Episcopalians elect first female leader [Archive]

View Full Version : Episcopalians elect first female leader

Mysterium_Fidei

18th June 2006, 03:10 PM

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Episcopal Church on Sunday elected Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the first female chief pastor of the denomination and the first female leader in the history of the world Anglican Communion.
The choice of Schori as presiding bishop complicates the already difficult relations between the American denomination and its fellow Anglicans

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060618/ap_on_re_us/episcopalians

-- Thoughts? Any information about Schori?

TomUK

18th June 2006, 03:19 PM

I'm lost for words. Truely.

gtsecc

18th June 2006, 03:21 PM

Well, do we go to Rome or to the EO?

higgs2

18th June 2006, 03:22 PM

I'm surprised.

Mysterium_Fidei

18th June 2006, 03:23 PM

Well, do we go to Rome or to the EO?

I think I'll take the Tiber, gtsecc. Keep in touch! :)

Naomi4Christ

18th June 2006, 03:24 PM

I'm assuming that this lady is already a bishop, therefore she is fair game for the position of primate, assuming her CV is tickety-boo.

Any objections to her would have to have arisen at the point where she was being considered for consecration to bishophood.

Columbus, eh? What a place for a jolly.

Naomi4Christ

18th June 2006, 03:25 PM

It's not her fault that the male bishops were not up to her standards.

higgs2

18th June 2006, 03:32 PM

Whoever would have thought the day would come when we'd have a PB with a hyphenated name? I am stunned.

higgs2

18th June 2006, 03:33 PM

Naomi4Christ

18th June 2006, 03:36 PM

Whoever would have thought the day would come when we'd have a PB with a hyphenated name? I am stunned.

Where's the hyphen? A double-barrelled name with no hyphen is a whole 'nother class :D

higgs2

18th June 2006, 03:37 PM

Where's the hyphen? A double-barrelled name with no hyphen is a whole 'nother class :D
Oh my goodness, I think you're right :eek: no hyphen, is that worse?

Naomi4Christ

18th June 2006, 03:37 PM

btw, tickety boo? :) LOL!

:D

Just the ticket, eh?

AveMaria

18th June 2006, 03:38 PM

TomUK

18th June 2006, 03:41 PM

I don't know much about her, I'll admit, but I'm curious to know. Shall have to 'google' her tonight. :)

I cannot think of a single better thing to say than what my great aunt said, earlier: "Thus speaks the Holy Spirit." :amen:

Well i suppose the Lord does work in mysterious ways, but promiting disunity and contradicting two millenia of practice is surely the most mysterious yet.

Lel

18th June 2006, 03:42 PM

I'm thinking...but silently for now....

higgs2

18th June 2006, 03:42 PM

I don't know much about her, I'll admit, but I'm curious to know. Shall have to 'google' her tonight. :)

I cannot think of a single better thing to say than what my great aunt said, earlier: "Thus speaks the Holy Spirit." :amen:
Absolutely. Your aunt sounds wise.

I think this was a complete surprise to everyone.

From what I've heard, she was trained as a scientist, but I don't now what kind. She has been very involved with the Millenium Development Goals, which I think is incredibly important to our church right now.

Hmm.

The HOD has approved the election.

Naomi4Christ

18th June 2006, 03:46 PM

Surely I'm not the only one thinking :thumbsup: am I?

Wait, probably I am....

I haven't really formed an opinion on female ordination, and I am a great believer in that women are the ones who run the church.

But if the powers that be had decided that a particular individual should be a bishop, then it is only right that there should be only one class of bishop and all bishops should be eligible for further advancement. If she weren't suitable for going ''all the way'', then she shouldn't have been ordained in the first place.

In light of all of this, I am very pleased that there is a level playing field, and no glass ceiling.

Naomi4Christ

18th June 2006, 03:49 PM

From what I've heard, she was trained as a scientist, but I don't now what kind.

A scientist - even better!

/says this science teacher to mostly muslims, who believes in getting the best out of her girls and giving them real choices for the future.

karen freeinchristman

18th June 2006, 03:52 PM

-- Thoughts?

:clap: How much do I win, how much do I win?

(I picked her on that poll we had a few months back in STR. There was a prize, right?)

SeenAndUnseen

18th June 2006, 04:12 PM

What will be the reaction from Bishops Williams and Wright, and others in the worldwide communion? Does this send ECUSA into schism or not?

gtsecc

18th June 2006, 04:13 PM

http://www.billmon.org/archives/titanic.jpg

karen freeinchristman

18th June 2006, 04:34 PM

MOD HAT ON

Since ECUSA's convention is a contentious issue among Anglicans, non-Anglicans should avoid weighing in on either side, neither with debate of their own, nor with support for any contender.

Regardless of your position on the issues facing this convention, ECUSA identifies itself as a Christian group and you may not state or imply that they are non-Christian. You may not in any way flame ECUSA or the members of this board who belong to ECUSA.

MOD HAT OFF

gtsecc

18th June 2006, 04:49 PM

We have made God in our own image!

higgs2

18th June 2006, 04:51 PM

We have made God in our own image!
No, God made us in God's image.

CSMR

18th June 2006, 05:27 PM

gtsecc

18th June 2006, 05:30 PM

She voted for the election of the actively homosexual bishop. So I would expect that under her the ECUSA will continue to be a symbol of apostasy in many important and public respects.
Yep - at least we got a clear voice from ECUSA.

RadixLecti

18th June 2006, 06:08 PM

Well, do we go to Rome or to the EO?

They'd be lucky to have you, but there's also the TAC, ICCEC, and the AMIA.

Mysterium_Fidei

18th June 2006, 06:24 PM

All Anglicans are equal, but some Anglicans are more equal than others.

Torah613

18th June 2006, 06:26 PM

May the Holy Spirit give her the courage and tenacity it takes to lead, particularly among so many naysayers. Being a Republican President is certainly more enviable position right now giving the uncharitable remarks from members of this board.

BTW--given this move, I'm making it official. I was pretty well convinced before, but with the new development I don't believe I can continue being EO when the ECUSA is clearly not afraid to listen to the Holy Spirit. Pam, when do I get my faith Icon changed?

Joe Zollars

john23237

18th June 2006, 07:28 PM

Thanks be to God. Perhaps, just perhaps, we in North America do have a backbone. That judgement, however, will have to wait for future votes on the other issues, but this is a good beginning. Imagine, a church in the Anglican communion which actually listens to the Holy Spirit and has the courage to act there upon. This surely must be grounds for a schism. While some may wish to run off to Rome, the East, or whereever in dread fear of a female in a miter (what IS this world coming to?), the rest of us can give thanks for the person of a single woman who has, by the grace of God, been given the task of leading us through these difficult times. For those who will, pray as I do now, that she be given the strength, courage, and wisdom to face the job ahead. May God bless her richly.

Aymn27

18th June 2006, 10:11 PM

They'd be lucky to have you, but there's also the TAC, ICCEC, and the AMIA.
I just love all three of those...gosh..perhaps we will all be brothers in the new province!! Praise God! (Well probably not the TAC as they look Romeward - but it'd be great nonetheless)..

Simon_Templar

19th June 2006, 12:45 AM

Lets not start packing the bags for Rome or Byzantium just yet :)

IF the ECUSA is cordially disascociated from the AC, There are a fair number of bishops and such that will remain in communion with Canterbury. I have no doubt that there will be an official representative body of the AC in the US.

The election certainly seems like something of a watershed.. but there is alot of opera left yet before the fat lady sings.

Texas Lynn

19th June 2006, 02:03 AM

SirTimothy

19th June 2006, 02:26 AM

No problems from this member of a church that only ordains women to the diaconate... I'm rather pleased actually. I predicted a female ECUSA PB within 5 years and a female ABY/ABC in the next 20

Timothy

Lel

19th June 2006, 02:36 AM

I'll follow your direction, but does anybody know if there's a thread on this where non-Episcopals can participate? Thanks.

There is a thread where it might be discussed in CP&E: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=24781156#post24781156

I don't know if that'll stay open to all Christians, but it's there for now.

TomUK

19th June 2006, 04:47 AM

I've just read that she's only been a Priest for 12 years?!?!?!?!

She surely doesn't have the experience to be the PB? But then again perhaps the decision was nothing to do experience anyway...

Finella

19th June 2006, 06:02 AM

This is the ENS report, with some biographical information on +Jefferts Schori.

She sounds like an amazing person. I am excited for the ECUSA. And sorry that people who know virtually nothing of her are mentally packing their spiritual bags simply because she is a woman. What a shame.

26th Presiding Bishop elected by House of Bishops

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Katharine Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, has been elected June 18 by the House of Bishops as the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Her election was confirmed by the House of Deputies, as is required by church canons.

Katharine Jefferts Schori, 51, was consecrated the ninth Bishop of Nevada on February 24, 2001. She serves a diocese of some 6,000 members in 35 congregations. Jefferts Schori is the first woman selected as a nominee for Presiding Bishop.

Her service to the wider church includes current membership on the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion; the Board of Trustees, Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California; the CREDO Advisory Board; the House of Bishops peer coaching program; the General Board of Examining Chaplains; the Board for Church Deployment; the House of Bishops' Pastoral Development, Racism, and Planning Committees; the Court for Review of a Trial of a Bishop; the Episcopal visitor team for the Community of the Holy Spirit; and the Bishops of Small Dioceses group.

From 2001-2003 she was a member of the 20/20 Strategy Group, and served as secretary of the House of Bishops Ministry Committee at the 2003 General Convention.

She is the author of "When Conflict and Hope Abound," Vestry Papers (March-April 2005); "Building Bridges/Widening Circles" in Preaching Through Holy Days and Holidays: Sermons that Work XI, Roger Alling and David J. Schlafer, eds. Morehouse (2003); "Multicultural Issues in Preaching" in Preaching Through the Year of Matthew: Sermons That Work X, Roger Alling and David J. Schlafer, eds. Morehouse (2001); and "The Nag" in Preaching Through the Year of Luke: Sermons That Work IX, Roger Alling and David J. Schlafer, eds. Morehouse (2000). Her Maundy Thursday sermon was included in What Makes This Day Different? by David Schlafer, Cowley (1998).

She is an active, instrument-rated pilot with more than 500 hours logged.

At the time of her election as bishop of Nevada, Jefferts Schori was assistant rector at the Episcopal Church of the Good Samaritan in Corvallis, Oregon, where she also served as pastoral associate, dean of the Good Samaritan School of Theology, and priest-in-charge, El Buen Samaritano, Corvallis. She was ordained deacon and priest in 1994. Prior to ordination, she was a visiting assistant professor at Oregon State University's Department of Religious Studies, a visiting scientist at Oregon State University's Department of Oceanography, and an oceanographer with the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle.

She received a B.S. in biology from Stanford University, 1974; an M.S. in oceanography from Oregon State University, 1977; a Ph.D. from Oregon State University, 1983; an M.Div. from Church Divinity School of the Pacific, 1994; and a D.D. from Church Divinity School of the Pacific, 2001.

Jefferts Schori was born March 26, 1954, in Pensacola, Florida. She has been married to Richard Miles Schori, a retired theoretical mathematician (topologist), since 1979. They have one child, Katharine Johanna, 24, who is a second lieutenant and pilot in the US Air Force.

Presiding Bishop's statement on the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori

Sunday, June 18, 2006

[Episcopal News Service] Statement from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold on the election of the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop-elect:

"I am profoundly grateful to the House of Bishops for the prayerful and careful way in which they set about to discern who would best serve the church as its 26th Presiding Bishop and carry forward Christ's ministry of reconciliation.

"The decision today is the fruit of the witness and ministry of women bishops, priests, and deacons in the life of our church.

"Bishop Jefferts Schori is a person gifted in mind, heart and spirit, and I am fully confident that the Church and the Communion will be blessed by her ministry in the years ahead."

The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church

kiwimac

19th June 2006, 07:03 AM

Well done the ECUSA!

This Anglican is proud to stand beside you!

Kiwimac

DeoJuvante

19th June 2006, 08:13 AM

Thanks be to god. :crossrc:

To all those people that speak as though US Episcopalians are fundamentally at odds with all the other Anglican groups, what do you say to the Anglican Church in Canada, New Zealand, all but the southeast corner of Australia, etc., who by and large sympathise with the American Church?

Aymn27

19th June 2006, 08:29 AM

karen freeinchristman

19th June 2006, 08:40 AM

See ya!
Oh, that's a very good Christian attitude! :doh:

DeoJuvante

19th June 2006, 08:47 AM

See ya!

Are you going? ;)

gtsecc

19th June 2006, 08:57 AM

Oh, that's a very good Christian attitude! :doh:
the Christian attitude is that we don't do things which hurt the church.
ECUSA has done something which hurts the church dispite people inside and out begging them not to do it.

SirTimothy

19th June 2006, 08:58 AM

And people inside and out who are begging them to set the example to the rest of the worldwide church that truly in Christ: "There is no male or female."

gtsecc

19th June 2006, 09:00 AM

To Anglicans on Episcopal Ordination of Women
"Where and on What Side Does the Anglican Communion Stand?"

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 16, 2006 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org/)).- Here is the address Cardinal William Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, gave to the Church of England bishops' meeting June 5, on the question of ordaining women as bishops.

* * *

I wish to thank the archbishop of Canterbury for the invitation to speak to you as the Church of England House of Bishops on a question which concerns you and therefore also concerns the Catholic Church and me personally as president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

I have already had occasion to say to Archbishop Rowan Williams: Our friends' problems are our problems too. In this spirit of ecumenical solidarity I would like to offer you some reflections on the question of the ordination of women to episcopal office. Naturally these reflections are made from a Catholic perspective; I am of course convinced that the decision which you are facing involves us together with you, insofar as it will be of fundamental significance for relations between us in the future.

I.

Today is not the first time we have discussed the subject of women's ordination. Therefore I would like to begin with a brief overview of our previous discussions. The introduction of the ordination of women to the priesthood by some provinces of the Anglican Communion, including the Church of England, was preceded by a lively correspondence between Rome and Canterbury.

Pope Paul VI addressed a letter on this issue to Archbishop Donald Coggan on Nov. 30, 1975, and again on March 23, 1976, and this was followed by a letter from Pope John Paul II to Archbishop Robert Runcie on Dec. 20, 1984. My predecessor in office, Cardinal Jan Willebrands, responded to Archbishop Runcie's reply on Dec. 18, 1985.

On the question of the ordination of women to episcopal office, Pope John Paul II wrote a very earnest letter to Archbishop Robert Runcie of Dec. 8, 1988. The Pope spoke openly of "new obstacles in the way of reconciliation between Catholics and Anglicans" and of the danger of "block[ing] the path to the mutual recognition of ministries."

He made reference to the ecumenical and ecclesiological dimensions of the question.[1] In the joint declarations with Archbishop Robert Runcie on Oct. 2, 1989, and with Archbishop George Carey on Dec. 5, 1996, he addressed this question once more.[2]

I should also mention the declarations by ARCIC[3], and the detailed response to the Rochester Report, "Women Bishops in the Church of England?" by the Department of Dialogue and Unity of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales on Oct. 3, 2005.

The official argumentation of the Catholic Church on the ordination of women is found in the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "On the Admission of Women to the Priesthood," "Inter Insigniores" (1977), and in the apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis," "On reserving priestly ordination to men alone" (1994).

There the Pontiff stated that the Catholic Church was convinced that it had no authority for such ordinations. It therefore considers such ordinations invalid (CJC can 1024).[4]

This position has often been misconstrued as misogyny and denial of the equal dignity of women. But in the apostolic letter "Mulieris Dignitatem" on "The Dignity and Vocation of Women" (1988) and in his "Letter to Women" (1995) Pope John Paul made it clear that the position of the Catholic Church in no way arose from a denial of the equal dignity of men and women or a lack of esteem for women, but is based solely on fidelity to apostolic testimony as it has been handed down in the Church throughout the centuries.

The Catholic Church distinguishes between the equal value and equal dignity of men and women on the one hand and on the other hand the differentiation of the two sexes, which have a complementary relationship with one another.

Similar statements are found in the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "On the collaboration of men and women in the church and in the world" (2004). Benedict XVI reiterated and made concrete this view in his address to the clergy of Rome on March 2, 2006.[5]

I know that this question involves many complex hermeneutical, anthropological and theological problems which I cannot enter into in this context. The position of the Catholic Church can only be understood and evaluated if one recognizes that the argumentation has a biblical basis, but that the Church does not read the Bible as an isolated historical document.

Rather it understands the Bible in the light of the whole 2,000-year tradition of all the ancient churches, the Catholic Church as well as the ancient Eastern and Orthodox churches.

Doubtless, historically conditioned views at times had some influence on this tradition. There are some arguments belonging to the past which we do not reiterate today. We should of course be aware that our contemporary views are also historically contingent in many respects, and that presumably only future centuries will be able to measure just how greatly we have been conditioned by our times; they will presumably chuckle over many things which we take for granted today, just as we do over many ideas of the ancient or medieval world.

On the other hand, it can be academically demonstrated that the rejection of the ordination of women within the tradition was not predicated on contemporary concepts alone but in essence on theological arguments. Therefore it should not be assumed that the Catholic Church will one day revise its current position. The Catholic Church is convinced that she has no authority to do so.

The rather longish but interesting article can be found at the bottom of THIS PAGE. (http://www.zenit.org/english)

kiwimac

19th June 2006, 09:21 AM

Gtsecc,

I could care less what the Catholic Church says. The Bible says that there is neither "male nor female" in Christ. Thus we see the leading of the HS in the election to office of the new PB of the ECUSA.

Kiwimac

gtsecc

19th June 2006, 09:24 AM

The Holy Spirit leads us when there is one voice on an issue in the Church.
Clearly the one voice in the Church is don't do it.

DeoJuvante

19th June 2006, 09:31 AM

The Holy Spirit leads us when there is one voice on an issue in the Church.
Clearly the one voice in the Church is don't do it.
How come the 'one voice' was outvoted if was there was unanimity?

cenimo

19th June 2006, 09:32 AM

karen freeinchristman

19th June 2006, 09:38 AM

For all those jumping on "there is no male or female"

The Bible also says this:

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
1 Timothy 2:11-14
Well, if we are going to go this way, the Bible also says this:
1 Peter 2:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=67&chapter=2&verse=18&version=31&context=verse)
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh

karen freeinchristman

19th June 2006, 09:39 AM

The Bible says lots of things that we do not consider to be applicable to us today. Many of those things are regarded as applicable to a certain culture and a certain church for a certain reason.

gtsecc

19th June 2006, 09:41 AM

The Bible is not exactly clear on this issue on its own.
Read in the Context of Church Tradition - the issue is very clear.

cenimo

19th June 2006, 09:48 AM

karen freechristman
The Bible says lots of things that we do not consider to be applicable to us today.

It says what it says, not what anyone might want it to say.

It's utterly ridiculous to quote one thing " neither male nor female" in this case, and then to toss out something else as not applicable.

It also says this:

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. Ephesians 5:11

Which ECUSA seems to have ignored for a very long time.

CSMR

19th June 2006, 09:55 AM

I have nothing against choosing a woman myself, though the church should respect the consciences of it's members. A woman of faith will be able to tackle the problems facing the church. But rather than persuade others by electing a wise woman the church has stuck two fingers up at them by electing a woman with no morals, just like the previous man in fact.

Finella

19th June 2006, 09:55 AM

Y'know, I've been here a couple years. I've seen these same issues spin around and around. The same Bible verses thrown back and forth from all sides. I've participated in some of it.

I can't imagine what is going on at GC right now. If this forum is any kind of reflection of the reaction of people to this news, then I am sure insults and worse are being flung back and forth among the delegates and participants there.

I think a diverse community is the best kind. But when members of a community insist on denegrating other members' beliefs and actions, no matter how well-discerned and contemplated, then the community cannot stand.

Maybe it is time for a split. But I hope people will take some time to cool off before they say or do things to each other that will be too hurtful to mend in the short-term.

karen freeinchristman

19th June 2006, 09:56 AM

karen freechristman

It says what it says, not what anyone might want it to say.

It's utterly ridiculous to quote one thing " neither male nor female" in this case, and then to toss out something else as not applicable.

It also says this, concerning a certain Priscilla (Prisca), who (according to the Bible) taught in their church:

Acts 18:24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=18&version=31#fen-NIV-27570bfen-NIV-27570b)] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
27When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=16&version=31#fen-NIV-28780afen-NIV-28780a)] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. 20All the brothers here send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Hmmm... I wonder why Paul let Priscilla speak in church? Or teach?

Finella

19th June 2006, 09:57 AM

NO morals? Do you know this woman personally? How dare you make such an accusation.

Now I've got to leave this place before I say or do anything regrettable. Taking my own advice.

gtsecc

19th June 2006, 10:01 AM

Hmmm... I wonder why Paul let Priscilla speak in church? Or teach?
I have said repreatedly I have no trouble with this.
Meathodist, Presbyterians, etc.. those who do not have a sacradotal Priest SHOULD have female leaders.

All we who are oposed to the female priesthood are saying is that we believe God has ask us to only ordain Men.

cenimo

19th June 2006, 10:01 AM

Finella

I think a diverse community is the best kind. But when members of a community insist on denegrating other members' beliefs and actions, no matter how well-discerned and contemplated, then the community cannot stand.

And there, your words bolded above, is the ECUSA in relation to the AC.

karen freeinchristman

19th June 2006, 10:04 AM

I have said repreatedly I have no trouble with this.
Meathodist, Presbyterians, etc.. those who do not have a sacradotal Priest SHOULD have female leaders.

All we who are oposed to the female priesthood are saying is that we believe God has ask us to only ordain Men.

Yes, but another member has posted the Bible verse that women should not speak in church, so that was the post I was addressing.

Finella

19th June 2006, 10:06 AM

Finella

And there, your words bolded above, is the ECUSA in relation to the AC.

You'll note I didn't say which side was which when I wrote that.

And now I really am going, for my temper's sake.

Texas Lynn

19th June 2006, 10:19 AM

There is a thread where it might be discussed in CP&E: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=24781156#post24781156

I don't know if that'll stay open to all Christians, but it's there for now.

Thanks so much. I've posted on there.

BTW, Non-Christians can post in that area as well.

ContraMundum

19th June 2006, 10:28 AM

Why is it that when confronted with "alternatives" to the mainstream Canterbury communion people think of Rome or Constantinople instead of the continuing church, which has the same if not better ecclesiastical standing with those other communions?

Perhaps the Anglican alternative was never really in their hearts? Is this what the 19thC Anglicans meant by "Romanisers"? They never embraced Anglicanism as a form they could live by- always looking over the fence at those heterodox communions.

I can't understand why anyone would swim the Tiber (only to die when they get to Rome) or swim the Aegean (only to be pushed back out when they get to Constantinople) when a valid, viable and thriving continuing Anglican Church is around.

Think about it- do people want to continue the old paths or do they want to change religions????

Aymn27

19th June 2006, 10:42 AM

It also says this, concerning a certain Priscilla (Prisca), who (according to the Bible) taught in their church:

Acts 18:24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=18&version=31#fen-NIV-27570bfen-NIV-27570b)] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
27When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
1 Corinthians 16:19 The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=16&version=31#fen-NIV-28780afen-NIV-28780a)] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. 20All the brothers here send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Hmmm... I wonder why Paul let Priscilla speak in church? Or teach?
I'm confused..where does it say she taught/spoke in church? Am i missing something?

PaladinValer

19th June 2006, 10:48 AM

I'm confused..where does it say she taught/spoke in church? Am i missing something?

To quote from the Scripture originally given to you:

"When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately."

Note the bold. They means both. And means both parts are together.

Both invited him to their home and explained. Not just the him; the her as well.

That's the point of Karen's quotation of Scripture. She did an excellent job. I'll have to add it to my list of proof texts for women clergy as it is one I've obviously missed.

karen freeinchristman

19th June 2006, 10:50 AM

I'm confused..where does it say she taught/spoke in church? Am i missing something?

It says that their church was in their home (as I guess most of them were in those days). It says it was their church. Not just Aquila's church. It says that both of them taught Apollos. Says a lot to me.

karen freeinchristman

19th June 2006, 10:53 AM

Anyway, there are other examples of women speaking (or being allowed to speak) in church (St. Paul accepted women as prophets, did he not?). That was my argument - that although one verse says women should be silent, many others allow for them to speak.
This was in response to the post that quoted that verse.

I am not using these verses to argue about women priests, I am just using it to refute the previous argument given by cenimo.

PaladinValer

19th June 2006, 10:55 AM

ContraMundum

19th June 2006, 10:58 AM

Priscilla was not a bishop over a congregation and didn't preach above the authority of her believing husband. All Christians have the right to teach outside of a formal congregation to those of little or no understanding. It's called "evangelism", which includes discipling new born believers.

This is Bible studies 101, folks. You should know this already. This is not a proof text for the ordination of women, but an excellent proof text for females being involved in evangelism and opening their homes to church meetings.

Inside Edge

19th June 2006, 10:58 AM

I'm not so sure this will lead to splits in the Church or Communion. By and large, I've found that these boards are not at all representative of the greater population.

I bet a great many parishioners don't even know what goes on at GC, and I bet most won't care past the week once they are informed.

Inside Edge

19th June 2006, 11:00 AM

This is Bible studies 101, folks. You should know this already. This is not a proof text for the ordination of women, but an excellent proof text for females being involved in evangelism and opening their homes to church meetings.
Sounds more like "Splitting Hairs to Support One's Point of View 101."

ContraMundum

19th June 2006, 11:06 AM

Its also one verse that is questioned by a majority of scholars to whether it is authentically part of the original, Karen.

If you delete the part about silent women (an idea that contradicts other ideas of his in those books that are not contested), the two ends fit perfectly in the Greek.

Rubbish! Who told you that?

For once, I beg you, call whoever told you that and ask them to substantiate it. I have the Greek right here at my fingertips and it looks just fine to me.

higgs2

19th June 2006, 11:08 AM

ContraMundum

19th June 2006, 11:09 AM

Sounds more like "Splitting Hairs to Support One's Point of View 101."

Want to debate the text IE?

Seriously. I will gladly accept the onus of proving my position and defend it if just one of you people would accept the onus for yours and show me where the traditional, long accepted, understanding of that text is wrong.

karen freeinchristman

19th June 2006, 11:12 AM

This is not a proof text for the ordination of women.

I know that. That's why I said I wasn't posting it for that reason.

TomUK

19th June 2006, 11:13 AM

Its also one verse that is questioned by a majority of scholars to whether it is authentically part of the original, Karen.

If you delete the part about silent women (an idea that contradicts other ideas of his in those books that are not contested), the two ends fit perfectly in the Greek.

:scratch: I think an argument's pretty much on its last legs when you start talking about deleting parts of scripture.

PaladinValer

19th June 2006, 11:14 AM

Their home was their church. If they taught in the home, it was in the church.

Aymn27

19th June 2006, 11:14 AM

To quote from the Scripture originally given to you:

"When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately."

Note the bold. They means both. And means both parts are together.

Both invited him to their home and explained. Not just the him; the her as well.

That's the point of Karen's quotation of Scripture. She did an excellent job. I'll have to add it to my list of proof texts for women clergy as it is one I've obviously missed.
:prayer:

PaladinValer

19th June 2006, 11:19 AM

:scratch: I think an argument's pretty much on its last legs when you start talking about deleting parts of scripture.

What of 1 John 5:7? We all know of the additions made in that particular passage. Or perhaps the story of the woman about to be stoned to death in the Gospel according to St. John?

Those parts have been deleted or at least put in brackets or footnotes by all modern translations. The reason is, critical analysis has proven them not to be authentic.

Why cannot that part in St. Paul's letter be not authentic too? Especially when it seems to contradict other ideas of his, and when it is deleted, the ends match. The last two parts are more circumstantial, but when many scholars doubt its authenticity due to linguistics, that's the same compelling evidence that evicted the two passages I mentioned above.

pmcleanj

19th June 2006, 11:20 AM

This is an official moderator post.

This thread will be closed for staff review. Please note the following comments:

Since ECUSA's convention is a contentious issue among Anglicans, non-Anglicans should avoid weighing in on either side, neither with debate of their own, nor with support for any contender. Such posts are violations of Christian Forums rule 1.4: they will be deleted and may lead to the poster being warned.

Whether you are Anglican or not, the Christian Forums rules against flaming, baiting and defamation; and all other Christian Forums rules; continue to be in force in threads relating to ECUSA's General Convention as in all other threads. The rule against flaming "groups of members" applies equally to disaffected or disappointed members of ECUSA who might be inclined to flame ECUSA; and to those who are satisfied with any outcomes who might be inclined to flame subgroups or lobbies within ECUSA.

In particular please note that, regardless of your position on the issues facing this convention, ECUSA identifies itself as a Christian group and you may not state or imply that they are non-Christian.

Flaming, baiting, defamation, or any other violations of Christian Forums rules will result in General Convention threads being closed until all violations have been removed; and may lead to the posters' being warned..

Regards,
Pamela Mclean
Senior Moderator, Scripture,Tradition,Reason-Anglican/Old Catholic

Please be sure you have read this (http://www.christianforums.com/t2946763-please-read-this-before-posting-here.html)before continuing to post here