMIA is schitzophrenic on WO, its policy ultimately representing a theologically unteneable compromise which requires either rejecting a catholic understanding of the priesthood or a catholic understanding of the sacraments. I think that at some point parishes & clergy currently within the AMiA will ultimately have to decide (along with the APA, REC, and other “middle grounders” among “traditionalists” [or, rather, those who are ‘traditionalist’ on the homosexuality issue]) whether they want to join an emerging angloprotestant jurisdiction or an emerging anglocatholic one.

pax,
LP

What does the abbreviation WO stand for?  On this blog you’d be partially correct if you said WO = Women’s Ordination.  If you wanted to receive full credit, you’d also say that WO = Worthy Opponents, Sarah Hey’s term for reappraisers or revisionists who are adamant that same-sex behavior is not a sin according to God and His Word.

There are many folks who are pro-WO, in favor of the Worthy Opponents and in favor of Women’s Ordination.

And there are many folks like me who are anti-WO, against the Worthy Opponents AND against Women’s Ordination.

I love it.  I can just say I’m anti-WO and people will say “okay.”  They won’t know whether I’m referring to Worthy Opponents or Women’s Ordination.  Equivocation has its uses at times.

Ordination means to be placed as servant in one of various orders of the Church.  Historically these orders include, but are not limited to bishops, priests, deacons, deaconesses, and monastics.  One should not discuss the ordination of women without being specific as to which order is referenced. 

Most of the Pauline texts cited against or in favor of women’s ordination to the priesthood do not deal with orders at all, but with orderliness in the churches.  That orderliness has for Paul the underlying semitic assumption that the Creator ordered the creation and the order of creation involves complementary opposites or binary distinctions such as male/female; hot/cold; east/west; and night/day. Christians honor the binary distinctions as an act of faith that God has ordered all things well. 

What are the implications of this for holy orders?  That is what needs to be discussed.

Ordination means to be placed as servant in one of various orders of the Church.  Historically these orders include, but are not limited to bishops, priests, deacons, deaconesses, and monastics.  One should not discuss the ordination of women without being specific as to which order is referenced.

In contemporary parlance, “ordination” (unless otherwise specified) tends to mean _clerical_ ordination—i.e. ordination to the clerical orders of bishop, priest and deacon rather than to the lay orders of deaconesses or monastics.

It’s been clear (explicitly at times) throughout the posts in this discussion that by “women’s ordination” we were here discussing clerical ordination.

pax,
LP

I understand that people here are talking about women ordained to the priesthood.  I’m saying that we need to look at the bigger picture.  Bishops can be consecrated from the ranks of monks and from the ranks of deacons.  History provides precident for these anomalies, but not for women priests and bishops.  I’m personally persuaded that women are not to be ordained to the priesthood.  (That’s why I set aside my orders as a priest.) Women pastors in Protestant churches is a different matter and that should be separated out of the discussion also.

Women pastors in Protestant churches is a different matter and that should be separated out of the discussion also.

Dear Alice, can you share with me why you advocate separating this out as a separate matter?  I’m not following the distinction that you’re advocating.  Much thanks.

In Protestant churches the focal point is the pulpit and often a baptistry behind the pulpit.  This represents the emphasis of Protestantism.  In churches in the catholic tradition (Anglo-catholics, Roman Catholics and Orthodox) the focal point is the altar.  This represents the catholic emphasis on the Eucharist.  Most Protestants do not hold a sacramental view of the Lord’s Supper and therefore do not speak of the ministry of the chief pastor as priesthood.

My paternal grandmother, Alice W. Linsley, was a Baptist minister, ordained in 1929 by the Northern Baptists in southern California. I am named after her.  She was a dynamic preacher and a wonderful pastor, especially to the women of the church. I have no problem with women in ministry as preachers, teachers and pastors. This is beside the point, as we are not speaking here of catholic orders when we speak of Baptists who hold a memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper.

My doubts are not about the ability of women to function in the priestly office. The issue for me is not the ability of women, but rather God’s design for the sexes and how, as a faithful Christian, I am to understand that design and the boundaries binary distinctions that serve as boundaries markers.

The question of women priests is really a question of maintaining the apostolic tension between Scripture and Tradition. In this respect I believe in the necessity of holding Scripture and Tradition in apostolic tension. I differ from others who hold this position only in that my conclusions on gender roles are drawn from many years of study of Genesis and the conviction that Genesis is foundational to the Bible and to Christian theology. The irony of Evangelicals is that they say they believe in the authority of Scripture but then allow cultural accommodation such as women priests in their interpretation of Scripture. This happens because they do not maintain the proper tension between Scripture and Tradition and because they are anxious to be friendly to seekers.

Alice Linsley, Regarding your statement: “The question of women priests is really a question of maintaining the apostolic tension between Scripture and Tradition.”
Is this a new theology?  Why should we maintain tension between Scripture and Tradition?
During the Middle Ages it was traditional for Clergy to sell indulgences for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  This created tension between Scripture and Tradition, but Scripture rightly prevailed and we know that forgiveness cannot be purchased but is a gift from God as we are told in Scripture.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”
John: 3 verse 16

I agree with you on the importance of The Holy Eucharist, I believe it is so powerful precisely because these Book of Common Prayer rites are in harmony with Scripture.  That is why I became an Episcopalian.

This ancient approach of the Church catholic is sometimes termed “synergy” between the apostolic witness delivered and preserved through the Church Fathers and the apostolic witness delivered and preserved in the Bible.  None are required to hold as dogma any point unless it be agreed upon between the two. Which is why I am no longer an Episcopalian! 

The greatness of the Book of Common Prayer (if we are speaking of the editions 1549-1928) is that Thomas Cranmer re-sourced in the writing of the Fathers (St. Basil, St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostom). He lifted entire phrases from the ancient liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom.  Not every thing in the (true) Book of Common Prayer came through the Sarum Rite.

Slight Detour.  This woman is the first to have achieved the highest office in her religion and has been ordained as a Master of the Universe.

Not your usual guru, and no mountain to climb to see her
By Jennifer Garza - Bee Staff Writer
Published Saturday, July 7, 2007

Her Holiness Sai Maa knows a certain image comes to mind when most people think of a guru.

“A 75-year-old man with a long beard, right?” she says, laughing. “That’s not me.”

Not even close. Sai Maa is a 53-year-old divorced mother of two. She is also a renowned spiritual leader who recently became the first woman granted the title of Jagatguru in the 5,000-year history of the Vaishnav Saint Society, a branch of Hinduism. “Jagatguru” means master of the universe and it is the highest title that can be bestowed.

Today through Sunday, Sai Maa will deliver her message at the Sacramento Convention Center. The event is sponsored by Humanity in Unity and Sacramento’s Spiritual Life Center.

What is her philosophy?

“It’s all about love,” Sai Maa says in a phone interview. Chimes can be heard in the background when she talks. “My philosophy is simple, it’s not new. It’s, be love, serve, forgive, enlighten yourself.”

Sai Maa was born on Mauritius, an island off the eastern coast of Africa and the larger island nation of Madagascar. When Sai Maa was 3 or 4 years old, she began seeing “beings of light.” She grew up, married and had two children. Years later, she felt compelled to follow her spiritual journey. “It’s something I had in me since I was a small child.”

Sai Maa has supporters all over the world. One of them is Christine Bouten, senior minister of operations for the Spiritual Life Center. Bouten met Sai Maa on a retreat a couple of years ago, an experience she describes as profound. After meeting Sai Maa, Bouten left the corporate world to work in ministry full time.

“She dared us to step into our greatness,” says Bouten. “To trust ourselves.”

Sai Maa is one of a handful of female gurus who have become more visible in recent years. Finding acceptance has not been easy.

“Even though men may worship mother divine through the form of statue or stone, to actually acknowledge the human form of a woman as the divine, well, it takes time,” says Sai Maa. “It’s been tough.”

Sai Maa hopes being awarded the title of Jagatguru will inspire other women to pursue their spiritual callings whatever they may be. She believes women can be effective leaders.

“The patriarch is not going to change the planet; it’s time for the matriarch,” says Sai Maa. “It’s time for women to accept their feminine energy, and when they do, they will be balanced and strong.”

Bouten believes Sacramentans of all faith traditions will be inspired by Sai Maa, who she calls a “powerful presence of love and life.”

Sai Maa, who is also the author of “Petals of Grace,” says she is looking forward to her Sacramento appearance although she doesn’t know specifically what her talk will be about. “I work with the energy. It depends on the vibration of the room.”

From:  http://www.sacbee.com/107/story/259852.html

Let us be clear that the Christian Priesthood is unlike any other religious office because it is patterned on the One True High Priest, Jesus Christ.  Every (male) priest who stands at the altar is an icon of Christ the high priest.

Icons help believers meditate on the mystical Reality that stands behind them.  Were you to meditate on the Blessed Theotokos, you would view an icon with a female form.  It would be absurd to stand before an icon of St. Peter or St. John the Baptist. These are neither female in form nor do they point to the mystical reality of the Incarnation.  If in the Eucharist one contemplates the mystical reality of Jesus giving Himself, why would one have a female priest?

There is plenty of evidence for priestesses in history.  That is not support for women priests in the Church.

Obviously, there are women pastors inthe church.  That is not support for women priests inteh church.  The priesthood is not some specialization among clergy.  It is unique and it is male.  This is not able women’s ability or women’s rights.  It is about accepting the boundaries that have been established.

“Those who do not believe that tradition supports the ordination of women have some explaining to do with regard to the abundance of archaeological evidence that establishes the existence of women priests.  The examples are many, but I will mention one from even the second century:  Artemidora, a Christian priest in Egypt during the second century.  The Louvre owns her mummy tag. The evidence of the existence of ordained women in subsequent centuries is even clearer. Those who would like to learn more about this often overlooked evidence will find Dorothy Irvin’s The Archaeology of Women’s Traditional Ministries in the Church both instructive and entertaining.”

This is rubbish, pure and simple.  I responded at some length a couple of years ago on “Pontifications” to a reporter who was brandishing Irvin’s fantasies masquerading as facts, but since I cannot find that response in my files I’ll content myself with these points—even though such apodyptic invocations without proof of “the Priest Artemiodora,” like those of her sisters-in-fantasy “the Apostle Junia” or “Theodora the Bishop” deserve no other response than an equally flat and bare denial on the basis of “quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” (that which is asserted without proof may be denied on the same basis).  Alice is right when she writes “There is plenty of evidence for priestesses in history” (but) “that is not support for women priests in the Church.”

1.  In what manner is Artemiodora described as “a Christian priest?”  If the word is “presbytera” or “presbyterissa” it usually means the wife or the mother of a priest.  This is the same threadbare argument, reflecting really an ignorance of both history and epigraphy, that Jan Morris (whom Irvin recycles uncritically) uses to show that there were “female bishops” in the early Church (e.g., the “Theodora Episcopa” mosaic in the St. Zeno Chapel in Sta. Prassede in Rome, Theodora in fact being the mother of the Pope Paschal who had the chapel built and decorated, cf. the title of “Helena Augusta” given to the mother of Constantine the Great).  This delusion, together with that of the eminent Scottish Presbyterian theologian Thomas Torrance, who thought that he could see a depiction of women celebrating the Eucharist in what id more likely a catacomb fresco of the Miracle at Cana, is wonderfully lampooned by Dr. Geoffrey Kirk here: 

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

2.  The phrase “a Christian priest” evades the issue.  It is likely that many Gnostic sects (whom some, including purportedly “Christian” feminists today, and not a few Anglicans, think of as “Christians” and whose views on various issues they prefer to the “One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” that expelled them as false brethren) had female hierophants, and that the most “church-like” of them, the Marcionites, had female deacons, priests and even bishops; and, on the other extreme from these sects, the Montanists (who believed in ongoing “continuing revelation” from their prophets [“prophets” whom the bishops of the same OHCA Church believed more in need of exorcism than of attention, and whom they eventually excommunicated en masse]—again, rather like “Christian feminists” today, and not a few Anglicans)) also had women in all positions of authority.  What these sectarian groups did ought to be of no concern to Christians (and especially Anglicans who take the historic claims of their denomination seriously), and the burden of proof is upon those who advance such dubious historical personages as the “Priest Artemiodora” to demonstrate, first, that it is not a question of some priest’s wife or mother and, second, that Artemiodora was not some sort of Gnostic or sectarian hierophant.

The persistence of such exploded history and fantasy facts, a good example of the truth of old Horace’s adage “Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret” (in which “Naturam” is a polite euphemism for “Merdam” or “barnyard droppings”) and of the profound emotional need for the proponents of WO to concoct some sort of connection between their hearts’ desire and the Early Church, which gave the same “anathema” to WO as it did to SS; and as such we can only pity the deep delusion under which they labor (just like the promoters of SS) in that regard.

Anglicans who wish to feed their minds on fact and reason rather than on fantasy and delusion might do well to review Fr. Kimel’s collected postings on WO here:

http://pontifications.wordpress.com/female-priesthood/

Grasshopper,

You have spoken repeatedly of “evidence” but have provided none; isn’t it time that you provided it?  What is the word that “proves” (sic) that she was a “priest” and not the mother or the wife of a presbyter?  What is the “evidence” (sic) that provides she was a Coptic Christian “priest” and not a Gnostic hierophant of one sort or another (and Egypt was the very seedbed of Gnosticism and of Christian Gnostic teachers)?  Do you know?  Or are you just “channeling” Irvin’s delusions?  Where’s the beef—for all you’ve provided so far is the historical equivalent of dyed tofu?  Considering all of the frauds and fabrications that the WO industry had obtruded upon the world as “evidence,” only to see it fly with all the dexterity and speed of a clay pigeon (and to suffer every time the same fate), it is entirely reasonable for those who prize fact over fantasy, to ask those who propagandize for that “industry” to put up or shut up.  Meanwhile, “quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” rules o.k. in the wit of the wise.

Grasshopper,
I am away from home and in position at present to pursue (were I so inclined) the books and “evidence” you cite, but I must ask: is that it?  One mummy tag?  Because I would suggest, along with Dr. Tighe, that calling that a slender reed is putting it too kindly.

Perhaps a summary of evidence, along with some other examples (apart from the exploded ones that Dr. Tighe lists, such as the famous “apostle Junia”) would help.  If there are some, then well and good.  If there are not—if “Artemidora presbytera” is it—well, this dog won’t hunt, for all the reasons Dr. Tighe lists and then some.

Sorry, that should be “in no position”

Grasshopper,

You seem to be unable or unwiling, or both, to answer the most simple questions.  So, to repeat myself, what word is used to describe her as a “priest?”

“She fell asleep in the Lord” is found on Montanist tombs in Asia Minor, so it does not prove her orthodoxy, even if she was, as is mos tunlikely, a priest.

So far the evidentiary value of your postings is 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.  Three strikes and you’re out.

Conjectures about Artemidora’s orthodoxy are just that—conjectures unsupported by any evidence.

Actually, not so, since the only evidence we have of specific women who specifically performed presbyteral functions in the early church were, in fact, heretics (as those listed by Mr. Tighe), and specifically condemned as such.

Given that the only evidence (of which I am aware—and I do know a bit) places women “priests” in a gnostic or Montanist sect, the presumption would necessarily be that “Artemidora,” were she functioning as such, would have likely belonged to some such group.  The onus would on those who wish to demonstrate otherwise.  And if your (or Irving’s) evidence is “voluminous,” then it still behooves you to provide another—and please, a more solid—piece of such evidence.

I might add that a quick google of “Dorothy Irvin” led me straight to the well-exploded “Theodora episcopa.”  Not definitive as regards the rest of her research, but hardly encouraging.

“Presb.” —is that all?  Historians such as IRNS and I can’t conclude much without a full transcription of the inscription, but that could mean a whole host of things.  “Presbytis” could describe an elderly unmarried lady; “presbytera” or “presbyterissa” the mother or wife of a priest.  Once again, a case of the evaporating evidence.

And IRNS is correct, of course, in his penultimate post: given the complete absence of any and all evidence for womanpriests in the OHCA Church of antiquity (or today, for that matter), the burden of proof is wholly on those who think that they’ve found evidence for them to show that they were not and could not have been Gnostic hierophants or religious functionaries among the Marcionite or Montanist heretics.

The Coptic Church is a noble and venerable survivor of Muslim repression and earlier imperial presecution.  I admire them greatly, and among their many admirable deeds was the forthright address to the Australian Anglican General Synod some two or three years ago of the Coptic Bishop of Australia, Abba Bishoi, who, instead of producing the usual pleasantries and ecumenical bromides, told the Synodsmen that they needed to repent of their heretical innovation of WO, as well as to purge themselves of all those who would bless homosexual relationships, if the expected to have a friendly relationship with the Coptic Church.  Pope Shenouda of Alexandria has said much the same thing.  I’m glad that the Coptic witness today is as heroic as it has always been.

I think it is unlikely that any open-minded readers are bearing with this thread.  Further commentary from me will await some indication to the contrary.

Please do continue.

Perhaps readers may find the resources available on Christians for Biblical Equality’s Web site, http://www.cbeinternational.org, helpful. Here you will find resources that present a biblical and historical basis for the shared leadership for men and women. In particular, let me draw your attention to the archaeological work of Dr. Dorothy Irvin, a archeologist trained at Tubingen. Dr. Irvin’s archeological calendars provide ancient evidence of women’s leadership (at the highest levels) from the early church through the middle ages. See http://www.equalitydepot.com/index.asp?PageAction=PRODSEARCH&txtSearch=irvin&Page=1

Context is so important, Grasshopper.  I used the term “priestess” in the technical sense.  That is not Matt’s concern, if I understand him.  Having been a priest in ECUSA for 18 years, I can assure you that I never liked being called “priestess” because of the pagan connotation.  I renounced the vows I made as a priest inECUSA becasue I discovered that the ordination of women to the priesthood is another of TEC’s innovations, like ordaining non-celibate homosexuals and same-sex ceremonines.  I would argue that ECUSA recognized that ordaining women was the first order of business in moving to the other innovations.  It is not a coincidence that the first women canonically ordained a priest was also open about being a lesbian.  She also served as the first Vice President of Integrity. You can read all about it here: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/gayhist.html

The examples that Grasshopper produces have been raked over agiian and again: those in the catacomb of Priscilla are dispatched by Fr. Kirk in the link I provided in my first respose, and the one in the Via Latina catacomb simply shows a woman dressed in a vertically striped gown, with her arms upraised in the “orans” position, nothing more.  No womanpriests here, for sure! 

Deaconesses (cf. Canon 19 of Nicaea) were reckoned in those sections of the Early Church which had such functionaries (not all did) as laywomen, not as female deacons (cf. *Deaconesses: An Historical Inquiry* by Aime-Georges Martimort; San Francisco, 1986, 1996: Ignatius Press).  That eliminates some more.  “Presbyterissa”—wife or mother of a priest—eliminates another.

Six down, four to go.  I’m nor personally familiar with these other examples, but I’d want the same kind of evidence for each one of them that I’ve asked for before: what is the word used to characterize “Kale” and “Leta” that is rendered here as “priest;” what phraseology underlies the cumbersome “in apostolic succession from Petronella” (huh? who?) used to characterize “Veneranda;” and who says—is there an inscription claiming this?—that the fresco in the Catacomb of St. Januarius is of a woman priest celebrating Mass?

Thank you, Grasshopper, for sending more clay pigeons my way, but can’t you do something more challenging, like producing records, episcopal letters, papal decretals, that would indicate that there were womenpriests in the OHCA Church?

Gentle Readers, observe how “Grasshopper” would raise a hue and cry about “insulting comments” and the like, but avoids presenting any hard evidence, except for allusions to frescoes and mosaics which do not describe what they depict and of which Grasshopper’s descriptions are impositions by those who find what they want to see in them.  Consider, also, for it is well worth your attention, the link to Fr. Kirk’s article that I have provided above, for it shows how far-fetched and inconsistent (for they can’t even agree among themselves) those who turn these catacomb mosaics into evidence for womenpriests are.  Consider, also, how he simply magics aside the remarks of IRNS and myself that since there is evidence for women hierophants and religious functionaries in Gnostic sects (some of which regarded themselves as Christians) and heretical counter-churches like the Marcionites and the Montanists (which certinly considered themselves Christians) with the empty rhetoric of “Assumed to be a heretic, without any evidence, unless proven NOT to be a heretic?  That is an absurd proposition.  So much for ‘innocent until proven guilty’...” which is a kind of speaking loudly but carrying a small stick.  Finally, consider his remark “uh… Mr. Tighe?  Artemidora was a woman serving as priest in the SECOND century, long before a Mohammad, let alone any Moslem oppression” and consider what it says about the reading skills od someone who can take my general description and commendation of the Coptic Church and imply that I am using it as an argument against “Artermiodora the Priest.”

Dr. Tighe seems to have the edge here, Grasshopper.  You appear to be trying to paint a picture of an early Church that ordained women as priests as a matter of course and thought nothing of it, until ... until what?  When did this authentic practice get derailed?  Who did it?  If it was so unquestioned, where are the conciliar decisions or papal decrees ending women’s ordination?  Keep in mind we are talking about a period in which local and regional councils were common and prior to a monarchical papacy.  Surely, across a widely dispersed Church, somebody would have addressed an alteration in what is considered a matter of doctrine.  Can you provide citations to those decisions?

So TEC’s heresies are “mis-steps” in your thinking?  To me they are demonic beguilements that threaten to destroy souls.  (I’m sure I sound melodramatic to your ears.)

I once thought that it was so cool that the church I belonged was the first to ordain women and that the first woman priest was Chinese and the first woman bishop black.  I used to say:  “See, God is doing a new thing.”  Lord, forgive me for my ignorance of You, Your Word, Your Church and Your Kingdom.

Assumed to be a heretic, without any evidence, unless proven NOT to be a heretic?  That is an absurd proposition.  So much for “innocent until proven guilty,” Mr. (I’m guessing your gender) I’d Rather.

Grasshopper, William Tighe has already dealt quite well with the list you produce.  Perhaps someday I’ll take a look at Irvin’s book.  However, I should clear up something about the nature of historical evidence.

We are not here dealing with a case of law, nor with the presumption of anything, innocence or otherwise, but with evidence.  Presumption, in fact, is the very opposite of evidence, which I in fact, offered.  The women “priests” we know of were heretics.  We know of none who were demonstrably orthodox (leaving aside the problematic nature of those terms).  The logical inference is that Artemdidora, were she a “priest,” was likely among the former.  It is not a scientific demonstration, but reasonable inference, indeed the only reasonable inference given the state of the evidence.  It is theoretically possible that she was an “orthodox woman priest” (again leaving aside the problematic nature of that phrase), but historians, and particularly ancient historians, draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence all the time, and that is all that I am doing here.  You may wish any other inference you like, but that will be based on your personal preference (or presumption), not any evidence either direct or indirect.

And my sex (not my gender) is male.

I pointed to archaeological evidence that women priests, deacons, and Bishops existed within the early centuries of Christianity.  This established, I have no interest in discovering the unsavory means by which this practice was undone.

So you are neither interested in dealing with William Tighe’s historical dismantling of your “archaeological evidence” nor answering the complete lack of evidence of how your presumed practice of WO was undone? 

Good luck in either law school or any grad course in historiography.

Posted by MimiH on 07-09-2007 at 12:24 PM

Greetings MimiH, are you the person written below?

“With Catherine Kroeger’s retirement as President, the need for a full-time leader was met in the person of Mimi Haddad. Haddad had helped start CBE chapters across the country and she had served as Development Committee chair on the board of directors. She was persuaded to move to Minneapolis in 1997 to head the organization as Director of Development and Public Relations. In 1998 she became Executive Director. She was named CBE President at the 2001 conference in Dallas. Dr. Mimi Haddad is a graduate of the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, New College Berkeley, and Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (Summa Cum Laude). She holds a Ph.D. in Historical Theology, from the University of Durham, England.”

C’mon, Grasshopper, you can do better than that.  What you’re saying is analogous to the reappraisers saying gay marriages were accepted in the Church at one time, and the dastardly heteronormative bigots then, at a time and manner which will be left unsaid, decided to shove gays in the closet - take our word for it - and, therefore, ECUSA is right after all.  They also have a bare handful of obscure writings, representing not even a rounding error of the thought of 2,000 years of Catholic Christianity, which they’ll be glad to show you as proof of their position.  We tell them the burden of proof is on them to explain why 2,000 years of Tradition should be overturned; be consistent, and say the same thing to yourself.

To repeat: there are advocates of SS marriage and elastic sexuality that make the exact same argument you’re making.  Are you now on their side?

And yes, Truth, that is the one and same Mimi.  Perhaps she will say more about any number of issues here with which she is very familiar.  And perhaps you might share some of your own ideas?

I thought it was the same Mimi, but I didn’t know for sure.  FWIW, I hold a different doctrinal position than you and Mimi on this issue.  Also, my memory is somewhat faulty, but I seem to recall that we discussed this issue sometime last year on a blog thread over at Titus 1:9.  You’re a seminary student now, is that correct?

As I understand it, the opposition to WO expresses itself in 2 ways on this thread:  (1) Anglo-Catholic.  Which is an ontological argument.  Dr. Tighe and Dr. IRNS are both excellent scholars on this line of reasoning.  Further, they are professional historians.  Dr. Haddad would enjoy the academic sparring that they would provide.  (2)  Scriptural.  Matt Kennedy and Sarah Hey prefer theological discussions along these lines.  LP, Fr. Wells, Eclipse, et al have all got into exegesis of the various passages addressing whether women can serve in leadership positions in the church/home.

Well, actually, there’s a 3rd argument, and that is that it’s a fairly easy transposition to take the argument and reasoning for WO and apply it with the same force to advocate for Gay Ordination.  So there’s the Slippery Slope argument as well against WO.

Well, actually, there’s a 3rd argument, and that is that it’s a fairly easy transposition to take the argument and reasoning for WO and apply it with the same force to advocate for Gay Ordination.  So there’s the Slippery Slope argument as well against WO.

It reduces to the 2nd kind of argument.  The ‘heterosexual-ness’ of marriage is something rooted in Creation.  And Paul appeals to Creation (as well as Fall) in 1 Tim 2, as the basis for ordination that he discusses in chapter 3. 

To put it politely, what WO and homosexuality have in common, is that they are both inappropriate applications of God’s Created order.

“I pointed to archaeological evidence that women priests, deacons, and Bishops existed within the early centuries of Christianity.”

You’ve done no such thing; you’ve merely pointed to a few frescoes, fastened a meaning upon them to which nobody but ideologues such as your self ascribe any credit, and dismissed all objections with an amazing ignorance of history.  so far there is no evidence, just a pile of assertions, and I remind you that the sum of a thousand noughts is still nought. 

“This established ...”

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.  You have merely “established” your own fancies, and build upon them what you will, it still amounts to nothing.

“... I have no interest in discovering the unsavory means by which this practice was undone.”

Yes, just like Marx did not care to discover “the unsavory means” by which “primitive Communism” was undone.  In other words, I won’t tell you how my fantasy world yielded place to wicked reality.

If I had to sum up the whole “argumentative strategy” of “Grasshopper” when presented with hard historical fact in contradiction of fantasy, it would be as follows:

LA, LA, LA LA, DUM-DE-DE DUM.  I can’t hear you, haven’t you got anything to say to my evidence?  (Louder:) LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, DUM-DE-DE-DUM-DE-DE.  I guess you admit defeat, you can’t rebut my evidence. (Shreiks:) LA, LA, LA, LA LA, DUM-DUM-DUM-DE-DE, DE-DE-DE-DUM, LA, LA, LA.  I’ve won!

I have just been reading a few of the “Sister Fidelma” mysteries, which are set in Ireland during the 7th Century. The books are written by Peter Berresford Ellis (under the pseudonym of Peter Tremayne), described on the book jacket as “a prominent authority on the ancient Celts”. In the historical background information for the novels he says that in the Celtic church of that time, women were ordained as priests or bishops. He cites St Brigid of Kildare as one example. According to this author, she was

ordained a bishop by [St] Patrick’s nephew, Mel, and her case was not unique. Rome actually wrote a protest in the sixth century at the Celtic practice of allowing women to celebrate the divine sacrifice of Mass.

I did a quick search for St Brigid in wikipedia, and the article there describes an “unsubstantiated legend” that Mel, when making Brigid an Abbess, inadvertently read the rite for the consecration of a bishop.

Neither wikipedia nor the background information for a detective novel are authoritative sources, but I have been following this thread with some interest and of course this assertion by the novels’ author piqued my curiosity. Can anyone provide more background information, links to historic documents, etc, about
*whether the Celtic church differed from the rest of the church on WO, 
*other examples besides St Brigid (the author gives no other names)
*whether confusion exists parallel to the “Theodora Episcopa” mosaic (titles used for Abbesses or other women religious sometimes confused by secular scholars with those of ordained bishops, priests, or deacons)
*the “letter of protest” from Rome (if the Celtic church was not ordaining women, what was Rome protesting against)?

Alice Linsley,  “I once thought that it was so cool that the church I belonged was the first to ordain women”.
I also thought the same thing, I thought women would bring feminine nurturing qualities to the Church, but the opposite seems to have happened.
You don’t sound melodramatic to me and I respect your decision.  It is too late now, but I can’t help but wonder where the Episcopal Church would be if women like you had been given the opportunity to influence the Church.

Grasshopper, I don’t find the analogy to be inapt.  I didn’t say you had archaeological evidence of SS marriages in the early Church, I said gay advocates claimed to have such evidence and make a parallel argument to yours - which you must accept, by your own logic.

To summarize Grasshopper’s argument:

Grasshopper, to One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (OHCA): I think you should ordain women to the priesthood.
OHCA: It’s important to us to maintain the Tradition as handed down to us by the Apostles, and the Tradition says only men may be priests.
Grasshopper: You’ve ordained priests before!
OHCA: I have?  When?
Grasshopper: Way back.  I have evidence – here are the names.
OHCA: Who are they?  I don’t know them.  Are you sure you’re not confusing them with the many Gnostic and other heretical sects of the time?  They purported to have women clergy and weren’t shy about appropriating Christian language.
Grasshopper: No, they were Catholic.
OHCA: Can you prove it?
Grasshopper: No.  You prove they weren’t.
OHCA (awkward silence): What?  You brought it up.  Why do I need to prove anything?
Grasshopper: I said so, so I’m right.
OHCA (snickering quietly): Um, OK.  Who did you say you were with again?  The Episcopal Church?  I understand now …

Grasshopper, if you are interested in arguments, you might try

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

and start from the bottom (such is the nature of a blog).  In particular you might want to look at

http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/?p=57

Unfortuately, the “comments” fuction seems to have gone haywire lately and I don’t know when it will get fixed, so you can’t read others’ comments or leave your own; but you can always contact me through my e-mail address:  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

It’s an unfortunate fact that those unfamiliar with the profession of history think that everything you find in books such as Grasshopper cites are objective, incontravertable “facts”, as if you found a mathematical proof in a calculus book.

Thus his “argument” is, in essence, “I have this book; it cites archaeological evidence that women were priests; therefore there were women priests.”

The problem is that scholars, no less than anyone else, can be advocates of agenda-driven nonsense. They just do it with footnotes.

And, unfortunately, academia is no less subject to the absurdities of political correctness than other parts of our society—and total nonsense can get published and praised if it fits that agenda, regardless of its actual merits. Thus, for example, John Boswell’s book on Homosexuality in the early church - rife with mistranslations, false assertions, and ungrounded assumptions - gets lots of praise by those who are predisposed to like its pro-homosexuality message, and then gets cited by people who don’t know any better as “proof” that the church used to approve of homosexuality until all that evil/modern/fundamentalist repression started. Likewise, there’s the nonsense in book-with-footnotes form, like Torjensen’s _When women were priests_, which makes the same kind of disingenuous assertions about women’s ordination.

Indeed, there’s been a whole scholarly cottage industry of searching for “proof” of these modern notions in the early church (first WO, now approval-of-homosexuality) precisely to justify the modern revisionist practices… contorting history to try to manufacture post-facto justifications for the modern innovations. Supported by the many absurdities of post-modern linguistic, rhetorical and philosophic theories which actually claim that you _can’t_ ever know what historical truth actually is (or what authors actually intended) and so you are entitled to make up your own explanations - subject merely to the test of whether or not they are rhetorically convincing - because that’s all you can ever know anyway.

.

For those interested in doing actual _history_, rather than using historical info to attempt to defend a pre-determined agenda, you have to work from the unambiguous to the ambiguous. You start with what is certain to give you facts and context and use those certain facts to help you make sense out of what’s ambiguous. You don’t import your agenda onto the facts and force them to fit—you set aside, as much as you can, your presuppositions and let the evidence speak for itself.

Thus, for example, we know for certain - from explicit statements in epistles, theological treatises and canon law - that the early (catholic) Church explicitly rejected the ordination of women to the clerical orders (bishop, priest, deacon); we know that heretical groups did ordain women; we know that this ordination was cited by orthodox & catholic writers as one of the marks of their heresy and departure from the apostolic faith, etc.

In the context of these explicit facts, we can turn to evaluate the more ambiguous information provided by archaeology. We find, for example, “Theodora Episcopa”. We ask “does this mean a “female bishop”?” Surely this would be odd, given the explicit rejection of such a practice by the early Church. We also know from contemporary sources that ‘episcopa’ and ‘presbytera’ was used to mean wife (or sometimes mother) of a bishop or presbyter; we have the parallel example of “Augusta”, etc. And, in fact, from the historical record we know that there was a ‘Theodora’ who was the mother of the pope who commissioned those frescos themselves. So the sane, objective, and reasonable interpretation - the one which is consistent with all the explicit evidence and the social and linguistic practices of the time - is that this ‘theodora episcopa’ is ‘theodora, mother of bishop Pascal’. This does justice to the surviving art itself, to the place where it was found, to the context in which it was commissioned, and to the explicit contemporary statements on the issue of WO made by the church which commissioned it. It’s obvious and common-sensical.

The revisionist, however - layman or scholar - who has preemptively _decided_ that the early church must have ordained women (regardless of the actual facts), takes quite a different approach. The “Theodora Episcopa” fresco - despite all this countervailing weight of explicty historical fact and common sense reasoning - is taken to _prove_ that this was a female bishop, simply by assumption. Then the less ambiguous evidence to the contrary is dismissed as the repressive innovations of an evil patriarchy.

In other words, the approach is to find some piece of evidence which can be taken out of historical and cultural context, can be twisted to fit the pre-determined agenda and interpretation, and then used to establish a standard ‘truth’ against which other evidence is measured.

Thus, for example, we see people argue this fiction of the “apostle Junia”, making at least 5 major assumptions to “prove” that (against all the more explicit and unambiguous statements by Paul himself, as well as what as known of the contemporary early church) that this was a female bishop. Or the fresco (a discussion of which is given in one of Dr. Tighe’s links above) which shows (in all likelihood) the wedding at Cana which is ripped out of historical context by the pro-WOers and declared (without any proof or substantive reasoning) to be a Eucharist presided over by a female p-delted-ss. And so forth.

The modern agenda - despite the explicit contemporary evidence to the contrary - is read back wherever you can find (or invent) “ambiguity” in the historical evidence, which assumptions are then taken as ‘proof’ of that agenda, and then all other evidence which contradicts it is rejected.

.

Thus, Grasshopper, in point of fact, you’ve offered no proof or evidence that women were ordained in the early church. All you’ve done is gotten hold of an agenda-driven monograph which takes this reletivistic, a-historical and non-sensical approach to archaeology and made sweeping claims and assumptions - contrary to all the more explicit historical evidence - and claimed this as ‘proof’ that women were ordained in the early Church.

The problem is that when this so-called evidence is approached more objectively - looking for historical context and rational interpretation rather than rhetorical justification of a preconceived agenda - none of it stands up to scruity, as in the examples given above.

.

To reduce the situation to its bare-bones, what you have is bits of evidence which can, sometimes with difficulty, be presented to mean “A or possibly B” and more explicit evidence which says “definitely A”... and then people, seeking to justify their agendas with history (be it WO or pro-homosexual activity), who look at this evidence and conclude “aha! definitely _B_”, and then dismiss all the “definitely A” evidence as proof of patriarchal repression.

.

So, Grashopper, this is why Dr. Tighe and others who are actually familiar with the sort of ‘evidence’ your book cites are not convinced by your references to it.

You’ve said, in effect, “I have this book which claims that this is evidence of WO and therefore it’s so”, while they’ve replied, “we know that book is not good history; there are plenty of better monographs which argue to the contrary; and anyway we’re familiar with the actual evidence itself and know that it doesn’t prove what your agenda-driven author claims it does.”

So they’re right to say that you haven’t proved anything, all you’ve done is cited a disingenuous monograph. But, of course, if your aim (like that author’s) isn’t to find out the historical truth of the matter, but just to come up with history-coated excuses for what you’ve already decided to do & believe, then perhaps the ability merely to cite such a book (regardless of its merits and regardless of the quality of the evidence & arguments it presents) is enough for you. Your call.

.

pax,
LP

I’m not convinced by Grasshopper’s “evidence” either.  Each of his claims has been repeatedly and definitely shown to have an historical context other than the female Christian priest claim.

As to Grasshopper’s questions concerning my vocation and the reasons why I set aside orders, all this is public information and can be read online.  See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1586050/posts

Or read this: 
VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF ORDAINED MINISTRY

I, Alice C. Linsley, having been ordained a Priest in the Episcopal Church on the 27th day of June, 1988, voluntarily and with full knowledge of my rights, duties and privileges, pursuant to Title III, Canon 18 (1) of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (2000) hereby renounce the vows I took in my ordination as a priest. I renounce my priestly vows because I no longer believe that women should be ordained to the priesthood and because I intend to affiliate with a Christian community that upholds Catholic Orders.
I ask that the Rt. Rev. Stacy F. Sauls, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington, accept this voluntary renunciation and recommend to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Lexington that it be accepted and that I be released without prejudice from the obligations of the Ministerial office of Priest; and that the Standing Committee of the Diocese sign the document and enter it into the records of the Episcopal Church.
_________________________
Alice C. Linsley

[comment deleted—personally abusive remark with vulgarity]

Grasshopper, you’re not in any position to be taking people to task for not answering questions.

[comment deleted—off-topic and shockingly unargumentative]

Actually, Grasshopper, I did (not that this is confined to me, as IRNS and Dr. Tighe asked similar questions):

When did this authentic practice get derailed?  Who did it?  If it was so unquestioned, where are the conciliar decisions or papal decrees ending women’s ordination?  Keep in mind we are talking about a period in which local and regional councils were common and prior to a monarchical papacy.  Surely, across a widely dispersed Church, somebody would have addressed an alteration in what is considered a matter of doctrine.  Can you provide citations to those decisions?

Your answer?  “I have no interest in discovering the unsavory means by which this practice was undone.”  (Good idea, since you’d be looking for a long time.)

Or, this:

To repeat: there are advocates of SS marriage and elastic sexuality that make the exact same argument you’re making.  Are you now on their side?

Your answer?  None.

Can anyone provide more background information, links to historic documents, etc, about
*whether the Celtic church differed from the rest of the church on WO,
*other examples besides St Brigid (the author gives no other names)
*whether confusion exists parallel to the “Theodora Episcopa” mosaic (titles used for Abbesses or other women religious sometimes confused by secular scholars with those of ordained bishops, priests, or deacons)
*the “letter of protest” from Rome (if the Celtic church was not ordaining women, what was Rome protesting against)?

I can help a little on this.

As to St Brigid: According to her life as it is usually given, Bishop Mel read the form for ordaining a bishop for her by mistake when she took the veil as a nun. When protests were made, he is reported to have said that it was God’s choice, not his. It was a unique case, not repeated that I know of. St. Brigid never functioned as a bishop or a priest. She was Abbess of the house she founded at Kildare in Ireland, which maintained male priests resident to celebrate the Mass. In dealing with St. Brigid, you must remember that she is fully as famous as St. Patrick to the Irish and as much legend has accumulated around her as has around St. Patrick. The part about Bishop Mel is given very consistently, however, in the sources.

As to the letter of protest: I ran into a little on this a while back. As nearly as I understood it, the letter was protesting the use of women to assist in the distribution of the Eucharist. Apparently this had become an accepted practice in churches in Brittany. It does not appear to have been a general practice in the Celtic church. There was no question of ordination. The position would be somewhat comparable to that of chalice bearer in Anglican practice.  Rome was scandalized enough by this. The text as given made it quite clear that no woman should be allowed anywhere near the altar. I do not think ordination would have been merely protested, it would have meant excommunication as a heretic. Unfortunately, I have misplaced the source on this. According to my study of the Celtic church, it was thoroughly orthodox as to the ordination of women.

cannyscot

Betty See writes: 

It is too late now, but I can’t help but wonder where the Episcopal Church would be if women like you had been given the opportunity to influence the Church.

I have 3 responses:
(1)  Ms. Linsley did influence the Church.
(2)  A woman does not have to be ordained to influence the Church.  This is an easily correctable misconception.
(3)  Whether an “ordained” woman has served the duties of clerical office well or not is not germane.  It’s still proscribed by Scripture.  (PB KJS, Elizabeth Kaeton, Susan Russell, Ann Redding, Bishop Tanner et al are not sufficient arguments against WO.  Nor is Ms. Linsley, Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Wolf et al sufficient arguments for WO.)

Furthermore for the sake of completeness in this thread (I believe it was Ms. Summersnow who raised up this point):  Whether the community that a woman serves as Priest/Rector approves of her serving as priest/rector is irrelevant.

(I believe Ms. Summersnow said that she would continue to serve in an ordained capacity as long as the community approved and supported her as a woman priest.)

I did not want to say anything at the time, but I immediately thought this was fallacious reasoning, albeit a very, very understandable response.  Why fallacious?  Several reasons:  One, what has primacy:  Scripture or “the community”?  Two, what is the theological/biblical “depth” of this community?  If the community is a bunch of “baby” believers, then they are not in a position to make a collective discernment about theological matters.  Or what if the community is a gathering of theological liberal revisionists?  Then, of course, one can rationalize that it’s fine to be a woman priest because The Community of sheep approved of me.  Why not just self-select a “community” and then claim that you’re entitled to the office because you have a groundswell of support?  What happened to Scripture under this culturally-politically motivated scenario?

Sorry, the Community Argument just doesn’t hold up.

I have not seen anyone address the following on this thread, which is to me altogether conclusive on the issue of the ordination of women:

In order to support the ordination of women, it is logically inescapable that you must also believe either: a) For two thousand years the Holy Spirit has allowed the Church to wallow in an error that not only discriminated against half the human race, but deprived the Church of much of the ministry of half the human race; or b) For two thousand years, otherwise faithful Christians have been ignoring what the Holy Spirit was saying on this issue; or c) The Holy Spirit is so ineffective at conveying His messages that it has taken two thousand years for this one to get through: or d) Some combination of all of the above. I can speak for no one but myself, but I do not have what seems to me to be the arrogance to come to any of these conclusions.  I do not have such a high opinion of the faith of our generation as to be able to reach any of these conclusions (or else why are we here?). Finally, I have a much higher opinion of the third Person of the Trinity than any of these conclusions would indicate. Put me in Matt’s Position #1. It is far more tenable for me to simply conclude that the Church got this right from the beginning and that efforts to change this come more from a spirit of fitting into the thinking of this age (either intentionally or unintentionally) than the Holy Spirit. Let us flee at all costs that slippery slope. I personally have no doubt that this issue is going to be the stumbling block to the creation of an orthodox Anglican province in North America. We do not have to have women priests. Shall this issue be the one that denys orthodox Anglicans their scripturally mandated unity?

cannyscot

via orthodoxy,

I have deleted a comment that is personal and vulgar.

William Tighe,

I have deleted a comment that does not appear to address any statement at all, and is thus off-topic.

Please address the substance of the arguments, as Matt requested oh so long ago. 

If you fancy that you do not find substance, then there is no need to further engage.  But if you do engage, you must engage the argument.

I am not the Commenatrix, but I can still be Very Testy.  And lately I’ve been irritable and have suffered a bad week.

This is your one and only warning.

Truth Unites… and Divides,  I will rephrase that:
“It is too late now,  but I can’t help but wonder where the Episcopal Church would be if men and women like Ms. Linsley had been more influential in the Church.”
You indicate that this is irrelevant to the subject of WO and it may well be, so I will sign off now.

I appreciate Betty Sue’s kind words.  Perhaps I might clarify where I stand.  I came from a Baptist background.  My paternal grandmother was ordained a Bpatist pastor in 1929 and I listened to her preach with great personal conviction of the trutth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I knew next to nothing about catholicism until I attended Catholic school for 2 years (grades 2 and 3) and realized that there was more to Christianity that the Baptist faith.  I was attracted to the mystery of the liturgy.  I used to wonder away from the playground during recess and go into the sacristy.  I just found it peaceful to be there among the vestments, traces of incense and the sacred vessels.  I was never at home in the Baptist church after that.

When I first thought of becoming a priest, I attended a large evangelical Episcopal church in Paoli, PA.  The clergy there spent a year in discernment with me.  I trusted them because they were men of prayer and firm conviction.  It was difficult for them as they had reservations about the ordination of women, but at the end of that year, having searched the Scriptures, they concluded that they could in good conscience present me to Bishop Lyman Ogilby. 

Looking back, I see that we failed to give Church Tradition and catholic order its proper place in our deliberations.  In a sense we slipped into private judgement on the issue.

Today I defer to the Church’s long-standing Tradition and catholic order.  I don’t expect Protestants, liberal Episcopalians or Evangelical Episcopalians to agree with me, but ask that they at least consider the Tradition as having value.  Simply consider the following:

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION TO MEN ALONE

Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate,

1. Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.

When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: “She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”(1)

But since the question had also become the subject of debate among theologians and in certain Catholic circles, Paul VI directed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to set forth and expound the teaching of the Church on this matter. This was done through the Declaration Inter Insigniores, which the Supreme Pontiff approved and ordered to be published.(2)

2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)

In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

3. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

You indicate that this is irrelevant to the subject of WO and it may well be, so I will sign off now.

Dear Betty See, if you have other thoughts to contribute, please do.  I was only engaging in the argument, not the arguer.  Please don’t sign off if you have other comments to offer.

Pax in Christ alone.

Cannyscot makes the following observation:

I personally have no doubt that this issue is going to be the stumbling block to the creation of an orthodox Anglican province in North America. We do not have to have women priests. Shall this issue be the one that denys orthodox Anglicans their scripturally mandated unity?

This is a keen insight and one that I think is shared (and perhaps unvoiced) by many.

I have heard it advanced by some that the issue of WO is adiaphora.

I offer the following reflections for discussion-starters:
(1)  For folks who think WO is adiaphora, then strong, prayerful consideration should be given to deferring to those folks who don’t believe in WO, and who firmly maintain that it’s NOT adiaphora.  Ecclesiastical unity ranks higher than adiaphora issues. 

If you disagree with deferring to those who hold to no WO, then obviously, it’s not adiaphora to you is it?  Otherwise you would defer out of a desire for unity.  Is this not logical?

(2)  Much would depend on the creation of the new orthodox Anglican province in North America.  If it’s conciliar with multiple alphabet soups with their varying doctrinal positions and overlapping geographical regions, then WO poses no barrier.  Simply join a parish that permits WO or doesn’t permit WO in this new Anglican province.  Hopefully, this parish is not too far away from where you live.

But if this new Anglican province in North America is not going to be conciliar with multiple alphabet soups, then WO will prove to be a serious doctrinal issue.  There should be hermeneutics education project as urged in general by previous AC communiques for this WO issue, and it should be close-ended with a hard date for a decision.  I humbly suggest that in the interim no WO take place while this is being prayed over; and studied over in Scripture, Church History/Tradition, and its Current overall Fruit; and wrestled over lovingly in numerous council meetings.

(3)  WO is not something to be blithely dismissed as adiaphora.

“Truth Unites ... And Divides” has suggested to me that my interview in 1999 of the Archbishop of the Latvian Lutheran Church, Janis Vanags, a firm opponent of WO who discontinued its practice in the Latvian Lutheran Church and who discusses his reasons in some detail in the interview, might be a propos to this thread.  Here it is:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-04-031-i

It was published in the May 2001 issue of *Touchstone*.

I typed ina long message on the Artemidora text that was lost because my connection dropped.

In brief, the text is from a christian mummy label of the second or third century. It is thought to be christian because the nomen sacrum is used in the label.

The label uses the word Pres’b’ of either the mother or her daughter. Pres’b’ in the context of non christian mummies normally means elder (as in older person) or, if the christian context is seem as determinative, then it is more normally a title of office. The orignal publishers opted for the former.

It is difficult to be sure which context is the more appropriate as this is the only certainly christian mummy among the 1211 reported by the original publishers. Which kind of Egyptian christianity the mummy belonged to is simply impossible to say.

IF we wander into the third and fourth centuries, the evidence is much more abundant, clear, and compelling.

I think this is a little misleading. The inscriptional and monumental evidence is more abundant but still small. Three or four relevant inscriptions/monuments in the entire eastern Empire and perhaps ten in the entire West.

I’m in the middle of an intensive Greek course and am not able to take the time I would like to join in on this discussion. Nonetheless, I have enjoyed nipping in when I can to follow this discussion as it has unfolded.

Contra Alice Linsley (for whom I have nothing but the greatest respect), I believe that the New Testament office of presbyter (elder/teacher/“pastor”) and “Catholic orders” are two sides of the same coin, whether one uses the language of headship or of “binary distinctions in the created order”—which are but two sides of a different coin.

Kudos to LP, IRNS, Phil and others for their clear presentation of the Scriptural and Traditional (big “T”) reasons for rejecting WO.

Also, Truth Unites… and Divides’ point above is one that needs to be addressed. For a great many Anglicans—Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics both—WO is in direct contravention of God’s revealed will (be it through Scripture or Scripture and Tradition). If WO is adiaphora, as some insist it is, how can it trump the unity of the Church? Have we become so habituated to division that it really doesn’t matter to us? I hope not.

Best of luck on the Greek course, Farstrider!

I too am impressed with Truth Unites’ point and agree with what he has said. His point is logical, well focused and compelling.  I hope people are listening.

The priesthood is “sacerdote” not presbyter.  The wife of a priest is sometimes called “presbytera” but she is not a priest.  However, it is expected that she have a pastoring role in the congregation. This is why I believe that some women should have pastoring roles and should also preach and teach, as called and authorized by the bishop.  Some women, especially widows, should also be deaconesses (a non-liturgical role within a specific community) as called and authorized by the bishop.  I can’t help but think that many women in the 70s and 80s sought ordination to the priesthood because the churches have diminished the work that women may rightly do. 

Today we continue to waste the gifts of women who are able and willing to serve in the church, but ignored.  I saw this after my father died.  My mother served the church along side my father for 30 years, but wasn’t asked to do a single thing after my father died.

Thanks for the comment, farstrider; dittos also to TUaD about whether WO is adiaphoron; and agreement with Alice.  In the Orthodox Church (as she well knows), the wife of a priest is still called presbytera (or khouria, etc., depending on the cultural and thus linguistic heritage) and often does, indeed, play a role in pastoring the congregation.

Matt, I am not an Anglican.  I am a pastor in another evangeical denomination.  I am in general agreement with you.  In fact, I proposed a statement for my denomination’s bylaws that is very similiar to it.  However, using your own criteria—which I completely agree with—of veting everything in light of the Word of God, I have some question about the entire concept of ordination as it has evolved.  It seems to me that the entire hierarchial structure of the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches would be hard to demonstrate from Scripture.  So while I agree with your basic principle I make this distinction; Ordination, as it presently exists, is an extra-Biblical construct.  As such we cannot look to the Bible for rules for its governance.  This is not to say that it is forbidden by scripture or even a bad idea.  In fact, I think it may be a very good idea.  So—and this is how I agrued it in our own denomination—since it is a manmade institution we can choose to confer the recongnition and honor on women who are called into full time Christian service just as readily as we confer it on men.  Indeed, it may be very fitting that we do this. 

The question then become, what roles are these gifted, called and ordained women to play in the church?  Here the scriptures are more helpful.

Mark Carlton (Yes, I am related to your friend with the same last name, I’m his father.)

Hi Alice,

I agree that the priesthood is “sacerdote”, but I would argue that it is also “presbyter”, designations for wives of priests aside. The term “presbuteros”, “episkopos” et al are used interchangeably in the New Testament and would only later be separated into the offices of bishop and priest—wasn’t it Milton who wrote “priest is but presbyter writ large” or something to that effect? Not that one should base one’s understanding of the priesthood on a quote from Milton… but etymologically, at least, he is correct. The elders were given governing and teaching authority within the churches… representing Christ in governance and sanctifying grace. The sacerdotal aspects would be further defined at a later date, but the kernels were already present. A Church that had a pastor overseeing the Church and teaching with the authority of the Church who was not also a sacerdotal minister would have been alien to the Church Catholic in any of its expressions. Likewise a sacerdotal priest who ministered the sacraments but did not have teaching authority would be unusual (although within a monastic context something approaching this can be seen). In short, I don’t think that one can sharply distinguish “elder” in its NT, organizational, sense (or “pastor” in its modern sense) from the priesthood.

Having said that, within the context of the priesthood of all believers and the Church as “family”, God has given both mothers and fathers to his people. I am in full agreement that the ministry of women has often-times been squelched in the Church… we’ve been burying their talents as it were. Women and men together must be encouraged to minister in accordance with the giftings which God has gifted them within the context of the callings God has placed upon them. One does not have to be in holy orders to serve God effectively and fruitfully. Nor does one have to be a “pastor” to edify and nurture ones brothers and sisters.

Would like to say more, but must run. I appreciate your thoughts, though, and am following your exploration of Genesis with interest.

So while I agree with your basic principle I make this distinction; Ordination, as it presently exists, is an extra-Biblical construct.  As such we cannot look to the Bible for rules for its governance.

This possibly opens new vistas.  Mark Carlton, can you elaborate and define further what you mean by ordination (as presently constituted) being an extra-biblical construct?

“Ordination, as it presently exists, is an extra-Biblical construct.  As such we cannot look to the Bible for rules for its governance.”

As a Catholic, I would be in total agreement with this assertion, but I would take it in another direction.  All of the NT books presuppose that the apostles are still alive, evangelizing and founding churches, and them organizing them, with at least presbyters and deacons; and not a single NT book envisages or makes provision for what was to happen when the apostles passed from the scene.  In order to ascertain what did happen, whether the apostles made provision for the future, whether (if they did make provision) those provisions were in the nature or regulations or “suggestions,” one has necessarily to look outside the NT to the earliest surviving pieces of Christian literature, and to see what they both say and imply.  in effect, that means looking to the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch.  (The other surviving pieces of perhaps coeval Christian literature, the Didache [which, vague though it be, seems to present itself as written at a time when the apostles are “around” but not “nearby”], the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas either do not address such questions at all [Barnabas] or provide only sidelong glimpses, if very suggestive ones [Hermas; the Didache], at such questions—and the Didache has been dated anywhere between ca. 50 AD and ca. 200 AD, and Hermas between ca. 85 and ca. 140.)  However, Ignatius is crystal-clear about Church Order, and “Clement” makes some pretty definite statements in chs. 42-44.  Neither mention “ordination” per se (just as no NT book contains the words “Trinity” or “Incarnation”), but there are passing mentions of the “laying-on of hands” whether of the apostles or the “presbytery” or the two together, and unless one is going to embrace a “hermeneutic of suspicion” for ideological reasons, there is no more reason to regard “ordination” as an adiaphoron, any more than homoousios.

Good points, William.

I spent a number of years on the mission field, a good part of it in Central Asia. Some of our best friends were Baptist church-planters… wonderful people, all around. Interestingly, Baptist polity aside, within a few years they recognized that, on their own, the little Central Asian fellowships were beginning to struggle with feelings of isolation and (in some cases) heresy. In response to this, the Baptists handpicked certain pastors who had shown themselves to be godly and capable men and made them regional supervisors (can’t remember the precise title). You can see where this is going….

Pragmatically, bishops (by whatever name) are necessary in missions environments, such as those faced by the early church. The apostles filled that role themselves, but the time would come, as you point out, when they would no longer be there for the Church. I find it incredible that they would have left the Church without succession. When I read the Fathers I see that they didn’t.

Dr. William Tighe writes: ” ...there is no more reason to regard “ordination” as an adiaphoron, any more than homoousios.”

This is so true.  Look at how Dr. Peter Toon begins his article on The Network and The Common Cause: 

I always read my friend Dr Radner’s essays with care, and I highly respect him even though we belong to different forms of Anglicanism-he fully embraces women priests and I fully reject them, even as I also affirm the great value of the ministry of godly women.

So obviously, WO cannot be adiaphoron for many Anglicans.

From: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6380

Women Anointed Catholic Deacons, Priest in Santa Barbara.

From:  http://www.independent.com/news/2007/jul/26/women-anointed-catholic-deacons-priest-sb/

TU,

Check out the responses to the article.  It sounds like this is a group that has splintered off of the RC. 

Regards,

Moot, I just read through the comments section on this article.  Vast majority of people are opposed to this.  But there were a few folks who did strongly approve of this women’s ordination.

This issue will not be submerged as adiaphora.

Reposting the following by Anglican Paplist for the historical record of this thread on WO:

Troops,
I know this is off thread but I just have to stick it in somewhere. And no, I am not trying to be obnoxious but this is my Diocese and I believe what is written: An interesting post-script to the WO issue borrowed from VOL: “A VOL reader, the Rev. Fred-Munro Ferguson, SSC made an interesting historical observation in the many discussions on the connection between the issue of the ORDINATION OF WOMEN and the promotion of the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA in TEC. He said, “From 1974 to 1980 I served as personal secretary to the Right Rev. Wilbur E. Hogg, VI Bishop of Albany. When he returned from the General Convention (his first as a Bishop) which ‘approved’ the ordination of women, he told me of the tremendous pressure placed upon the House of Bishops to allow this innovation, pressure to which he did not yield. The pressure favoring the ordination of women came from three principal sources, Bishop Hogg stated. They were (1) NOW (National Organization of Women, (2) Integrity and Louis Crew and (3) various feminist groups within the Roman Catholic Church. In the conversations between NOW and Integrity, the women promised the homosexual group that, if they (Integrity) would actively and fully support the ordination of women, the women, in turn would actively and fully support Integrity’s agenda. We have lived to see the fulfillment of that promise. TEC is fulfilling a conspiracy now more than thirty years in the making.”

Thanks for the patience.
AP+

Posted by Anglican Paplist on 08-11-2007 at 06:52 PM from the Portraits of Impotence thread.

One of the principle things that converted me to an anti-WO position (after from 1 Cor 11,14, 1 Tim 2, Gen 2 etc) was CS Lewis’s essay on the subject. At the heat of the essay is the passage (and I hope people don’t mind such a long quote).

At this point the common sensible reformer is apt to ask why, if women can preach, they cannot do all the rest of a priest’s work. This question deepens the discomfort of my side. We begin to feel that what really divides us from our opponents is a difference between the meaning which they and we give to the word “priest”. The more they speak (and speak truly) about the competence of women in administration, their tact and sympathy as advisers, their national talent for “visiting”, the more we feel that the central thing is being forgotten. To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us. Our very eyes teach us this in church. Sometimes the priest turns his back on us and faces the East - he speaks to God for us: sometimes he faces us and speaks to us for God. We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second. But why? Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as “God-like” as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man. The sense in which she cannot represent God will perhaps be plainer if we look at the thing the other way round.

Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to “Our Mother which art in heaven” as to “Our Father”. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask “Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?”

But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit; that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child. And as image and apprehension are in an organic unity, so, for a Christian, are human body and human soul.

We have seen the increase of liturgies with gender neutral and feminine terms in recent years. Baby Blue reported that the Bishops sung hymns such as

Mothering God,
you gave me birth
in the bright morning of this world.
Creator, source of every breath,
you are my rain, my wind, my sun.

Mothering Christ, you took my form,
offering me your food of light,
grain of life, and grape of love,
your very body for my peace.

Mothering Spirit,
nurturing one,
in arms of patience hold me close,
so that in faith I root and grow
until I flower, until I know.

 

at their meeting at New Orleans in the past days. (Personally these Lyrics make me ill, but that might just be me).

At least we know that the worthy opponents agree with CS Lewis on one thing. If you can have female priests, you can have a Mother rather than father God.

RMBruton wrote (here):

I think that it is inconsistent for churches which ordain women as deacons to not then ordain them as presbyters and consecrate them as bishops.

The reason is a bit of ambiguity in 1 Tim 3:11. Saint Paul writes of deacons: “In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.” Since the same word is used in Greek for “women” or “wives” there is a little uncertainty about whether this should be translated “wives of deacons”, “women deacons”, or “deaconesses”. As far as I know, there is not a similarly ambiguous passage in the Bible concerning presbyters or bishops. Thus, some Christians conclude “the Bible definitely says bishops and priests must be men, but appears to us to allow both men and women to be deacons”.

Thanks RM Bruton for revealing this thread for us in another thread.  I had not thought of SIX ways to view this topic.  That’s pretty thorough.  I would be a 5.  Number 6 seems a little militant to me and lacks some humility (something we all need more of these days).

In the Russian Orthodox Church the wives of both deacons and priests are referred to as Matiushka, which roughly translates as “little mother”. In the Greek Orthodox Church the wives of both deacons and priests are referred to as Presbytera, which means essentially wife of the presbyter or deacon, they are terms of respect and not titles. I do not dispute that in the early church there were deaconesses, but they were not female deacons.

I do not dispute that in the early church there were deaconesses, but they were not female deacons.

I’m not arguing that there were female deacons in the early church. Some folks point to Phoebe in the book of Romans as such, other people say she was a deaconess or had no official position and the translation “a servant of the church” is the correct one. I’m not certain myself, and have heard plenty of arguments on both sides (most of which probably appear somewhere on either this thread or the one that preceded it).

I’m not a proponent of WO myself, just saying that at least some people do argue from this passage of Timothy that the Bible allows women to be deacons but not priests or bishops. If theirs is the correct reading, then there’s no inconsistency in doing so.

I’m in no way accusing you of being a proponent of women’s ordination, but these people who seem to conclude that 1 Tim. 3:11 allows women to be deacons really ought to read the very next verse “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well”. As a presbyter, married to one woman for the past seventeen years and the father of three children, I am sure that their must be a thread which discusses clerical divorce and re-marriage. I am in opposition to that as well, so I must be the odd man out.

Protestants may ordain women to the office of president at Communion, but these women should not be called “priests.”  Neither should male presidents! The Prieshood is linked to blood (which is why there are Priestly ablutions). If there is no Blood of Christ, there is no priest. Anglicans in the catholic tradition don’t ordain women as priests because that is contrary to the tradition that the Apostles received concerning the priesthood.  Those who bring forth life are not to be contaminated by the blood of sacrificed animals.  Neither is the priest to be contaminated by blood shed in birthing (which is why the new mother waited 40 days before presenting her infant to the priest).  Both blood shed in sacrifice and blood shed in birth created anxiety in early humans.  Paul speaks of the Covenant in the Blood of Jesus because he believed that the bread and wine are the body and blood.  The image of a pregnant women holding up a chalice of consecrated wine would have been blasphemous in Paul’s thinking.

Simon Sarmiento (on his blog, “The Smartest Anglicans Ever”) has posted a report that Victoria Matthews beat out Colin Slee to become Bishop of Christchurch, New Zealand.

Unfortunately, another diocese to which we cannot move.

It’s actually a huge defeat for Colin Slee and progressive Anglicans.

As a woman who is opposed to WO I have the same thing to say as an Anglo-Catholic priest friend of mine in another diocese who is a part of the SSC and learned that a parish long held by a grossly liberal male priest [for more than a decade] had selected a female priest from Trinity seminary . . . “Goody!”

Only he said it better.  ; > )