Church of England ordains women as vicars and priest... but why not as bishops?

[Soldier_X]

Hillary Clinton is not standing spiritually and metaphysically in persona christi as Christ Himself.

Thanks be to God!

 

[Soldier_X]

I still say we should, as any good Christian should, look at Christ. Why were there no female apostles? As I’ve argued before, Christ was no shrinking violet afraid to buck the system and bring controversy. I think you’ll agree with me on that one. He went against the grain on so many things from healing on the sabbath to forgiving an adutleress to hanging out with tax collectors and centurions, ripped apart the Pharisees AND the Sadducees, which is like blasted both Democrats and Republicans (which I wish more people would do incidentally! ), he forgave sins, you name it, overthrew the money changers’ tables and blasted the commercialization of the temple, claimed he was the Son of Man, etc. etc. So, given all those factors that show Christ had zero fear of angering people if he felt he was on the side of truth and God, why, if women deserved to be and by their biological nature should be equal with men in the priesthood, why did Christ ordain 12 men? Surely there were good, holy, devout women who would be deserving, right? What about Mary Magdelene, Mary and Martha, the BVM, etc? So either there was a huge shortage of women (which I doubt), Christ was a chauvenist who hated women like the bigoted Fathers (which is impossible as He is perfection and God’s Son), or a third option----Christ felt women shouldn’t be in the position of presbyter or episkopos…Also, the priesthood of Israel was all-male as well. Either the Mosaic Law is more of man than of God and is deeply misogynist or perhaps that’s the way God wanted it?

Great stuff bro. I wish our churches would look more to what was and is in Scripture and Tradition, and less at what some think ought to be. The example of Christ and the Apostles is supposed to be the very basis of the episcopate…cultural feelings of fairness and equality, noble though these sentiments might be, cannot trump what we find in Scripture itself! If only our leadership would return to this way of thinking.

 

[Soldier_X]

BWomen couldn’t be ordained for *exactly *the same reasons that they couldn’t be city magistrates, or university professors, or any other non-hereditary position that involved authority over men (even hereditary positions of royalty or nobility were controversial, but in those cases you had two different hierarchical principles in conflict).

I thought it had more to do with the nature of the priesthood itself, which is - by its very nature - distinct from civil or educational positions.

 

[Contarini]

I thought it had more to do with the nature of the priesthood itself, which is - by its very nature - distinct from civil or educational positions.

That is a false impression created by the fact that the modern Catholic Church has accepted the equality of women in civil society.

There’s something wrong about saying that the Church should be the one place where women are *not *equal. I don’t think that can be squared with Paul’s words about there being “no male and female in Christ.” If that means anything at all, it surely means that gender hierarchy is *less *valid within the Church than in civil society.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Great stuff bro. I wish our churches would look more to what was and is in Scripture and Tradition, and less at what some think ought to be. The example of Christ and the Apostles is supposed to be the very basis of the episcopate…cultural feelings of fairness and equality, noble though these sentiments might be, cannot trump what we find in Scripture itself!

That works for a fundamentalist Protestant. Catholic Christians are supposed to care about the analogy of faith.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t believe it’s a caricature at all.

And here we are at an impasse. I say over and over, “I’m not saying X, I’m saying Y,” and you respond, “But you really must be saying Y,” or “Your tone says Y even if your words say X.” And we just can’t get anywhere that way.

The only way we can have a constructive discussion is if you trust me enough to think that I really mean what I say.

** I simply say that picking and choosing which of the Fathers’ views we like is simple. All we have to do is blame the culture of the times for the ones which we dislike.**

And that is why I try to avoid doing that. Again: the point I am making is that I am only disagreeing with their cultural assumptions on the same points where the major Catholic defenders of the male-only priesthood also disagree with them.

Furthermore, there *is *a difference between the apostolic teaching divinely revealed to and handed down within the early Church, and the cultural assumptions that they shared with other ancient people. That doesn’t mean that we reject any teaching that seems to rest on those cultural assumptions. But it means that if the implications of the core doctrines of the Tradition conflict with a practice that clearly reflects the general assumptions of ancient culture, then we have good reasons to question the latter.

** You state that you agree and laud much of what they say about sexuality. But others who are more liberal than yourself might not like those views either and chalk up the Fathers’ views to the ‘ignorance’ and ‘bigotry’ of the times that tainted everyone, including the Fathers. It’s hard to know where to draw the line.**

I have suggested some clear criteria, and I have made a case for drawing the line where I do. However, you prefer to ignore this and simply say that you can’t draw the line, even though you admit in the next breath that in some ways we *do *have a more adequate understanding of the dignity of women than ancient people did.

The fact that it’s hard to know where to draw the line does not exempt us from the need to draw it.

** Like I said, it’s not a caricature in that you really are not condemning them as human beings but you’re implying that they were tainted by the values of their age.**

I’m not “implying,” and I wouldn’t use the word “tainted” necessarily. I am stating, as an obvious matter, that they expressed the Faith in terms of assumptions and ideas common to their culture.

** I’m starting to appreciate the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church more and more because they have a teaching authority that looks holistically at the entirety of the Fathers, tradition, Scripture, and reason and doesn’t cherry-pick. They have more wisdom than you and myself and know where to draw the line.**

If by “cherry-pick” you mean “pick arbitrarily,” then that’s not what I’m doing. I have pointed out over and over again that I reject exactly those assumptions about gender rejected by most of those who disagree with me. And I disagree with the proposition that the Church’s teaching authority is something fundamentally different from and standing over against the whole body of the baptized. You and I are part of the Church, even if I (and apparently you too these days, from what you’ve been saying) am only imperfectly united to the Church, and even though neither of us is a priest or a bishop. So it isn’t that there’s some other authority out there that has more wisdom, but that you and I are only tiny parts of the Church and need the Church as a whole, rightly ordered under bishops in apostolic succession, in order to draw the line in the right place. I am offering my views as a service to the whole Church, because I do not think that the kind of argument I’m presenting has been dealt with.

** Maybe you and I do not. I think we’ve both admitted as much, grudginly…**

I’m not grudging about it.

**I think it is about trust. **

If by “trust” you mean “blind trust,” then sure, I don’t have that. But again: I would say that actually nobody does. I think that if you claim to simply “trust” the Fathers then you are the one “cherry-picking”–that is, you have made some a priori decisions (which you don’t recognize as decisions because they seem obvious to you) about which things are covered by “trust.” I’m being very explicit about *my *criteria and I’m offering reasons for them.

I didn’t put it in the category of Antebellum age of the South, etc.? I wouldn’t draw such a parallel anyway because the types of slavery, as you said, are totally different. I’m not sure why you say this?

You’re right it was a digression–I went into it because this is an example often given of why we can’t trust early Christians on ethical matters.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t like it, you’re right! Human sexuality is made by God. Homosexuality is disordered to say the least

No disagreement there. I bring up the example only because obviously many of the people who argue for women’s ordination use the same kinds of arguments to say that the condemnations of homosexual behavior are just “cultural prejudice.” My point is that I grant the legitimacy of the challenge–it needs to be addressed and not dismissed–but I think that it doesn’t actually hold up when examined.

** Christians cannot agree to disagree on such an important issue as homosexuals, gay marriage, etc.**

I agree, in the sense that the Church needs to have a unified teaching on the subject. What I meant was that people sincerely believing in the truths of the Nicene Creed and honestly trying to seek the mind of Christ can come to different conclusions on this matter. That, as you said above, is why we need a teaching authority.

**Christians inherited the bulk of their morality from the Jewish faith. The Old Testament laws about straining gnats and uncleanliness of women menstrating and other peculiarities no one with common sense follows these days because they were peculiar to the liturgical Levitical temple laws and not based so much on morality. **

Indeed. And the male-only priesthood is clearly part of the ceremonial law. Hence not relevant.

Liberals argue that the prohibition of homosexuality is also part of the ceremonial law, and if we only had Leviticus I think that would be hard to refute. But Romans–and still more the positive teaching on marriage found in Matthew and Ephesians–makes that impossible.

It is by no means a weak argument. If I said that to you and didn’t engage the argument with reasoning, you’d get mad at me. But you do the same here. You just call it weak then walk away.

Actually, I did not do that. I gave a brief summary of why I think it was weak.

When Jesus worked on the Sabbath healing folks, was he acting as a first century Jew? Was calling himself the Son of God acting as a first century Jew? Overthrowing money changers and whipping businessmen wasn’t the norm for first century Jewish behavior?

Actually yes, I think that everything you mention made sense in a first-century Jewish context. But obviously calling Himself the Son of God was central to what He came to do. Making a point by choosing a woman as one of the Twelve was irrelevant. Jesus did tacitly challenge gender roles in a number of ways. But Jesus was not interested in some kind of affirmative-action quota system!

** Jesus was anything but a typical Jew. I think you are putting Christ in a box and minimizing His grandeur and dominion as well as His teaching authority. You’re putting Him within parameters of history.**

That’s what the Incarnation means–God enters history.

To say that Jesus’ culture is irrelevant to explain his action, you have to explain how the specific action in question was incompatible with Jesus’ mission. Jesus didn’t compromise His mission for the sake of culture. But why would He need to choose women among the Twelve? What would be the point? Just to tell us that He approved of gender equality? Nothing I can see gives me reason to think that Jesus did that sort of thing. That’s anachronistic, docetistic thinking.

When this has come up before, I have pointed out that Jesus didn’t condemn slavery either. No one has answered this. But of course that doesn’t stop people from bringing this argument up again and again.

 

[Contarini]

** If He wanted women priests, they’d have been there.**

It’s ironic that you accuse *me *of oversimplifying Jesus, and then you think yourself qualified to say what Jesus would have done if He had wanted thus and so. It’s precisely because I don’t oversimplify Jesus that I don’t think we can reduce the issue to “no women are listed among the Twelve, therefore women can’t be priests.” I mean, how much more ridiculously oversimplified can you get than that?

** Honestly, when he forgave an adulteress in front of everyone, how can you think that was the action of a timid man**

Again, you can’t resist a good caricature! This has absolutely nothing to do with timidity. It has to do with God becoming incarnate as a real first-century Jew, and acting differently from other first-century Jews only when
a. His sinlessness or
b. His divine nature
caused Him to do so.

You are assuming that one or the other of these would have caused Jesus to choose some women among the Twelve if women could be priests. But that’s a huge leap–there is no sound reason for such an assumption.

No one is implying He came for that purpose. He came to establish the Kingdom of God, preach the Gospel, and die for our sins. But in doing so, are you saying that He didn’t establish a sense of right and wrong, justice, goodness, fairness, etc. in his ministry?

Of course not. I’m saying that justice does not mean what modern identity politics says it means.

Are you saying that He couldn’t walk and chew gum and ordain women if he so wished? Again, putting Christ in a historical framework box.

You’re putting Jesus in a modern “gender balance” box.

You haven’t implied they were sinful at all, but your posts do imply a heavy dose of ignorance on their part

They don’t imply anything. It’s a matter of record that ancient and medieval people thought in the way I’ve described. And it’s a matter of fact that the defenders of the male-only priesthood who matter most for the purposes of the unity and authority of the Church (such as the Pope) do not think in this way.

** and that we cannot trust their tainted opinions that are skewed by misogyny and chauvenistic prejudices. Sinful? No, you didn’t say that. And I do believe you mean everything you say, Edwin? Why don’t you believe that I believe you? LOL **

Because (apart from your frequent use of language about used oil filters, etc., which is completely irrelevant to what I’m saying about the Fathers) you cannot be coaxed into replying to my main argument. Hence you must think that I’m lying when I say that it *is *my main argument. You won’t address the theological point–you keep puttering around the periphery of the issue. Maybe it’s not that you don’t believe me. Maybe you just don’t have an answer to the theological argument. Maybe you haven’t bothered to think about this issue in terms of the central truths of our Faith, and you are afraid to. But these are less charitable assumptions.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t want to get personal either, Edwin, but if we’re critiquing posts and attitudes on here, as you do me here, I think you are not accustomed to people differing with you and you are used to people quickly thanking and agreeing with you and shutting up.

You can’t have actually read many of the discussions in which I’ve been engaged. Occasionally I provide information and people thank me and shut up, but those are the exceptions–and if they weren’t I would stop coming back here, because it would be boring

One of your strategies in debate is to say something and fill your post full of implications and attitudes then when someone calls you on it (this doesn’t happen a lot because you shoot them down with an outstanding vocabulary and philosophical jargon and they either apologize or thank you), you state that the person is not listening to you, making caricatures, or they just don’t get your “stuff.”

Whatever this means. Your description of how people respond to me is so far from reality that it’s not worth responding to.

I am happy for you to call me on any implications or attitudes that you can document. The problem is that if I say something that sounds like something you have heard from someone else, you assume that I must believe in all the things you are used to hearing those other people say.

This is a common response–I do it myself. But I try to quit when people point out that they’re *not *making the conventional argument. In Internet discussion we all develop stock responses, and it’s easy to misinterpret what people say for this reason. I make a point of trying to present aspects of an issue that maybe haven’t been brought up before. I think that’s what your pejorative description above actually means.

You also say “I could be wrong” after taking a vigorous, long, heavily-explained opinion that sounds very firm.

Of course. Why wouldn’t I? If my description didn’t sound firm, I wouldn’t need to add the caveat.

I say that to show that I’m open to being refuted.

And I never said that you explicitely said the terminology “social justice gospel.” I know that is a feather-ruffler with you but the entire flavor of your posts smacks of it.

But that’s the problem–you are introducing a whole set of assumptions that exist in your head and assuming that I must believe all these things, because that’s what the label “social justice gospel” means *to you. *That’s unjust. It’s understandable at the beginning of the discussion, but after I’ve explained over and over that you are misinterpreting me, you need to adjust your picture of what I believe. I’ve done that with you frequently. When I first ran into you on these forums, I put *you *in a “liberal” bracket given the kinds of things you were saying at the time. I’ve had to adjust my picture considerably!

Part of the problem we have is that neither of us fit easily into the categories that dominate these forums, but we are “weird” in different ways.

But I do realize you’re approaching this from an “Christological and anthropological orthodoxy” angle. I realize that.

I appreciate that.

I fail to see why women cannot be, by nature of their femininity, different, and at the same time be saved by Christ, who is different in nature by being male? Where does it say that human beings cannot be equal in dignity and yet their gender is not something merely a bodily phenomenon? You are over-simplifying gender. Being female or male is not just a bodily thing, it’s a spiritual thing. Motherhood, if you ask a woman, is deep, spiritual, powerful. It’s not just having breasts and other different “equipment” as you seem to paint it (I hear a charge of caricaturing a comin!). You seem to think bodies are all that is different. I think it’s part of the majesty, the brilliant design, the awesomeness of the human experience that women and men are by nature very, very different.

I think that bodies are part of the majesty of the human experience. I think that bodiliness is “deep, spiritual, powerful.” So I agree with everything you say *and *I think that it has to do with bodies. I agree with you about the problems in modern marriage caused by the assumption that men and women are basically identical.

I don’t see how the Catholic/Orthodox principles of female and male nature contradict anything about orthodox Christian thinking on men and women at all. Why can a woman not be saved by Christ merely because she doesn’t have the nature He took upon Himself? Why?

And there we have the key issue. The answer is that Jesus saves us *by *assuming our nature. *There is no other salvation to be had. *And that is the consistent answer of the Fathers. It’s key to historic, orthodox Christian soteriology. From my perspective you and other defenders of the male-only priesthood are defending a particular patristic practice at the risk of compromising one of the most basic elements of patristic doctrine. The Gospel that we have to give to the world *is *the message that God has assumed our nature. You can’t get more basic than that.

Earlier in this discussion you expressed puzzlement as to why I defend patristic soteriology so staunchly (with regard to penal substitution) while disagreeing with the Fathers on women’s ordination. The answer is that I believe in women’s ordination because I believe in the soteriology of the Fathers!

And the question is, do you? If you don’t, then isn’t your concern to defend them on gender a case of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel? And if you do, then you need to answer my question: how can women be saved if they don’t have the nature Christ assumed for our salvation?

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Docetism? Give me a break? Docetism? Come on, Edwin. You can do better than that? I believe that Christ was pure spirit and never had a substantive, fleshly body like you and I? Seriously? You think I have Docetistic thinking? I tell you that if Jesus had so wished, He could’ve easily ordained women and you draw the conclusion that my rationale is Docetistic? Where you are getting this from? I think by now you know that I believe Christ had and has a substantial body and that He is both divine and man. Come on. Anachronism is an unfair charge as well. I’m not attributing anything to Christ that He didn’t already have. You actually are doing that in that you are painting him into a corner as a slave to His culture and ethnic boundaries. That is anachronistic. And you are also assuming that the Lord’s will would be that eventually the human race would overcome the prejudice that He himself was chained to as a Jew. Talk about anachronistic thinking? You’re assuming more about Christ than I am. I’m merely making my argument about what we saw of Christ. He didn’t ordain women? True or false? Simple question. Obviously true, right? Ok. True. He didn’t ordain women. Now you say in not so many words that he was chained by His times and had no choice but obey their laws and have this narrow-minded vision of femininity but obviously He intended with time that women enter the equation and become female priestesses. Which one of us is making more assumptions and really anachronistically assessing Christ’s character more? I’m basing it off the evidence. Call me a simpleton. You’re drawing conclusions about sociology.

And no, I never thought Jesus came to right all the sociological wrongs of His day. In three years of ministry, that’d be tough to do. But why is it so difficult to believe that Christ could’ve thrown in a woman or two into the apostolic college of his time? If it is so obvious that men and women’s natures are the same, as you repeatedly say, then why wasn’t it a no-brainer for Christ to throw in at least ONE? Was he that timid and bound by sociological chains? You say yes. I say no.

Your point about slavery is well-taken. However, what does slavery have to do with the priesthood and the nature of mankind? Your line of reasoning would say, 'Gurney, Jesus didn’t ordain a black man, a midget, a slave, an Asian man, a Geometry teacher, or a Roman centurion so are you saying none of those people could be priests either? Yeah, well the same goes for women! Just because Jesus didn’t ordain one doesn’t mean he didn’t leave the door open for that happening with time just like these good folks?!" I find that to be an a moot argument. Yep, it’s a caricature but it encapsulates the point I’m not oversimplifying it that far, as you point out with slavery. No Jesus, didn’t come to right all the wrongs of civilization but one would think that He would’ve been able to thow in a woman or two and that it just might be on his radar? Or possibly would’t it have come somewhat natural to him as it did in other cases? We could see that Jesus understood the plight of women in His day. He obviously understood that there was an imbalance, an inequity entreated upon women. It shows up several times in how he dealt with women. I don’t see, with your last point, why you are frustrated that people bring this argument up “again and again.” You seem to think that your argument is so compelling that anyone in here should bow to the logic of it and never bring it up again because you’ve solved the conundrum with an allusion to slavery? That I find perplexing?

That’s what the Incarnation means–God enters history.

To say that Jesus’ culture is irrelevant to explain his action, you have to explain how the specific action in question was incompatible with Jesus’ mission. Jesus didn’t compromise His mission for the sake of culture. But why would He need to choose women among the Twelve? What would be the point? Just to tell us that He approved of gender equality? Nothing I can see gives me reason to think that Jesus did that sort of thing. That’s anachronistic, docetistic thinking.

When this has come up before, I have pointed out that Jesus didn’t condemn slavery either. No one has answered this. But of course that doesn’t stop people from bringing this argument up again and again.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh trust me, I have read plenty of them. Some are well-reasoned, intelligent arguments. Many are, in fact. Some seem contrarian and arbitrarily anti. You note that my characterization is not worth responding to. Please also note that it was you in that long post to which I was replying who characterized me in a negative way. The way people repond to you is quite how I described and it’s not only my perception but people who IM me asking about it? I’ve had posters IM me ask “why does everyone suck up to that Contarini guy so much?” So it’s not just my perception. You have a great style of debate, are well-read in history and religion, are adept in areas of vocabulary, and genuinely bright. Many people are impressed by that. They defer to you easily. That’s my observation. Few people will stay in a debate with you long. You can say “whatever that means?” but if that made so little sense, it’s interesting how you did respond to it and then followed up saying it wasn’t worth a response?

You can’t have actually read many of the discussions in which I’ve been engaged. Occasionally I provide information and people thank me and shut up, but those are the exceptions–and if they weren’t I would stop coming back here, because it would be boring

Whatever this means. Your description of how people respond to me is so far from reality that it’s not worth responding to.

I am happy for you to call me on any implications or attitudes that you can document. The problem is that if I say something that sounds like something you have heard from someone else, you assume that I must believe in all the things you are used to hearing those other people say.

Fair enough. And you’re good at it. Your responses are often outside the box and insightful. I like that. Sometimes they seem a bit overly-unconventional and contrarian but that’s ok. But notice that you overuse the term “pejorative” with me. I am by no means trying to denote hostility or a negative perception of you. I hold no animosity toward you. I simply disagree in several areas. I might be critical or disagree but don’t jump to the conclusion that I approach you from a pejorative stance. No hard feelings and ill will toward you exist on my end. Trust me.
This is a common response–I do it myself. But I try to quit when people point out that they’re *not *making the conventional argument. In Internet discussion we all develop stock responses, and it’s easy to misinterpret what people say for this reason. I make a point of trying to present aspects of an issue that maybe haven’t been brought up before. I think that’s what your pejorative description above actually means.

Of course. Why wouldn’t I? If my description didn’t sound firm, I wouldn’t need to add the caveat.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think you are from what I’ve seen, respectfully.
I say that to show that I’m open to being refuted.

**Again, fair enough. I’ll take you at your word. I think I’m prejudiced in how I approach your posts (despite admiring your acumen and intellect) because many of your posts have a very liberal flair to them. Your hostility about English-only and other areas seem very leftist and you seem to always want to buck conventional wisdom in so many areas. I sense a lot of progressive thinking in your words. But I’ll take you at your word that it’s more of an anthropological, biological, and spiritual approach you have to this issue than a social justice agenda. You pointed out recently that that social justice mumbo-jumbo is more akin to the liberal kooky TEC thinking, and yet you caucus with them?

As far as I’m concerned, sorry you’ve had to re-adjust your picture of yours truly. I am shocked that you ever thought me a liberal socially**. When it comes to politics and religion, I’m quite the centrist and can lean liberal and conservative. Were you and I to sit down and talk, you’d be surprised that I’m pro-animal rights, very green and pro environment, very pro union, not an anti-government tea party type by any means, am proud of my country but love to travel and be amongst other cultures, find the ACNA antagonism toward homsexuals and yet their quick acceptance of divorce and remarriage hypocritical, hateful of racism, I believe in evolution, women’s rights, speak Spanish while at the same time ardently a believer that English should be the language everyone must learn to converse and live in this country, I voted for Obama, and yet at the same time I am opposed to gay marriage, women priestesses, loath divorce/remarriage in most circumstances (most), and am liturgically and morally very conservative, anti-abortion, etc. I’m a mixed bag and by no means easily categorized or stuck into a bracket.

I agree with you that we are “weird” in that we don’t fit into a category. Agreed. Maybe that should make us more appreciative of one another and willing to listen…both of us. Perhaps we’re more alike in some ways than we’d like to admit and that’s what creates a heated debate. I do find it funny that you first assumed me a liberal. Usually people first assume I’m a hardcore Republican conservative and then as they hear some of my views they switch perceptions. Amongst my conservative friends, they think I’m a tree-hugging lib…LOL

But that’s the problem–you are introducing a whole set of assumptions that exist in your head and assuming that I must believe all these things, because that’s what the label “social justice gospel” means *to you. *That’s unjust. It’s understandable at the beginning of the discussion, but after I’ve explained over and over that you are misinterpreting me, you need to adjust your picture of what I believe. I’ve done that with you frequently. When I first ran into you on these forums, I put *you *in a “liberal” bracket given the kinds of things you were saying at the time. I’ve had to adjust my picture considerably!

Part of the problem we have is that neither of us fit easily into the categories that dominate these forums, but we are “weird” in different ways.
I do as well.
I appreciate that.

I think that bodies are part of the majesty of the human experience. I think that bodiliness is “deep, spiritual, powerful.” So I agree with everything you say *and *I think that it has to do with bodies. I agree with you about the problems in modern marriage caused by the assumption that men and women are basically identical.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I guess we both need to define “nature” here, if you don’t mind me being a simpleton.
And there we have the key issue. The answer is that Jesus saves us *by *assuming our nature. *There is no other salvation to be had. *And that is the consistent answer of the Fathers. It’s key to historic, orthodox Christian soteriology. From my perspective you and other defenders of the male-only priesthood are defending a particular patristic practice at the risk of compromising one of the most basic elements of patristic doctrine. The Gospel that we have to give to the world *is *the message that God has assumed our nature. You can’t get more basic than that.

**Forgive my confusion and ignorance, but why do you see women’s ordination as having anything to do with the soteriology of the Fathers? Are you saying that your Christus Victor view encapsulates a conclusion that men and women are identical in nature (just different in bodies) and, as a result, women must be co-equal in the priesthood as well? Please elaborate. I’d like to hear your view here. And again, please elaborate on your definition of “nature” and how men and women share the same nature. Online a quick definition says: *Human nature is the fundamental nature and substance of humans, as well as the range of human behavior that is believed to be invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts. I would say that men and women have different behavior, reactions, perceptions, and that our bodies are intangiably related to our natures. Men and women react to situations differently often times and in the parental plane are much different. You might accuse that of being an a priori statement, but it rings true IMO. Women by nature are mothers. Men by nature are fathers. In that very essence, biological related to the metaphysical/spiritual both can be saved by Christ. Just because a woman has a different nature doesn’t mean she cannot be saved by Christ. She is not a different species, an alien. But I digress (too much). I actually like debating this with you because it informs my own clarity and forces me to think. It’s fine. Please don’t view me as pejoratively antagonistic with you. If I didn’t want a challenge to my own intellect or worldview, I wouldn’t give you the time of day, trust me. It’s a compliment that I think you worth engaging. May God bless you. ***
Earlier in this discussion you expressed puzzlement as to why I defend patristic soteriology so staunchly (with regard to penal substitution) while disagreeing with the Fathers on women’s ordination. The answer is that I believe in women’s ordination because I believe in the soteriology of the Fathers!

And the question is, do you? If you don’t, then isn’t your concern to defend them on gender a case of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel? And if you do, then you need to answer my question: how can women be saved if they don’t have the nature Christ assumed for our salvation?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think I’m prejudiced in how I approach your posts (despite admiring your acumen and intellect) because many of your posts have a very liberal flair to them. Your hostility about English-only and other areas seem very leftist

That’s fine–you can describe me that way if you want to. Just don’t assume that I must therefore believe other things you see as “liberal.” That’s what I’m objecting to when you talk about my “tone.” You generalize and assume that I must fit the idea you have of what “liberals” think.

When I first encountered you, you were complaining about what you saw as knee-jerk Catholic support for a Republican political agenda, and also expressing concerns about the Catholic position on birth control.

I don’t know why you are “sorry” that I’ve had to revise my picture. That’s what getting to know someone means. I’m not sorry at all. You’re an interesting and complex person, based on my limited knowledge of you from these forums.

From my perspective, my views on immigration, English-only, etc., are motivated by my commitment to the Church as my primary identity.

Most of my “liberal” views are views that seem to me to stem directly from my Christian faith. Most of my “conservative” views are views I would hold whether I were a Christian or not. This does make me odd to many people.

My political views are basically those of a Burkean conservative. I value tradition and custom over ideology, and I think that the attempt to translate the ontological equality of all human beings into political equality has been largely disastrous. I don’t seem “conservative” in an American context largely because I’m very dubious about the basic principles on which the United States rest–but I’m dubious about them because I’m deeply hostile to the Enlightenment socio-political agenda generally. My perspective is that American “conservatives” are really classical liberals. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there, except that my reasons for taking the positions I take may be quite different than you imagine.

** You pointed out recently that that social justice mumbo-jumbo is more akin to the liberal kooky TEC thinking, and yet you caucus with them?**

I don’t caucus with them. I belong to a parish whose bishop is presently in communion with them for reasons that I entirely support, even though I don’t think his position is sustainable in the long term. I don’t know why you use the word caucus.
**

**** I’m a mixed bag and by no means easily categorized or stuck into a bracket.**

I appreciate that, and after my initial impressions of you turned out to be wrong I have tried very hard not to stick you in a bracket. That’s why I have been surprised and frustrated that you have kept trying to stick me into a “bracket.”
Anyway, I should focus on the substantive issues–I only brought up the personal angle because you appealed to my “tone” to justify (as I saw it) disregarding what I was actually saying.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good enough. To answer your question, I use the word “caucus” not recklessly or because I’m in the mood to use some political jargon. I use it deliberately. You have stated in previous posts that you identify with and believe in a great many theological views of Holy Orthodoxy. I can respect that. You also have said, to a lesser degree, that you agree wtih several tenets of Catholicism. But you have made it clear that you’re really close to Orthodoxy on a great many issues. However, you said that you cannot make a commitment at this time to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism and that both are inadequate. You blasted, being intellectually honest (which I admire, always!), the TEC and said that they are making many foolish mistakes and that they are in disarray, not perfect either. You said, words to the effect (and I know you’ll quote back to me exactly what you said and adjust my verbage, that’s the Edwinian constant ) that you would like to be Orthodox but, you’d have to refresh my memory as to your reasoning, you stay Episcopal. You sounded like you’re not 100% committed to the TEC cause and theology, that you’re caucusing with them for now…it was my reading of your post. But, as you say, I could be wrong. It was not a derogatory term, Edwin. You’re reading too much into my statement. Honestly, friend, I’m caucusing with ACNA. I’m quite honest that I’m on a journey and not sure where I belong. You’re far more committed to a certain theology and denomination than I am, to be sure. I’m still hammering out my views on the Atonement, an area in which you are vastly more informed than I am. I’m also re-assessing my views on authority and catholicism (small c), the history of the Catholic Church (big c ), and where I belong. I’m a weary traveler, trust me. I’ll be the first to admit I need spiritual dramamine. You would say it’s a priori (and you’d be right) my views on NFP because they had disastrous complications and ramifications in my marriage for my wife. I see the hypocrisy of annulments when I go to the Philippines and the contradictions they have here in the States. I seriously question indulgences and the treasury of merit concepts.

Honestly I’ve been reading a lot of John Stott, an Anglican evangelical lately. He’s brilliant. Can’t say I buy the whole property he’s selling but he’s passionate. I like Packer, too, another vangie. Yet I love to read the tractarian types like good ole Vernon Staley.

And yet go figure, I’ve been praying my rosary and have found great solace in that lately. Like you, I’m something of a patchwork quilt trying to make sense of it all.

Interacting with folks like yourself only forces me to get out of my comfort zone and think. I enjoy that. The minute I get too into myself and stop questioning, I’ve become a mindless drone.

I’d like you to expound upon what you meant about the foundation of the U.S. and the Enlightenment, distrusting motives and foundations, etc.

God bless.

That’s fine–you can describe me that way if you want to. Just don’t assume that I must therefore believe other things you see as “liberal.” That’s what I’m objecting to when you talk about my “tone.” You generalize and assume that I must fit the idea you have of what “liberals” think.

When I first encountered you, you were complaining about what you saw as knee-jerk Catholic support for a Republican political agenda, and also expressing concerns about the Catholic position on birth control.

I don’t know why you are “sorry” that I’ve had to revise my picture. That’s what getting to know someone means. I’m not sorry at all. You’re an interesting and complex person, based on my limited knowledge of you from these forums.

From my perspective, my views on immigration, English-only, etc., are motivated by my commitment to the Church as my primary identity.

Most of my “liberal” views are views that seem to me to stem directly from my Christian faith. Most of my “conservative” views are views I would hold whether I were a Christian or not. This does make me odd to many people.

My political views are basically those of a Burkean conservative. I value tradition and custom over ideology, and I think that the attempt to translate the ontological equality of all human beings into political equality has been largely disastrous. I don’t seem “conservative” in an American context largely because I’m very dubious about the basic principles on which the United States rest–but I’m dubious about them because I’m deeply hostile to the Enlightenment socio-political agenda generally. My perspective is that American “conservatives” are really classical liberals. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there, except that my reasons for taking the positions I take may be quite different than you imagine.

I don’t caucus with them. I belong to a parish whose bishop is presently in communion with them for reasons that I entirely support, even though I don’t think his position is sustainable in the long term. I don’t know why you use the word caucus.
**

I appreciate that, and after my initial impressions of you turned out to be wrong I have tried very hard not to stick you in a bracket. That’s why I have been surprised and frustrated that you have kept trying to stick me into a “bracket.”
**Anyway, I should focus on the substantive issues–I only brought up the personal angle because you appealed to my “tone” to justify (as I saw it) disregarding what I was actually saying.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I guess we both need to define “nature” here, if you don’t mind me being a simpleton.

Not a simpleton at all. Most basically nature or substance or essence (you can distinguish them, but I’m using them synonymously) is “that which makes a thing what it is.” This sounds like nonsense to a lot of modern people, because most modern people are radical nominalists, and think that a thing is what it is simply by virtue of having certain characteristics: that “nature,” if the term makes sense at all, is simply those characteristics which are shared by a group of individuals rather than those proper to a certain individual. I would argue that both traditional Christian ethics and orthodox Christian soteriology require us to believe that “essence” or “nature” is more than the sum of particular characteristics–that there is something underlying those characteristics in every living being (maybe it gets harder to talk about the nature of rock or fire or a planet, although the scholastics would have done so–and certainly this language doesn’t apply to man-made things) on which the particular characteristics depend and which doesn’t depend on them.

In the case of ethics, this underlies the abortion debate and a lot of other issues. Secular ethicists like Peter Singer would argue that if an adult non-human animal can think, feel pain, etc., more than a human embryo or fetus or a severely retarded adult human can, then the life of the former is more worthy of respect and protection than that of the latter. If there is nothing in humans which underlies our particular characteristics and makes us what we are, then it’s hard to argue against this position. And this something–admittedly hard to define–is “human nature.”

The implications of this for soteriology are that Jesus assumed that common human nature, and only through sharing in that nature are we saved. (The Atonement only works if Jesus shares one nature with us–that’s one of the quarrels I have with penal substitution as often taught, because it seems to imply that *any *“innocent victim” would do.) St. Gregory Nazianzus taught, in response to the Apollinarian heresy (that Jesus didn’t have a human soul), that “what is not assumed is not saved.” If women are ontologically incapable of being ordained, it follows inevitably that they do not share in that nature which Jesus assumed *or *(as our forefathers believed) that they share in it in an imperfect way because of the defects of their “individual nature.”

She is not a different species, an alien.

I’ve been avoiding the question of aliens, because it’s hypothetical. But I think that the implication of saying that women have a different nature from men is precisely that they are in the same boat with regard to salvation as an alien would be. And as C. S. Lewis said (much as Lewis would hate being cited as even indirect support for my side of this debate!), there are three possibilities with regard to aliens, should such beings turn out to exist:

1. They may not need salvation. (This doesn’t apply to women, though some feminists might speak as if they only need salvation from men!)
2. They may have been saved in some other way than by Jesus–John 14:6 might conceivably only apply to humans. (But it clearly doesn’t apply only to men–the Shakers believed that there was a separate female incarnation, but that was heresy.)
3. They may need the salvation that Jesus offers, just as humans do. Obviously this is true of women.

Now, thought experiment: if we discover aliens, and if aliens can be baptized, then can they be ordained? I think it’s self-evident that the answer is “yes.” Even if you think that there are no such beings and cannot possibly such beings, it seems self-evident that *if *the Church were to conclude that non-human beings needed salvation and could be baptized, it would follow that they could be ordained. (We would then say that Jesus saved us by assuming “sentient nature” or something of that sort rather than just “human nature.”)

Since as you say, women are not in fact aliens, it should be more obvious that women can be ordained than that aliens could be ordained. Unless, again, you want to resort to a “female as imperfect male” argument.

Another point about non-human natures: one objection to my “what is not assumed is not saved” argument is that one can speak of Jesus saving all creation, not just humans. But we both agree, I think, that non-humans (the ones we know about, who share this planet with us) don’t need salvation in the same way we do, and of course we don’t think they need to be baptized or can be baptized. Insofar as they are saved by Jesus, they are saved through us. Since human nature is hierarchically related to all other species on earth as the “crowning work” of creation (see, I’m not a liberal after all!), we “sum up” earthly creation and all creation shares, according to its degree, in the salvation Jesus has brought to us. (See Romans 8.)

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Gurney and Contarini,

As you two have hashed out, the problem is clearly with the word “nature”. And in this context the question becomes - how is it that men and women could share one human nature, but also be ontologically different with regards to sex?

This is a question which has bothered me, but I believe it to be true. First, because Scripture suggests it to me, particularly in the creation account. Secondly, because this is what the Church has always taught. And thirdly, because it accords with my personal experience and also what I have observed in others. (Have you ever noticed that no one gets excited when you colour your hair, but they get quite heated in one way or the other when you want to get a sex change:shrug

So, I tend to think that there is a difficulty with the language we use to talk about it. Which doesn’t surprise me, since I think it is fair to say we could trace them back to Plato, who thought we were spirits by nature. It may just be that I haven’t read enough and someone has suggested a solution to this. My reading of stuff after the Renaissance gets rather sketchy.

 

[Contarini]

Gurney and Contarini,

As you two have hashed out, the problem is clearly with the word “nature”. And in this context the question becomes - how is it that men and women could share one human nature, but also be ontologically different with regards to sex?

This is a question which has bothered me, but I believe it to be true. First, because Scripture suggests it to me, particularly in the creation account. Secondly, because this is what the Church has always taught. And thirdly, because it accords with my personal experience and also what I have observed in others. (Have you ever noticed that no one gets excited when you colour your hair, but they get quite heated in one way or the other when you want to get a sex change:shrug

So, I tend to think that there is a difficulty with the language we use to talk about it. Which doesn’t surprise me, since I think it is fair to say we could trace them back to Plato, who thought we were spirits by nature. It may just be that I haven’t read enough and someone has suggested a solution to this. My reading of stuff after the Renaissance gets rather sketchy.

Bluegoat,

I am willing to grant that the word “nature” can mean a lot of things–for instance, Aquinas spoke of “individual nature.” But I don’t think that changes my argument. Christians have always believed that Jesus saved us by assuming our common human nature, and that’s why all humans can be saved. In other words, I don’t think Jesus’ maleness is traditionally regarded as salvific. Modern defenders of the male-only priesthood have to come up with a new anthropology/soteriology in which Jesus’ maleness *is *salvific for all humans, even though the male is no longer seen (as the Fathers saw it) as a more perfect expression of humanity than the female.

Defenders of women’s ordination, on the other hand, don’t need to change the traditional anthropology, Christology, or soteriology beyond the mere rejection of the view that the female is an imperfect male. We can still say that what saves us is Christ’s assumption of our common humanity.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat,

I am willing to grant that the word “nature” can mean a lot of things–for instance, Aquinas spoke of “individual nature.” But I don’t think that changes my argument. Christians have always believed that Jesus saved us by assuming our common human nature, and that’s why all humans can be saved. In other words, I don’t think Jesus’ maleness is traditionally regarded as salvific. Modern defenders of the male-only priesthood have to come up with a new anthropology/soteriology in which Jesus’ maleness *is *salvific for all humans, even though the male is no longer seen (as the Fathers saw it) as a more perfect expression of humanity than the female.

Defenders of women’s ordination, on the other hand, don’t need to change the traditional anthropology, Christology, or soteriology beyond the mere rejection of the view that the female is an imperfect male. We can still say that what saves us is Christ’s assumption of our common humanity.

Edwin

Is Christ’s salvific action the same as his priestly function though?

 

[Contarini]

Is Christ’s salvific action the same as his priestly function though?

I think the only way one can defend the male-only priesthood is to deny this. But that surely tears apart the unity of Christ’s saving work. How can His priesthood be something other than his salvific action? What is His priesthood if *not *the means by which he unites us to Himself and thus to God? To say that the priesthood is something different from the salvific action is to make the priesthood something purely juridical and external–a mere office.

Edwin