I ran into a Lutheran Woman Priest. Felt a little odd seeing her

  • Thread starter Thread starter WilT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
Anglo-Catholics would be the group most offended by the idea, evangelicals the ones least concerned one way or another.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure I agree with that. Support for women’s ordination came from among Open Evangelicals, broad church and liberal Anglicans, and Affirming Catholics. Opposition was strongest among Anglo-Catholics, as you say, but also Conservative Evangelicals (on the grounds of St Paul’s words). Anglo-Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals worked together to oppose it, as they did the admission of women to the episcopacy, where Evangelicals were even more concerned because of the “headship” issue.

I don’t think there was any attempt to derail ARCIC (in fact those most unhappy at ARCIC were the very Evangelicals who opposed women’s ordination). It is sort of true in reverse, though, that one of the reasons for opposition from Anglo-Catholics, of course, was the damage women’s ordination would do to hopes of rapprochement with Rome and with the East.
 
Yeoman said:
Going way, way back to the original post here, I suppose the correct term is to say something like “Reverend” (obviously “Father” is out), and I generally don’t have a problem interacting with a female member of most of the Protestants clergy.

What I do wonder about is this. In my community there’s an extremely active female member of a Protestant church that’s highly liberal and socially active. Sometime ago she announced that she had same gender attraction and she might be living with another woman (not sure on that). So intellectually I don’t have a problem with according respect by title to a female Lutheran, or Episcopal clergywoman, even though I don’t regard their orders as valid and hold the Catholic view on who can validly hold orders. I struggle, however, with according the same respect to a person who publicly has stated that she doesn’t take St. Paul literally, who is extremely socially active and who shows up at everything. I’d feel differently if she was just an activist, but wearing a Roman Collar and all and advancing these views bothers me, and I wonder if I should publicly afford her a title or not.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Just to pick nits… it ain’t “Roman,” you know. The collar started in protestant circles (circuits, to be more precise). The Roman Catholic Church later co-opted the attire because it had become a symbol of teaching authority.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Not quite sure I agree with that. Support for women’s ordination came from among Open Evangelicals, broad church and liberal Anglicans, and Affirming Catholics. Opposition was strongest among Anglo-Catholics, as you say, but also Conservative Evangelicals (on the grounds of St Paul’s words). Anglo-Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals worked together to oppose it, as they did the admission of women to the episcopacy, where Evangelicals were even more concerned because of the “headship” issue.

I don’t think there was any attempt to derail ARCIC (in fact those most unhappy at ARCIC were the very Evangelicals who opposed women’s ordination). It is sort of true in reverse, though, that one of the reasons for opposition from Anglo-Catholics, of course, was the damage women’s ordination would do to hopes of rapprochement with Rome and with the East.
Click to expand...
I thought of making the Affirming Catholic distinction, and also that there was a core of Evangelicals who did oppose it, on principle. But I didn’t.

I am not thinking things through or expressing them as well as is my wont. Probably age, or the remodeling on the house.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I thought of making the Affirming Catholic distinction, and also that there was a core of Evangelicals who did oppose it, on principle. But I didn’t.

I am not thinking things through or expressing them as well as is my wont. Probably age, or the remodeling on the house.

GKC
Click to expand...
It’s them books what’s the problem. If you chucked them all away, couldn’t you forget about remodelling the house?
 
Picky_Picky said:
It’s them books what’s the problem. If you chucked them all away, couldn’t you forget about remodelling the house?
Click to expand...
No. The current ongoing problem is my wife’s bathroom. No way out of doing that. Then the kitchen, and exterior.

But if I chucked the books, it is true I wouldn’t be planning a 1000 sq. ft. addition to the house. And could walk through the living room, again.

GKC
 
Picky_Picky said:
Anglo-Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals worked together to oppose it, as they did the admission of women to the episcopacy, where Evangelicals were even more concerned because of the “headship” issue.
Click to expand...
Yes. As we can see from the website of the ‘most fameous’ of these groups, Forward in Faith, this group is defined as “an association of Catholics and Evangelicals - female and male, young and old - seeking to renew the Church in the historic faith.”

But there is significant disagreements there, especially on the whole ‘headship’ issue, which is defined in leadership terms by the Evangelicals, and connected to teaching and the administration of the sacraments by the Anglo-Catholics. See this article by then Church of England priest Geoffrey Kirk. It is a shoertened down version of an article called “Fatherhood, Headship and Tradition,” found in Consecrated Women? A Contribution to the Women Bishops Debate, ed. Jonathan Baker (Norwich: Canterbury Press 2004). Unfortunately, Kirk doesn’t touch upon the Evangelicals in the online version.
 
KjetilK said:
Yes. As we can see from the website of the ‘most fameous’ of these groups, Forward in Faith, this group is defined as “an association of Catholics and Evangelicals - female and male, young and old - seeking to renew the Church in the historic faith.”

But there is significant disagreements there, especially on the whole ‘headship’ issue, which is defined in leadership terms by the Evangelicals, and connected to teaching and the administration of the sacraments by the Anglo-Catholics. See this article by then Church of England priest Geoffrey Kirk. It is a shoertened down version of an article called “Fatherhood, Headship and Tradition,” found in Consecrated Women? A Contribution to the Women Bishops Debate, ed. Jonathan Baker (Norwich: Canterbury Press 2004). Unfortunately, Kirk doesn’t touch upon the Evangelicals in the online version.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn’t really go to Forward in Faith for the Conservative Evangelical viewpoint, more to a group like Reform:

reform.org.uk/home
 
Picky_Picky said:
Well, I wouldn’t really go to Forward in Faith for the Conservative Evangelical viewpoint, more to a group like Reform:

reform.org.uk/home
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. I know the mileu quit well. I have spoken on numerous occasions with now Mgsr. John Broadhurst, former chairman of FiF UK.

My point, however, was that there has been cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals in the Church of England, as you also said. And I illustrated that by pointing out that even in FiF UK - which is quite Catholic - you can be a member as an Evangelical.
 
KjetilK said:
Yes, I know. I know the mileu quit well. I have spoken on numerous occasions with now Mgsr. John Broadhurst, former chairman of FiF UK.

My point, however, was that there has been cooperation between Catholics and Evangelicals in the Church of England, as you also said. And I illustrated that by pointing out that even in FiF UK - which is quite Catholic - you can be a member as an Evangelical.
Click to expand...
Quite so. Sorry if I misunderstood.
 
steido01 said:
Just to pick nits… it ain’t “Roman,” you know. The collar started in protestant circles (circuits, to be more precise). The Roman Catholic Church later co-opted the attire because it had become a symbol of teaching authority.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that’s what its typically called, and you knew what I meant!🙂
 
=Yeoman;12432953]Going way, way back to the original post here, I suppose the correct term is to say something like “Reverend” (obviously “Father” is out), and I generally don’t have a problem interacting with a female member of most of the Protestants clergy.
Click to expand...
Amusing it would be, were someone to address a female “pastor” as “Father”. Oh to be a fly on the wall to observe the next words spoken. 😛
What I do wonder about is this. In my community there’s an extremely active female member of a Protestant church that’s highly liberal and socially active. Sometime ago she announced that she had same gender attraction and she might be living with another woman (not sure on that). So intellectually I don’t have a problem with according respect by title to a female Lutheran, or Episcopal clergywoman, even though I don’t regard their orders as valid and hold the Catholic view on who can validly hold orders. I struggle, however, with according the same respect to a person who publicly has stated that she doesn’t take St. Paul literally, who is extremely socially active and who shows up at everything. I’d feel differently if she was just an activist, but wearing a Roman Collar and all and advancing these views bothers me, and I wonder if I should publicly afford her a title or not.
Click to expand...
“Ma’am” works. 😉

Actually, find your post restrained and charitable. Personally, I’m bothered seeing the name of our tradition - Lutheran - being tainted in this way.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Amusing it would be, were someone to address a female “pastor” as “Father”. Oh to be a fly on the wall to observe the next words spoken. 😛

“Ma’am” works. 😉

Actually, find your post restrained and charitable. Personally, I’m bothered seeing the name of our tradition - Lutheran - being tainted in this way.

Jon
Click to expand...
👍
 
Yeoman said:
Going way, way back to the original post here, I suppose the correct term is to say something like “Reverend” (obviously “Father” is out), and I generally don’t have a problem interacting with a female member of most of the Protestants clergy.

What I do wonder about is this. In my community there’s an extremely active female member of a Protestant church that’s highly liberal and socially active. Sometime ago she announced that she had same gender attraction and she might be living with another woman (not sure on that). So intellectually I don’t have a problem with according respect by title to a female Lutheran, or Episcopal clergywoman, even though I don’t regard their orders as valid and hold the Catholic view on who can validly hold orders. I struggle, however, with according the same respect to a person who publicly has stated that she doesn’t take St. Paul literally, who is extremely socially active and who shows up at everything. I’d feel differently if she was just an activist, but wearing a Roman Collar and all and advancing these views bothers me, and I wonder if I should publicly afford her a title or not.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
👍
 
GKC said:
FIF-UK, does lean Anglo-Catholic. FIF-North America also, though less so. My parish is associated with FIF-NA and FIF-UK.

GKC
Click to expand...
A new volume for your library GK.

“Anglican Difficulties: A New Syllabus of Errors” by Edward Norman
 
Tomster said:
A new volume for your library GK.

“Anglican Difficulties: A New Syllabus of Errors” by Edward Norman
Click to expand...
It would be a good book to acquire, and if I stumble upon one, I will. But it is only available through OOP dealers, and, even though I once was one, and have used them for years, I do not do so any longer. So chance will have to bring us together.

OTOH, I ordered A DEFENSE OF THE ENGLISH ORDINAL last week. Was available through a print on demand source.

GKC
 
WilT said:
I saw this Lutheran Priestess and I couldn’t help but to feel very odd and uncomfortable. She seemed like a nice person but I couldn’t get myself to say hello. I hope to be able to remove this uncomfortableness in the future.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, women do not have the calling to be a priest or pastor. I am thankful that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has a male only clergy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top