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

[tbuley]

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.

It’s a good thing we are told the gates of hell will not prevail, sin is still sin and though we are all sinners I believe that intentional sin kills faith and a complaisant sinner is in a bad spot.
Nothing about the fear of God is bigoted, just as some struggle with drugs some struggle with sexuality.

 

[1234]

Why shouldn’t they ordain women?

Women do an excellent job as pastors and priests. They minister well. They often preach well. I think that you attract a higher quality sort of person to the priesthood when you include women.

I have no axe to grind. I am UU. We’e been ordaining women for a century or so. The chief minister of my rapidly growing UU church is a woman. No skin off my nose whom the rest ordain or don’t. But sociologists will tell you that if a culture or acountry leaves its women behind, it will leave its culture, identity and future behind as well. One reason that Judaism doesn’t not embrace celibacy (another discussion), and centers its most important holiday (Passover) after the High Holy Days, in the home and its most important observance, that of the Sabbath, around a woman blessing the candles–men can’t do this-- is that Judaism realized the crucial role that the family and the mother played in the survival of Judaism. I would expect that Jewish female rabbis are doing a very good job, too.

The RCC church has to do something about the priest situation–it might be to extend even more privileges to deacons or to give them paying jobs as deacons–but it has to do something. The situation of the priesthood in the US is similar to that of a dying order of nuns, fewer signing up and the fewer remaining members at a very advanced age; and in addition there is a very unattractive lifestyle offered to those who do get ordained-celibacy and the constant round of masses at who knows how many churches and unhappy parishioners with no time for any of them, or for himself.

 

[Harpazo]

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

How is the fact that Christ chose 12 men to be His Apostles inadequate? Do you understand the gravity of what you’re saying? That should be plent of proof right there.

Then we have the comparison of Christ to the Bride, which is the Church. Christ is the bridegroom. What is a bridegroom? A man. The Church is the Bride. What is a bride? A woman. Christ had commissioned, chosen, handpicked 12 men to be His Apostles, and they would carry on the Faith. They were to follow in the priesthood of Melchizadek. They were to act in Christ’s place. How can a woman do this since she isn’t a man?

Now, we as Catholics do not believe in an acceptance of homosexuality as yours and other Protestants have. Therefore, it is impossible for a Priest to be a woman, because we cannot have a woman be in Christ’s place. She cannot be a bridegroom, and cannot produce offspring, which is discussed in Revelation 12. Two women cannot produce children. I’m sorry, that’s the way it works.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[Namesake]

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.

What a bigot!!!

 

[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

Jude 1
17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions. 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.
2Timothy 4 v 3
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

The Protestants who do this are hardly still of there respective “Traditions” any more than the Liberal Catholic church in my town that have Buddhist meditations most of these groups even commune each other that is the liberal branches.

 

[Harpazo]

Jude 1
17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions. 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.
2Timothy 4 v 3
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

The Protestants who do this are hardly still of there respective “Traditions” any more than the Liberal Catholic church in my town that have Buddhist meditations most of these groups even commune each other that is the liberal branches.

Those verses ring true, but I wish they didn’t…

I’d love to see these people who are so devoted to Christ set aside their pride, and embrace what He started.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

How is the fact that Christ chose 12 men to be His Apostles inadequate? Do you understand the gravity of what you’re saying? That should be plent of proof right there.

It was an established fact that a man could not be seen in public with a woman, apart from his wife. Such was the scandal of Jesus meeting the woman at the well. It was a cultural reality, Andrew. Women could have (and probably did) follow the disciples around. But they did not mix in conversation or work.

Now, we as Catholics do not believe in an acceptance of homosexuality as yours and other Protestants have. Therefore, it is impossible for a Priest to be a woman, because we cannot have a woman be in Christ’s place. She cannot be a bridegroom, and cannot produce offspring, which is discussed in Revelation 12. Two women cannot produce children. I’m sorry, that’s the way it works.

I think this is a non sequitor. That logical argument would logically conclude that a woman cannot be a Christian (lit., “a little Christ”).

Maybe you think Thomas Aquinas was right in the Summa… and a woman was a misbegotten male?

 

[tbuley]

The sad part is in past times groups with alternate beliefs and practices were labeled in regards to what they were, yet now one can hardly identify many denominations with there respective confessions and beliefs, I don’t know if this is a result of higher criticism or just the modern church growth movements push to be more seeker sensitive.

Matthew 7 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

 

[Harpazo]

It was an established fact that a man could not be seen in public with a woman, apart from his wife. Such was the scandal of Jesus meeting the woman at the well. It was a cultural reality, Andrew. Women could have (and probably did) follow the disciples around. But they did not mix in conversation or work.

Yet, God still chose men to be His Apostles. Don’t tell me, take it up with God.

I think this is a non sequitor. That logical argument would logically conclude that a woman cannot be a Christian (lit., “a little Christ”).

Maybe you think Thomas Aquinas was right in the Summa… and a woman was a misbegotten male?

That argument would conclude that woman can’t serve in the role that is meant for a man. I suppose men should be allowed to have babies, after all, it’s only fair!!!

I’ll have to check St. Aquinas on that, but I’m not a Thomist, if that’s what you’re trying to bait me into.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[Contarini]

How is the fact that Christ chose 12 men to be His Apostles inadequate?

Because there is absolutely no indication that it was intended to be a statement of any kind, except a statement that those particular twelve individuals were the right people to choose at that place and time. There is nothing that you can legitimately deduce from that. We only know that they were men incidentally, by the fact that they all have male names. They were also all Jewish, but no one claims that all priests have to be Jews. If they came from a culture where anyone with red hair was named Rufus, would you argue that because none of them was called Rufus therefore no red-haired person could be a priest? The argument makes no sense in the absence of a whole set of presuppositions which you bring to the Gospels and do not find there.

Then we have the comparison of Christ to the Bride, which is the Church. Christ is the bridegroom. What is a bridegroom? A man. The Church is the Bride. What is a bride? A woman.

Exactly. So by your logic, no man can be a member of the Church.

Christ had commissioned, chosen, handpicked 12 men to be His Apostles, and they would carry on the Faith. They were to follow in the priesthood of Melchizadek. They were to act in Christ’s place. How can a woman do this since she isn’t a man?

The same way that a man can be a member of Christ’s Bride the Church. As C. S. Lewis said, we are all feminine in relation to God. (Yes, I know Lewis didn’t believe in women’s ordination, but I agree with him on this starting point.)

Now, we as Catholics do not believe in an acceptance of homosexuality as yours and other Protestants have.

This is an irrelevant low blow. I’m sure you know that this issue is controversial and far from settled among Episcopalians, and that we are relatively unusual among Protestants, most of whom do not approve of homosexuality.

The parallel with homosexuality is superficially plausible but falls apart if you examine it, for the reason mentioned above. All men are members of Christ’s Bride. Does that make us homosexuals? If it doesn’t, then your argument has no value.

Therefore, it is impossible for a Priest to be a woman, because we cannot have a woman be in Christ’s place.

All Christians are in Christ’s place. At the risk of making a trivial argument, that’s why we are called “Christians.” You are arguing that a woman can be identified with Christ in one way (through baptism) but not in another (through ordination). But the distinction is arbitrary and unconvincing.

She cannot be a bridegroom, and cannot produce offspring, which is discussed in Revelation 12

That doesn’t make any sense. Revelation 12 describes a woman producing a child.

Edwin

 

[bengal_fan]

Yet, God still chose men to be His Apostles. Don’t tell me, take it up with God.

yet God still chose only jews to be His apostles.

you are using poor logic here.

peter (the first pope remember) is the one who really pushed the priesthood of all believers (1pet. 2). women can produce spiritual offspring just as men can.

you are getting too hung up in the physical and forgetting the spiritual nature. the priest represents Christ to the church. the church represents Christ to the world. therefore, everyone should be permitted to the priesthood since we are all capable of representing Christ.

the verses about clinging to false teachings could just as easily be applied to those who ignore the teachings of the priesthood of all believers and the feminine nature of God.

 

[tbuley]

Why is there a lack of looking at scripture as a whole, and respecting Pauls teaching.

 

[Contarini]

Why is there a lack of looking at scripture as a whole, and respecting Pauls teaching.

I think we should definitely be looking at Scripture as a whole–that’s why I don’t accept an overly literal interpretation of the Pauline passages you probably have in mind. The Pope made a statement some months ago to the effect that those passages need to be placed in context and can’t simply be taken at face value (these are my words, so don’t jump on me if what he said is a bit different). There are Catholics who agree with the conservative Protestant interpretation of those passages, but the Catholic case against women’s ordination does not rest on the Pauline passages.

Edwin

 

[bilop]

yet God still chose only jews to be His apostles.

Nope, they were Christians by the time he chose them.

Once a person acknowledges Christ as God, religiously, he ceases to be a Jew and becomes a Christian.

God Bless

 

[Contarini]

Nope, they were Christians by the time he chose them.

Once a person acknowledges Christ as God, religiously, he ceases to be a Jew and becomes a Christian.

God Bless

Every part of that statement is wrong or at least confused, but that’s not the point. The point is that they were ethnically Jews. We know that. So if the fact that they were all of one gender is significant, why is the fact that they were all of one ethnicity not significant?

Edwin

 

[bengal_fan]

Why is there a lack of looking at scripture as a whole,

i would ask the same thing

and respecting Pauls teaching.

it would be respectful to paul’s teachings to understand to whom paul was writing and why. it would also be respectful to his teachings to take them in the context of all of scripture and what is revealed about God.

 

[bengal_fan]

Nope, they were Christians by the time he chose them.

Once a person acknowledges Christ as God, religiously, he ceases to be a Jew and becomes a Christian.

God Bless

i don’t think the earliest Christians would agree with you. you don’t cease to be a jew by becoming Christian. a Christian is a child of abraham… the requirement of being a jew. also, they still went to synagogue and temple… sounds jewish to me.

huh, it’s funny. the bible says that they cease to be greek too. and slave or free. and male or female. keep going with your logic… you’ll get there eventually.

 

[tbuley]

I think we should definitely be looking at Scripture as a whole–that’s why I don’t accept an overly literal interpretation of the Pauline passages you probably have in mind. The Pope made a statement some months ago to the effect that those passages need to be placed in context and can’t simply be taken at face value (these are my words, so don’t jump on me if what he said is a bit different). There are Catholics who agree with the conservative Protestant interpretation of those passages, but the Catholic case against women’s ordination does not rest on the Pauline passages.

Edwin

literal |ˈlitərəl; ˈlitrəl|
adjective
1 taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory

Sure wouldn’t want to take the Word of God that way.
As far as the historical context argument, I don’t buy it Paul says nothing about it applying only based on cultural significance.

 

[Harpazo]

Because there is absolutely no indication that it was intended to be a statement of any kind, except a statement that those particular twelve individuals were the right people to choose at that place and time. There is nothing that you can legitimately deduce from that. We only know that they were men incidentally, by the fact that they all have male names. They were also all Jewish, but no one claims that all priests have to be Jews. If they came from a culture where anyone with red hair was named Rufus, would you argue that because none of them was called Rufus therefore no red-haired person could be a priest? The argument makes no sense in the absence of a whole set of presuppositions which you bring to the Gospels and do not find there.

Exactly. So by your logic, no man can be a member of the Church.

The same way that a man can be a member of Christ’s Bride the Church. As C. S. Lewis said, we are all feminine in relation to God. (Yes, I know Lewis didn’t believe in women’s ordination, but I agree with him on this starting point.)

This is an irrelevant low blow. I’m sure you know that this issue is controversial and far from settled among Episcopalians, and that we are relatively unusual among Protestants, most of whom do not approve of homosexuality.

The parallel with homosexuality is superficially plausible but falls apart if you examine it, for the reason mentioned above. All men are members of Christ’s Bride. Does that make us homosexuals? If it doesn’t, then your argument has no value.

All Christians are in Christ’s place. At the risk of making a trivial argument, that’s why we are called “Christians.” You are arguing that a woman can be identified with Christ in one way (through baptism) but not in another (through ordination). But the distinction is arbitrary and unconvincing.

That doesn’t make any sense. Revelation 12 describes a woman producing a child.

Edwin

Christ being God, could have chosen women if he wanted to. Why are you putting limitations on Him? He’s not bound to any culturalisms. Christ was the most politically incorrect man to walk the Earth, you know this.

It is so clear that he was continuing the line of priesthood from Melchizedek. Women have their roles in the Church, as do men.

Re-read Revelation 12 and you will see what I was talking about. A woman cannot be in the role that Christ had set aside for men. The same way a man cannot be in the role that Christ set aside for women.

Please enlighten me with the issue of homosexuality in your community. As the rest of the Christian world sees it, as well as your hierarchy, your hierarchy accepts it and embraces it.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[tbuley]

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.womenpastors.html

This seems to have some info.