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

[manualman]

I have a few thoughts for the discussion/pondering:

1. Advocates of women’s ordination make much hay about references to ‘deaconesses’ in historical documents. They curiously seem to frequently forget to mention that such references never claim that these women had received the sacrament of Holy Orders. THAT is the crux of discussion and it is omitted from the argument??? The catholic position is not that women are unfit to LEAD. Women have held leadership in the Church for centuries. The real positon is that the Sacrement of Holy Orders is reserved to men. Not all leaders are priests. Not by a long shot.
2. We live in a new Manichean age. Our culture since the 1960’s has adopted the attitude that there is no difference between men and women other than biology. One recently ‘ordained’ woman described us as having different “wrappers.” To me, it seems dangerously coincidental that we are experiencing profound sexual confusion on a variety of matters at the same time that some are vociferously demanding women’s ordination!

As catholics, we do not believe in the Manichean vision of separate body and spirit. We believe in a body and soul unity. Seems to me that differences in our physical bodies just might indicate differences that go deeper. By no means does this mean that one must be judged ‘better’ than the other.

I suggest that it would be extremely imprudent to change what appears to be Tradition based on our own confidence in our philsophical excellence during a notoriously confused age!

 

[bengal_fan]

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.

i know you are speaking with sarcasm, but you are actually correct. you don’t just want to take it that way. there is a ton of allegory and metaphor in the bible so you want to be able to read it 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.

maybe that’s because paul didn’t see the need to say it. he didn’t write the same things to each community so obviously he had different things to say to different communities.

 

[bengal_fan]

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.

Christ could have chosen gentiles if he wanted to. he could have chosen slaves if he wanted to. he didn’t. that does NOT mean they are excluded from the priesthood. it is you who are limiting Him by saying that He is only what He appeared to be on earth and nothing more. we cannot understand Him, we get but a glimpse of God through His life. just because He didn’t do something doesn’t mean it is wrong. Christ didn’t use electricity, but it is not wrong to use electricity.

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

yep, He was continuing that line (of course that line only contained melchizedek up until Jesus). the purpose was to open the priesthood to all (read 2Peter). and i would say we each have specific roles within the church… not just men and women. if you are going to break down roles based upon biology, you have to have specific roles for different races and mental abilities, etc.

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.

that is not at all what rev. 12 is saying. if you read the bible as a whole, you will see that all of us are called to be the bride of Christ (yes, even biological men are placed in this feminine role). we are also all called to be Christ’s representatives here on earth (yes, even biological women are placed in this masculine role).

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

has nothing to do with this issue.

 

[bengal_fan]

As catholics, we do not believe in the Manichean vision of separate body and spirit. We believe in a body and soul unity. Seems to me that differences in our physical bodies just might indicate differences that go deeper. By no means does this mean that one must be judged ‘better’ than the other.

I suggest that it would be extremely imprudent to change what appears to be Tradition based on our own confidence in our philsophical excellence during a notoriously confused age!

i understand what you are saying. i am not suggesting a separation of body and spirit but a rejoicing in the fact that our bodies and spirits have been redeemed and are no longer subject to the prejudice of this world. Christ has opened the door to all spiritual roles regardless of our bodies, but He rejoices that the differences in the bodies can now be represented in all facets of the church.

every age is a confusing age… not just this one. in the very earliest church they debated as to whether philosophy could even be used within Christianity. some said yes (jerome, justin, augustine, etc.) and some said no (tertullian’s famous quote “what has athens to do with jerusalem?”). it has always been tradition to question those who have gone before us to see if what they said has held up. when origen first wrote about universal salvation, he was considered orthodox. when rufinus translated his writings less than 200 years later, he was a heretic. every age is confusing.

 

[Contarini]

Christ being God, could have chosen women if he wanted to.

Of course.

Why are you putting limitations on Him?

Why are you guessing at His motives, when you have absolutely no evidence to support your guesswork?

He’s not bound to any culturalisms.

No doubt Jesus could have eaten sushi, worn bellbottoms, and singlehandedly invented the Internet and modern medicine had He wanted to. But He didn’t. Does that mean that all these things are evil? (Well, maybe bellbottoms and the Internet. . . .)

Christ was the most politically incorrect man to walk the Earth, you know this.

No, I don’t. I don’t think Jesus walked around trying to be “politically incorrect,” which is a very juvenile thing to do.

It is so clear that he was continuing the line of priesthood from Melchizedek.

Continuing? Do you have a list of “Melchizedek priests” from the time of Abraham to the time of Jesus? And how is this relevant to the question of gender.

Women have their roles in the Church, as do men.

I didn’t think the priesthood was just a “role” for Catholics. We are talking ontology here–that’s why the stakes are so high. You still haven’t explained how women can be saved if they do not possess the human nature assumed by Christ.

Your remark isn’t an argument anyway, just an assertion with no content.

Re-read Revelation 12 and you will see what I was talking about.

I don’t accept reading assignments to suit the convenience of people who can’t be bothered actually to make an exegetical argument.

A woman cannot be in the role that Christ had set aside for men.

Begging the question. The point at issue is whether the priesthood was set aside for men by Christ. You have produced no evidence to this effect.

The same way a man cannot be in the role that Christ set aside for women.

What role *in the Church *corresponding to the priesthood would that be?

Please enlighten me with the issue of homosexuality in your community.

The diocese of New Hampshire elected a divorced man in a gay relationship as bishop, and this election was confirmed by General Convention. The Episcopal Church has been asked by the Anglican Communion as a whole to refrain from further steps in this direction, and so far they have complied. The matter remains in dispute.

As the rest of the Christian world sees it, as well as your hierarchy, your hierarchy accepts it and embraces it.

Not all members of the Christian world are as ill-informed as you appear to be. The hierarchy of the Episcopal Church is not monolithic–different bishops have different views on this subject. The bishop of Northern Indiana, where I currently live, is opposed to non-celibate homosexuality.

Furthermore, the Episcopal Church is not governed solely by bishops–General Convention has a “lower house” made up of priests and laity. And of course we are part of the Anglican Communion, which has no organs that can exercise direct authority over us but which can exert and has exerted considerable pressure on us not to fray the bonds of communion by our actions.

Edwin

 

[OHCA_XP]

Throwing out the word “bigot” is in itself a display of shortsightedness and ignorance. To place personal equality above the Truth of God is irresponsible. Unfortunately more and more people are concerned about our constitutional freedoms over the freedom we’ve received from God.

So what if women can’t consecrate the host. Not everybody is given the same roles. People should get over their egos.

“Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” (Lk 12:48)

Not everybody will be blessed in the same way with the same amount. That doesn’t mean that God isn’t fair. We can’t even begin to fathom God’s infinite wisdom.

Someone might have the charism to heal, to preach, etc, but if somebody else wasn’t given it, does that mean they should have been?

Or what if somebody was blessed but didn’t want the blessing? In this case, I’m referring to abortion. Does this mean we have the God-given authority to trash the blessing of life?

 

[O.S.Luke]

The question was “Why do Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc ordain women?” It was answered. Now, was the point of the post to ask the question, or to argue? I think it was to argue:

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.

The highlighted text, at least in my read, shows that this was a bit of a set up. In my opinion, this is questionable apologetics. You are better than this, Andrew.

O+

 

[Contarini]

Throwing out the word “bigot” is in itself a display of shortsightedness and ignorance. To place personal equality above the Truth of God is irresponsible. Unfortunately more and more people are concerned about our constitutional freedoms over the freedom we’ve received from God.

So what if women can’t consecrate the host. Not everybody is given the same roles. People should get over their egos.

This is a silly and insulting argument, although it is partially justified by the fact that pro-women’s-ordination people often accuse the Catholic Church of being motivated simply by a male lust for power. Such arguments deserve each other. The question is not about power or ego. It’s about human nature. Is there a single shared human nature, or are there two completely separate human natures, only one of which (the male nature) was assumed by Christ? Orthodox, traditional Christianity teaches the former. The traditional reasons for not ordaining women are no longer defended by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. In order to avoid abandoning the traditional practice (of not ordaining women), Catholics have invented a new reason which is deeply problematic from the point of view of traditional Christian orthodoxy. It throws both Christology and soteriology into question. That is the problem here.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

Sorry Edwin, but I think you are constructing a straw man. You are beginning your argument with the premise that for the catholic position to be correct, there must be two separate human natures: male and female. Since we know there is only one human nature, you think your point is proven.

But the underlying premise seems faulty to me. How many natures does God have? Three persons, One God. God the son has both a human nature and a Divine nature (if I remember my distant theology instruction properly. 8th grade was a LONG time ago!).

So man is created in God’s image and then God divided the original man into man and woman. So clearly both man and woman are created in God’s image. And yet Jesus NEVER referred to God as our Mother. Why? Because God the Father’s relationship to us is one of a Father to his children. Everything that is genuinely feminine is also present within God (since He is the SOURCE of our image). And yet he clearly revealed that he wants us to know him as Father. Does God then have TWO natures?

Being created in His image, is it not likely that humans, though of one nature, express that nature differently depending on their sex?

Seems to me that your argument either proves too much or too little.

 

[Contarini]

Sorry Edwin, but I think you are constructing a straw man. You are beginning your argument with the premise that for the catholic position to be correct, there must be two separate human natures: male and female.

That is the argument that some Catholics seem to be making, yes.

But the underlying premise seems faulty to me. How many natures does God have?

One.

Three persons, One God.

Exactly. One divine nature.

God the son has both a human nature and a Divine nature (if I remember my distant theology instruction properly. 8th grade was a LONG time ago!).

Yes.

So man is created in God’s image and then God divided the original man into man and woman. So clearly both man and woman are created in God’s image. And yet Jesus NEVER referred to God as our Mother. Why? Because God the Father’s relationship to us is one of a Father to his children. Everything that is genuinely feminine is also present within God (since He is the SOURCE of our image). And yet he clearly revealed that he wants us to know him as Father. Does God then have TWO natures?

I don’t see any logical connection here. God is not literally our Father. We know that. Indeed, I think the Church needs to have further dialogue on the question of how we might refer to the divine nature in general–is it really more appropriate to think of the divine nature in masculine than in feminine terms? I’m honestly not sure about this. What I do know is that the Persons of the Trinity are revealed to us as Father, Son, and Spirit. Spirit is not necessarily masculine–indeed, Scott Hahn has suggested that we can legitimately use maternal language to speak of the Spirit. Father and Son are masculine terms, although God is not literally male.

Where all this leaves you I’m not sure. Note that I said in an earlier post that I agreed with C. S. Lewis’s statement that we are all feminine in relation to God. I agree that symbolically the male-female relationship represents the relationship between God and human beings. But no one applies this literally to questions of ordination. At least, Catholics don’t. I’ve known some fundamentalist Protestant groups for whom “priesthood of all believers” seems to have meant “priesthood of all male believers,” and arguably they are taking this imagery literally. But Catholics have no problem with a man being a layperson, let alone a member of the Church more broadly (priests are, after all, members of the Church). That means that men can be part of Christ’s bride–back to the fact that we are *all *feminine in relation to God. If I as a man can be part of Christ’s Bride, there seems to be no reason why a woman can’t act in persona Christi. The one is just as gender-bending as the other.

Being created in His image, is it not likely that humans, though of one nature, express that nature differently depending on their sex?

That is not the point at issue. It leaves open the question of why that different expression would preclude a woman being a priest.

Edwin

 

[OHCA_XP]

This is a silly and insulting argument, although it is partially justified by the fact that pro-women’s-ordination people often accuse the Catholic Church of being motivated simply by a male lust for power. Such arguments deserve each other. The question is not about power or ego. It’s about human nature. Is there a single shared human nature, or are there two completely separate human natures, only one of which (the male nature) was assumed by Christ? Orthodox, traditional Christianity teaches the former. The traditional reasons for not ordaining women are no longer defended by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. In order to avoid abandoning the traditional practice (of not ordaining women), Catholics have invented a new reason which is deeply problematic from the point of view of traditional Christian orthodoxy. It throws both Christology and soteriology into question. That is the problem here.

Edwin

Silly? Interesting, considering that the Early Church fathers didn’t think it was silly for women not to be ordained. To say that the Catholic Church “invented” any reason displays ignorance and prejudice.

But I suppose civil rights does trump God’s will. Afterall, homosexuality can be lumped into your all encompassing “human nature.” That’s probably why more and more churches allow them to marry.

But again, I’ll say we all have our duties, and not everybody can be everything. To think otherwise would be silly.

 

[Swan]

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.

 

[manualman]

…

That is not the point at issue. It leaves open the question of why that different expression would preclude a woman being a priest.

Edwin

Hmm, I thought that WAS the point at issue. Perhaps I misunderstand. Let me try to paraphrase your reasoning and tell me if I comprehend you correctly.

Man and woman both have the same nature. Since there are NOT two different human natures, it is inappropriate to restrict Holy Orders to men alone.

To which I respond, So What? The fact that we have the same nature does not mean that those natures are not expressed differently between the sexes. Therefore just as God had a Divine purpose in instructing us to refer to him as Father, so also he may have a purpose in entrusting the sacrament of Holy Orders to those who express human nature as males. Have I PROVED male-restricted priesthood? Nope. But IMO, reasonable doubt is reason to stick with the unanimous example of Tradition.

 

[Harpazo]

Hmm, I thought that WAS the point at issue. Perhaps I misunderstand. Let me try to paraphrase your reasoning and tell me if I comprehend you correctly.

Man and woman both have the same nature. Since there are NOT two different human natures, it is inappropriate to restrict Holy Orders to men alone.

To which I respond, So What? The fact that we have the same nature does not mean that those natures are not expressed differently between the sexes. Therefore just as God had a Divine purpose in instructing us to refer to him as Father, so also he may have a purpose in entrusting the sacrament of Holy Orders to those who express human nature as males. Have I PROVED male-restricted priesthood? Nope. But IMO, reasonable doubt is reason to stick with the unanimous example of Tradition.

Hear, Hear! I agree wholeheartedly. He gave us the example so we do it.

I suppose since Christ didn’t baptize cats and guinea pigs, it doesn’t mean we can’t?!

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[Contarini]

Silly? Interesting, considering that the Early Church fathers didn’t think it was silly for women not to be ordained.

Why is it so difficult for people in Internet discussion to respond to posts in context? What I was calling silly was the argument that proponents of women’s ordination are motivated by ego. A male-only priesthood was not silly in the light of the assumptions about gender held by ancient people. However, it’s clear from the writings of both JPII and BXVI that they do not hold such assumptions. The problem is that they consider themselves bound to maintain the traditional practice even though they have abandoned the assumptions on which it rested. I think this is a good example of how problematic the Catholic understanding of tradition can be. It leaves you in an almost impossible position.

To say that the Catholic Church “invented” any reason displays ignorance and prejudice.

The view of human nature being put forward by defenders of the Catholic Church’s position (i.e., that men and women have different but equal natures) is unprecedented in Christian history. Don’t blame me for simply observing the historical reality.

But I suppose civil rights does trump God’s will.

This is not an issue of civil rights. Why are you trying these distracting tactics? Why not address the theological issue? Can it be that you actually can’t come up with a good argument to defend your position?

Afterall, homosexuality can be lumped into your all encompassing “human nature.”

I’m not sure what this means. Obviously homosexuals are human beings (I hope you are not denying this). Homosexuality, however, is not a part of human nature and is in fact contrary to human nature. Again, you are desperately trying to distract the argument away from the issues I have raised. Why? (If you are claiming that homosexuals are incapable of being validly ordained–something that I know some members of your Communion have suggested–then we do indeed have a serious disagreement, and this is another example of an innovative and unorthodox view of human nature being invented to maintain a supposedly “conservative” position.)

That’s probably why more and more churches allow them to marry.

I would not say that this is the case. Very few denominations celebrate gay marriages. The Unitarians do, if you count them as a church, and I believe the UCC does. I’d imagine that the MCC does as well. I’m not sure if any others (at least in the U.S.) do. Certainly the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such thing. Even the blessing of same-sex covenant relationships–which is not considered by its advocates to be the same thing as marriage–is not officially authorized by the Episcopal Church as a whole.

But again, I’ll say we all have our duties, and not everybody can be everything. To think otherwise would be silly.

Of course. But again, this is irrelevant to the issues I have raised.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hmm, I thought that WAS the point at issue. Perhaps I misunderstand.

You do.

Man and woman both have the same nature. Since there are NOT two different human natures, it is inappropriate to restrict Holy Orders to men alone.

That’s not quite the whole of my argument. I am arguing against a specific defense of the male-only priesthood which argues that women cannot be ordained because Christ took on a specifically male nature in the Incarnation. There are other possible defenses of the male-only priesthood. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, argues that as a less perfect biological expression of humanity women lack the “ruling faculty” of reason (or at least do not possess it in the same degree that men do), and thus should not be ordained or exercise any other position of authority within the Church or society. If you are prepared to defend that view, then my argument becomes irrelevant. If you have some other view of human nature that grounds your position, then feel free to expound it. I’m responding to the position that seems to be implicit in recent Vatican statements, and that is explicitly defended by many Catholic apologists (Peter Kreeft, for instance, who has put forward the extremely innovative view that our souls “have sex”–i.e., are “gendered,” though he doesn’t like to use the grammatical term “gender”).

To which I respond, So What? The fact that we have the same nature does not mean that those natures are not expressed differently between the sexes.

No, it doesn’t. But it does mean that the Incarnation and Christ’s maleness cannot be used to support the male-only priesthood. Christ’s maleness is specific to the Incarnation of the Son as a specific human being, just as other physical characteristics are. There is no reason to think that it has any greater relevance to the ability of women to act in persona Christi than other biological characteristics do.

Therefore just as God had a Divine purpose in instructing us to refer to him as Father, so also he may have a purpose in entrusting the sacrament of Holy Orders to those who express human nature as males. Have I PROVED male-restricted priesthood? Nope. But IMO, reasonable doubt is reason to stick with the unanimous example of Tradition.

I would agree with this if it were not clearly the case that Christians have traditionally held views about gender that are no longer held by the authorities of the Roman Communion. In other words, judging by the position of your own hierarchy (which I always respect even when I disagree with it), these traditional views about female inferiority are no longer tenable. If that is the case, then we have to ask whether the traditional practice did not rest on those views. This is the most obvious conclusion, and I see no reason not to draw it.

Edwin

 

[O.S.Luke]

Hang in there, Edwin. I appreciate the way you are trying to keep things focused.

O+

 

[manualman]

I would agree with this if it were not clearly the case that Christians have traditionally held views about gender that are no longer held by the authorities of the Roman Communion. In other words, judging by the position of your own hierarchy (which I always respect even when I disagree with it), these traditional views about female inferiority are no longer tenable. If that is the case, then we have to ask whether the traditional practice did not rest on those views. This is the most obvious conclusion, and I see no reason not to draw it.

Edwin

I would suggest thinking rather hard about this one. Catholicism does not claim that her REASONING is infallible or divinely revealed, just the conclusions. Sometimes right conclusions can be reached even though the initial reasoning was faulty. Abortion was always condemned by the Church as morally wrong. There was a lot of wrangling about whether it was murder in the days when the idea of the man ‘planting his seed’ was the understanding of reproduction. Under that understanding, nobody thought that semen contained human life, but this raised the question about when the seed became a human. During the whole fracas, there was no wavering on the fact that abortion was wrong, we just didn’t have the knowledge to know WHY it was wrong at the time. Revelation preceded the science. (And of course there are AMAZING examples of that in the OT Mosaic laws given WAY before human reason comprehended contagion and hygiene)

I think the same thing applies here. The fact that there was once a common view that woman was inferior to man does NOT automatically mean that that view was the REASON for the reservation of Holy Orders to men. Again, no claim has ever been made that catholic reasoning is infallible, just the defined doctrines.

The narrow road lies in between the ditches of total confidence in human reason and unreflecting reliance on infallible doctrine.

Personally, I think that humanity will eventually come out of this androgenous fad we are now in and learn more about the inherent differences in the sexes in a way that is not a power struggle. Things will likely become more clear when that happens.

 

[Harpazo]

Perhaps Contarini, or O.S. Luke can tell me why we don’t baptize animals? Christ never said we couldn’t, right? Why don’t we ordain robots, too? It wasn’t ever an issue then, but it could be now, right?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps Contarini, or O.S. Luke can tell me why we don’t baptize animals? Christ never said we couldn’t, right? Why don’t we ordain robots, too? It wasn’t ever an issue then, but it could be now, right?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

It’s easy to say why we don’t baptize animals. They don’t have rational souls. Their nature was not assumed by Christ at the Incarnation. If you are claiming that women similarly do not have rational souls and do not possess the human nature Christ assumed, then you are a heretic of a particularly repulsive sort and are certainly not an orthodox Catholic!

If we discovered other species of rational animals, or if we came to believe that robots had been infused with rational souls (we can argue over whether either of these things is possible), then it might well be right to baptize (and ordain) them. C. S. Lewis addressed this question very well in his essay “Religion and Rocketry.”

But since we agree that women have rational souls and should be baptized, your example is irrelevant. (Or rather, it supports my position magnificently.) The question is: how can the Catholic Church claim that any baptized Christian is invalid matter for ordination?

Edwin