Why Do Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc ordain women?

[Harpazo]

None of Christ’s Holy Apostles were women, even though He clearly revered women. And so did the Church throughout the ages.

I personally believe, along with other Catholics (and even the Orthodox), that the Church is the Bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. Following Our Lord’s example, both Churches never ordained women to the Priesthood.

Do many Protestants think that they are above Christ’s example? I’m curious in this regard, because I can see no definitive reason through history, Tradition, and even the Scriptures for that matter. I never understood why women were to be ordained as ministers when I was a Protestant, and as a Catholic it makes even less sense.

I’m in no way trying to offend those Protestants of traditions that support this. I just want to see why they accept it and see it as valid.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

There was an early document, The Apostolic Didascalia, a document dated in the third or early fourth century, preserved in a Syriac translation. It shows how the diaconate of women were needed and used. In the documents, it mentions the deaconess after the deacon but before the subdeacon. They participated in the baptizing of women, since in early tradition baptisms were done prior to the Easter Vigil and done with the catechumen divesting all of their clothes, being baptized, and being clothed in a white robe or alb.

Romans 16:1 clearly states that Phoebe was a diakonos in the church at Cenchrea. Galatians 3 also states that we are neither male nor female, but one in Christ.

It made perfect sense not to ordain women in earlier years - women could not own property nor had legal standing in many countries - thus ordaining them to the priesthood would have put the Church at great risk. However, in a day when women can be magistrates, presidents of universities, and governmental leaders, that argument loses its power.

I am aware of all of the Roman Catholic arguments against all of these arguments. But that is the basis for women being ordained in those traditions that ordain women.

O+

 

[Harpazo]

There was an early document, The Apostolic Didascalia, a document dated in the third or early fourth century, preserved in a Syriac translation. It shows how the diaconate of women were needed and used. In the documents, it mentions the deaconess after the deacon but before the subdeacon. They participated in the baptizing of women, since in early tradition baptisms were done prior to the Easter Vigil and done with the catechumen divesting all of their clothes, being baptized, and being clothed in a white robe or alb.

Romans 16:1 clearly states that Phoebe was a diakonos in the church at Cenchrea. Galatians 3 also states that we are neither male nor female, but one in Christ.

It made perfect sense not to ordain women in earlier years - women could not own property nor had legal standing in many countries - thus ordaining them to the priesthood would have put the Church at great risk. However, in a day when women can be magistrates, presidents of universities, and governmental leaders, that argument loses its power.

I am aware of all of the Roman Catholic arguments against all of these arguments. But that is the basis for women being ordained in those traditions that ordain women.

O+

Cultures change, but does not God’s truth last forever? That’s how Christianity and more specifically, the Church, changes the world, it’s truth trumps the pseudo-truths of other cultures.

What I don’t understand is why Christians would wait 1800 years to have women leaders in their communities. If it is acceptable now, why was it no acceptable then? If it’s a truth now, why wasn’t it a truth then?

Pace e Bene
Andrew

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[episcogirl]

I am trying to stay out of this (but of course, I can’t because I am just a glutton for punishment), because I don’t know much about the reasoning behind women obtaining priesthood in the Anglican/Episcopal Church. We have had some discussions about this. Being raised Catholic I am still looking at this issue closely. Although, I did become an LEM. Many in the Episcopal Church treat me with hostility because of this.

I do remember hearing at one time in the very early Church (not sure where or when) that women were being admonished for being priests. Something to the effect that they were being told to stop distributing Eucharist or something, but I am probably wrong. If this admonishment went out then there must have been women priests at that time to admonish, or was it simply a shortage of necessary priests and the women filled in temporarily and then were told to stop?

I hope to bend the ear of the priest tomorrow on this subject, for my own enlightenment.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Cultures change, but does not God’s truth last forever? That’s how Christianity and more specifically, the Church, changes the world, it’s truth trumps the pseudo-truths of other cultures.

What I don’t understand is why Christians would wait 1800 years to have women leaders in their communities. If it is acceptable now, why was it no acceptable then? If it’s a truth now, why wasn’t it a truth then?

Pace e Bene
Andrew

Pace e Bene
Andrew

The argument would be whether it is a truth or not. Again, women could not own property or have legal standing for a very long time in Christian history. That was certainly a practical reason.

The same reasoning you use, Andrew, is why some traditions do not have instrumental music, why some churches waited to install electricity in their churches, etc.

So if women should not lead in the church, should Christians allow them to lead any at all if we are to be Christians 24/7? Should women teach over men at all? Should women have authority over men at all? If we shouldn’t do it in church… should we do it at all?

O+

 

[Harpazo]

The argument would be whether it is a truth or not. Again, women could not own property or have legal standing for a very long time in Christian history. That was certainly a practical reason.

The same reasoning you use, Andrew, is why some traditions do not have instrumental music, why some churches waited to install electricity in their churches, etc.

So if women should not lead in the church, should Christians allow them to lead any at all if we are to be Christians 24/7? Should women teach over men at all? Should women have authority over men at all? If we shouldn’t do it in church… should we do it at all?

O+

Instrumental music and electricity are of little importance compared to who is leading the people, and who Christ has set to lead His people.

As you know, we live in a clearly secular society. Women have their roles in the secular world, just as they have them in the Church. Just because they have roles of authority and power in the secular world, (or have the potential to do so) does not necessarily mean they should in the Church.

Because women can bare children, does not mean that men should be able to do the same. This is the same for women fulfilling a role that God gave to men, and men alone. Men themselves cannot fulfill a role that God gave to women, and women alone.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[JonNC]

Just a point of clarification: not all Lutheran Synods ordain women, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod for example.

 

[GKC]

Just a point of clarification: not all Lutheran Synods ordain women, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod for example.

For that matter, the attempted ordination of females was one of the primary reasons for the splitting of the Anglican Communion, starting about 30 years ago. Continuing Anglicans do not do such. Invalid matter, in the sacramental sense, and all the points of *Ordinatio sacerdotalis *apply. And it’s an excellent way to lose Apostolic Succession, when it reaches into the episcopacy.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[episcogirl]

The Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth is asking for OUT of the ECUSA for not only this reason but others as well. Ft. Worth does not ordain women but most of the rest of the diocese do, I believe, although there are others as well. The have asked for alternative primatial oversight (don’t get me started). As much as this is an issue between Catholics and non-Catholics, I think it is even worse within the the ECUSA itself.

 

[GKC]

The Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth is asking for OUT of the ECUSA for not only this reason but others as well. Ft. Worth does not ordain women but most of the rest of the diocese do, I believe, although there are others as well. The have asked for alternative primatial oversight (don’t get me started). As much as this is an issue between Catholics and non-Catholics, I think it is even worse within the the ECUSA itself.

+Iker is the best of the Episcopal episcopacy. Often called the last orthodox Episcopal prelate. But even he will ordain a female to the diaconate.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[Alexius]

I believe that even in the sixth century, there were still many (hundred) deaconesses at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[O.S.Luke]

I believe that even in the sixth century, there were still many (hundred) deaconesses at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

A fact that the Catholic Church would like to forget, I am sure. I am also sure that they have a CYA answer for it, too.

Thank you for posting this, Alexius,

 

[Lori_Hodgert]

How many married ordained priests are there?

 

[tbuley]

I’m in no way trying to offend those Protestants of traditions that support this. I just want to see why they accept it and see it as valid.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

It has only been in the last 60 years that any church has Literally cultural ordained woman and in it is linked to the contamination of the church by cultural influence. The argument put out is that Paul’s statement had cultural application, only Paul doesn’t say any thing like this so I think the weight falls on those who would have a priestess. I also wonder why R.C.C. has taken head covering out of its catechism, and nuns out of their habits?

No one who holds the Word of God Literally would have a priestess. The church went against the grain of the times by denying woman this role it was common place for woman to be priestess to the false gods of the time.

 

[Harpazo]

A fact that the Catholic Church would like to forget, I am sure. I am also sure that they have a CYA answer for it, too.

Thank you for posting this, Alexius,

Since when does deaconess mean priest, one who can change bread and wine into the physical and real body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

The term deaconess is generally conferred upon a woman that is the wife of a deacon. They have no ability to give out any Mystery (Sacrament) at all. In some of the Byzantine Churches, they refer to the wives of the priests (presvyteros) as a presvytera. Does this mean they are calling them “priestess” and that they can do what the Priest does in hearing Confessions, confecting the Eucharist, baptizing, etc.? Of course not.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[bengal_fan]

apostle literally means: “one who is sent”

Jesus sent out women to represent Him:

mary magdelene delivered the message of resurrection.
samaritan woman was sent to her town and the whole town converted.

if Jesus sent women to represent Him, how can the church not?

there is one simple argument FOR women priests. there are numerous, in depth AND scriptural arguments as well. just depends on what scriptures you like to focus on.

 

[bengal_fan]

here is ultimately what i think:

i believe what i said above about Jesus sending women out to represent Him as well as sending men.

i believe that the ban on women priests comes from us getting caught up in the physical and losing sight of the spiritual. some one asked the question, “women can give birth but men cannot”. i would say that physically that is correct (duh). spiritually, that is incorrect. both men and women give birth to new Christians as we individually share our lives with others and they come to know our Lord. we are all member of the church and give birth to new Christians corporately as a church. the church is the bride of Christ AS IS every individual Christian… meaning all of us men who are Christians are also a bride! this is spiritual truth. so, if men can be a bride spiritually, and we are all called to be representatives of Christ here on earth (both men and women) why can’t women represent Christ to the church?

yes, Jesus had a physical body that was male, but do you really think that God is only male? read genesis where He creates humans in His own image… "male and female He created them." we get too caught up in Christ’s physical nature and lose sight of the spiritual truths He talked about. Christ took the beginning steps of lifting up the marginalized and putting them in positions the world thought them to be unqualified for (the woman at the well is such a great example of this in John 4).

on earth, we are still male and female and should celebrate that. but spiritually, we are no longer male and female and the role of priest is a spiritual one… not a physical one.

women can and should represent Christ to all of us. those who reject that are missing out on the fullness of God because God is male and female.

 

[LaMar]

Why do they do it? Probably because they’re not bigots.

It’s only a matter of time before the Catholics (and my tradition: the Mormons) extend opportunities to worthy individuals regardless of sex and sexual orientation.

Interesting to note that the Muslims seem to be ahead of us in this regard:

*Army Reserve Maj. Shareda Hosein, training officer with the 719th Transportation Battalion in Boston, began studying for the chaplaincy this fall at Hartford Seminary in Hartford, Conn., which offers a concentration in Muslim-Christian studies. She hopes to finish her degree within 2½ years.

Her aspiration is being welcomed.

“It’s long overdue,” said retired Marine Gunnery Sgt. Qaseem Uqdah, executive director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. “The reality of Islam in America is that women are within our armed forces. We have to deal with women. I owe a responsibility to Muslim women as well as men, and I haven’t been able to fulfill their needs.”*

islamfortoday.com/chaplain.htm

 

[Contarini]

None of Christ’s Holy Apostles were women, even though He clearly revered women. And so did the Church throughout the ages.

I personally believe, along with other Catholics (and even the Orthodox), that the Church is the Bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. Following Our Lord’s example, both Churches never ordained women to the Priesthood.

Do many Protestants think that they are above Christ’s example? I’m curious in this regard, because I can see no definitive reason through history, Tradition, and even the Scriptures for that matter. I never understood why women were to be ordained as ministers when I was a Protestant, and as a Catholic it makes even less sense.

I’m in no way trying to offend those Protestants of traditions that support this. I just want to see why they accept it and see it as valid.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

There is absolutely nothing prescriptive in the Gospels about this matter (yes, I know about those passages in the Epistles, but I’m talking about the particular argument you are using). The fact that the Twelve were men is simply inadequate as an argument on its own, since no significance is assigned to this fact in the NT. All it proves is that Jesus did not consider the establishment of complete gender equality to be part of His mission.

Speaking for my own Anglican communion (though this is still a controversial issue in some Anglican circles owing to our regard for tradition), we ordain women because we believe that the Incarnation unites Christ to human nature, not only to male nature. It does not seem possible for women to be saved if women have a fundamentally different nature and thus cannot be ordained. While it’s true that historical precedent supports the male-only priesthood, there is no historical precedent I can see for the idea that there are two natures within humanity, one male and the other female. If, as was traditionally believed (certainly by Aquinas, and I would argue by most Christian theologians historically), women are biologically imperfect instances of the same human nature shared by men, then it is reasonable that women could be excluded from ordination while still sharing in the benefits of the Incarnation. But if women have a “separate but equal” nature which precludes them from ordination, it follows (as a necessary consequence of orthodox Christology) that for them to be saved Christ would have to be incarnate a second time as a women. This is of course heretical. Therefore, women can and should be ordained when the Church discerns that they have the necessary gifts and graces. Q.E.D.

Edwin

 

[tbuley]

there are numerous, in depth AND scriptural arguments as well. ** just depends on what scriptures you like to focus on**.

I think that is called Eisegesis. If one reads scripture as a whole and takes what it says in a literal way ie. " I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." this is in line with the order of creation. If one believes the scripture is the inerrant Word of God they should cling to it, If they don’t why be a Christian.