Female ordination

[TomUK]

As things to be slowly sizzling out here ( :eek: ) i thought i'd interject with a nice and controvercial topic. :)

I'm in the process of jotting down a few ponderings on the issue, which all being well at some point tomorrow i will post here. However, i was wondering what views other Anglicans had on this often devisive issue.

Thanks

[benedictine]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. ---Pax Deo.

[julian the apostate]

is it wrong not to ordain women?
that should be the question

[pmcleanj]

We don't ordain "Females". We ordain Priests.

We don't ordain Priests because they want to be ordained, or because we want them to be ordained, or because they have a right to be ordained. We ordain them -- or, our Bishops do -- because God has called them to be Priests. Our whole discernment process is precisely about listening to God to understand whom God has called.

And our discernment processes, when followed, reveal women who have been called by God to the priesthood. So, either those women are indeed called, or our discernment process is giving false results.

In retrospect, both are true. We can look on the fruits of someone's "priesthood" after many years, and see where a ministry has become an exercise in wielding power, where people have been driven away from God and the Church, where Bishops are flouted and their pastoral role handicapped by the actions of those to whom their flocks are entrusted; where priests have become burned out and discouraged by striving to be what they are not truly called to be. We can look on someone else's priesthood and see pastoral care, compassion, sacred and profound celebration of the Eucharist and valid proclaimations of Reconciliation, outreach and people brought in to the Church and united into God's family. And both women and men can be observed in both situations.

Frankly, our discernment processes seem to be pretty good. We see far more of the latter than of the former.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

We do the gospel no favours by associating it with sexism.

[Yahweh Nissi]

Being in the middle of exams I do not have time to make a detailed reply.

I would just like to say that I am undecided on the issue, but the replies so far have all been definately supportive, concentrating on the 'reason' part of Anglicanism, whilst totally ignoring the primary 'scripture'. Now, interpretation on this issue is difficult and there are points for and against, but you cannot ignore the fact that in several places in the NT there are points which at first sight seem to be strongly against women's ordination. I realise that there are various ways they can be taken, and there are other parts of scripture that seem supportive, hence why I am undecided - and tend towwards being supportive, but you cannot just ignore the bts of scripture you do not like and say 'oh - it was just a cultural thing', or whatever. Scripture needs to be 'rightly divided' - if you think something was just due to the culture or specific circumstance of thoes it was written to you need to show why.

Sorry to be abrupt, but as I said I do not have a lot of time and I think that was something that needed saying.

God bless,
YN.

[pmcleanj]

the replies so far have all been definately supportive, concentrating on the 'reason' part of Anglicanism, whilst totally ignoring the primary 'scripture'.

This is an unfounded assumption. To whit:

Scripture commands us to "let justice roll down like a river, and righteousness like an everlasting stream". Sexism is a basic form of injustice. Opposing it certainly does not "totally ignore scripture".

Scripture shows the example of the disciples establishing a process of discernment, and relying upon it. Scripture also shows us that it is what a person does, not her breasts and womb, that matter to God: "Blessed [is] the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

It's nice you recognized the reason in the arguments given. But just because they didn't flaunt scripture citations doesn't mean they weren't informed by scripture.

[PaladinValer]

The Bible says nothing against women clergy, unless cultural=religion.

[Rilian]

I think there’s an inherent danger in applying secular societal standards to the life of a religious body. Most of the arguments I have heard supporting women’s ordination have usually run along those lines. Regardless of this, what’s unavoidable is that by accepting the ordination women the Anglican Church puts itself in danger of increasing the gulf between itself and the other churches of apostolic lineage.

[pmcleanj]

by accepting the ordination (of) women the Anglican Church puts itself in danger of increasing the gulf between itself and the other churches of apostolic lineage.
The other churches of apostolic lineage that do not themselves ordain women, have made it clear that they do not recognize our Apostolic succession and consider us not to be legitimately part of the Church. We can hardly justify delaying our response to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, in order to placate those who hold us in contempt and show every indication that they will continue to do so regardless.

"Unilateral ecumenism" is every bit as paradoxical as "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox"

[Rilian]

The other churches of apostolic lineage that do not themselves ordain women, have made it clear that they do not recognize our Apostolic succession and consider us not to be legitimately part of the Church. We can hardly justify delaying our response to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, in order to placate those who hold us in contempt and show every indication that they will continue to do so regardless.

I was under the impression there have been ongoing dialogues between the Anglicans and the Catholic, Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Churches. Do you think those were the result of those other churches simply holding Anglicanism in contempt?

"Unilateral ecumenism" is every bit as paradoxical as "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox"

You'll have to flesh that out more, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[pmcleanj]

I was under the impression there have been ongoing dialogues between the Anglicans and the Catholic, Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Churches. Do you think those were the result of those other churches simply holding Anglicanism in contempt?

No. I think the ineffectiveness of those talks, and the disempowerment of the spokesment for those other churches, is a result of those other churches simply holding the Anglican Church in contempt.

You'll have to flesh that out more, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. There is no "right thought" that is different for the East than for the west. But when one group co-opts the term to refer to themselves only, others who are rightly offended by the implication that they are heterodox, add a modifier that denies the implication. In the same way, if the Church is "universal", then it is not "Roman". But when one group co-opts the term to exclude others, those who are excluded add a modifier that denies the exclusion.

For the Anglican church to wait on consensus from those whose very ideonomy expresses their exclusivity would be pointless.

[Rilian]

No. I think the ineffectiveness of those talks, and the disempowerment of the spokesment for those other churches, is a result of those other churches simply holding the Anglican Church in contempt.

Who has been disempowered in those other churches? I’m simply not following you there.

Regarding the Catholic Church, wasn’t the whole impetus of the formation of the Anglican Church to reject the authority of the Pope and to put the King at the head of the Church of England? Isn’t it a little odd to say the Catholic Church is to blame for not accepting the status of the Anglican Church?

Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy. There is no "right thought" that is different for the East than for the west.

Certainly truth is not tied to geography, but by the same token, there certainly aren’t multiple versions of the truth are there?

For the Anglican church to wait on consensus from those whose very ideonomy expresses their exclusivity would be pointless.

Isn’t that in essence what Protestantism is about?

[pmcleanj]

Who has been disempowered in those other churches?

The spokesmen of those other churches, who are engaged in dialogue with the Anglican church, have no power to make that dialogue significant in any meaningful way.

Regarding the Catholic Church, wasn’t the whole impetus of the formation of the Anglican Church to reject the authority of the Pope and to put the King at the head of the Church of England? Isn’t it a little odd to say the Catholic Church is to blame for not accepting the status of the Anglican Church?

Regarding the "Catholic Church", we are Catholic. The Anglican Church is the continuation of the Catholic Church in England (and those who inherit the British spirituality). We reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome because he has no such authority over other Bishops.

As I've said elsewhere, Anglicans are pretty good at recognizing other people's points of view. I don't know anyone who blames the members of that portion of the Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome for not accepting the Anglican Church. It's a position in which they've become entrenched. But neither will we endorse their position. And what I said was that we would be foolish to wait on their acceptance, when they're entrenched in a position of rejection.

Actually, putting the King at the head of the Church of England was probably Henry's own idea; Elizabeth I renounced that notion, except of course for her position as secular head. It certainly wasn't the whole impetus of the English reformation. The impetus of the English reformation was, like the impetus of the reformation in other places, the rejection of error -- of which Papal authority is an example.

Certainly truth is not tied to geography, but by the same token, there certainly aren’t multiple versions of the truth are there?
Actually, there are multiple flawed visions of what the truth is. None of us has the whole story. Those who think they do, stop listening to those around them. And once they have stopped listening, it would be silly to wait for them to understand.[/QUOTE]

Isn’t that in essence what Protestantism is about?
"That"? If you mean that Protestantism is about exclusivity, then no. Protestantism is about voicing opposition to unjust dogma and restrictions on thought. If you mean that Protestantism is about consensus, then yes -- consensus sought through open discourse between people listening to the authority of the Holy Spirit rather than the authority of a rigid and restrictive hierarchy.

[Rilian]

The spokesmen of those other churches, who are engaged in dialogue with the Anglican church, have no power to make that dialogue significant in any meaningful way.
What are you basing that opinion on?

As I've said elsewhere, Anglicans are pretty good at recognizing other people's points of view. I don't know anyone who blames the members of that portion of the Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome for not accepting the Anglican Church. It's a position in which they've become entrenched. But neither will we endorse their position. And what I said was that we would be foolish to wait on their acceptance, when they're entrenched in a position of rejection.
Huh? The Anglican Church rejected the authority of Rome and broke away, but it’s the Catholic Church which is in an entrenched position of rejecting the validity of Anglicanism? That doesn’t make any sense. What about the Catholics in England who never stopped recognizing the authority of Rome, are they just being obdurate?

Actually, putting the King at the head of the Church of England was probably Henry's own idea; Elizabeth I renounced that notion, except of course for her position as secular head. It certainly wasn't the whole impetus of the English reformation. The impetus of the English reformation was, like the impetus of the reformation in other places, the rejection of error -- of which Papal authority is an example.
You said above though you’re Catholic, but you’re aligning your reasoning for not recognizing the Pope (among other things) as being part of the overall Reformation that took place in Europe. How is that not saying the Anglican Church is a Protestant Church?

Actually, there are multiple flawed visions of what the truth is. None of us has the whole story. Those who think they do, stop listening to those around them. And once they have stopped listening, it would be silly to wait for them to understand.
So truth is relative then? How do you judge who has part of it or how much?

"That"? If you mean that Protestantism is about exclusivity, then no. Protestantism is about voicing opposition to unjust dogma and restrictions on thought. If you mean that Protestantism is about consensus, then yes -- consensus sought through open discourse between people listening to the authority of the Holy Spirit rather than the authority of a rigid and restrictive hierarchy.

What I mean is that Protestantism is about doing whatever one wants without regard to unity or authority. You seem to be saying you’re Catholic, while at the same time asserting the whole guiding ethic of Anglicanism is Protestant.

[pmcleanj]

Huh? The Anglican Church rejected the authority of Rome and broke away, but it’s the Catholic Church which is in an entrenched position of rejecting the validity of Anglicanism?
The Anglican church is Catholic. The Catholic Church does not reject the validity of the Anglican Church. Only a portion of the Catholic Church rejects the Anglican Church. In so doing, that portion of the Catholic Church is in error.

You said above though you’re Catholic, but you’re aligning your reasoning for not recognizing the Pope (among other things) as being part of the overall Reformation that took place in Europe. How is that not saying the Anglican Church is a Protestant Church?
I'm not denying that the Anglican Church is protestant. The Anglican church is Catholic and Reformed. The two are not mutually contradictory, despite what you may have heard.


So truth is relative then? No, I did not say that truth is relative. I said that no-one has the whole truth. Discerning the truth is part of the challenge of living as authentic, responsible Catholic Christians. There are no easy, pat answers.

You seem to have a strong opinion of what it means to be Catholic. Note please that in the Anglican forum, it is the Anglican understanding of what it means to be Catholic that prevails. You cannot force your definitions onto the Anglican Church, not even by phrasing them as questions to sidestep the letter of the "no debating" rule while violating its intent.

[Rilian]

The Anglican church is Catholic. The Catholic Church does not reject the validity of the Anglican Church. Only a portion of the Catholic Church rejects the Anglican Church. In so doing, that portion of the Catholic Church is in error.
So the understanding I have now is that Rome is in error in not recognizing the Catholicity of the Anglican Church even though it was the Anglican Church that severed itself from the Catholic Church of Rome.
I'm not denying that the Anglican Church is protestant. The Anglican church is Catholic and Reformed. The two are not mutually contradictory, despite what you may have heard.
I’ve heard that before, and read many of the arguments. I think there is a risk in trying to be two things at once though in that you end up assimilating parts of each and but end up being neither.
No, I did not say that truth is relative. I said that no-one has the whole truth. Discerning the truth is part of the challenge of living as authentic, responsible Catholic Christians. There are no easy, pat answers.
I’m not seeing the difference there, if there is no single reposit of truth then it must exist in some kind of sliding scale of relative truth. This has nothing to do with there being simple, quick or easy answers.

You seem to have a strong opinion of what it means to be Catholic. Note please that in the Anglican forum, it is the Anglican understanding of what it means to be Catholic that prevails. You cannot force your definitions onto the Anglican Church, not even by phrasing them as questions to sidestep the letter of the "no debating" rule while violating its intent.

You made a response to one of my posts which I followed up with some questions in order to get clarification. I apologize if I’m in violation of the debating rule.

I was baptized as an adult in the Episcopal Church, but if it's inappropriate for me to post here I will stop.

[Mr Tom]

I dont see any problem with ordination of female ministers. Why should there be a problem with this? At my old church they have just ordained a new female preacher (About a year or 2 ago now) and although I dont like her worship style much, I would think the same if it was a man doing the same things. At the new Anglican that I go to the minster is male, but we often have females leading worship and doing the sermons. I dont see why there should be a problem. There is no scriptural reason as to why women should not preach to my knowledge. I know that there is a passage in Corinthians I think that says women should not speak in church, but this is a previlage because women were not even allowed into a church before this time. With this verse in mind, it seems that the Early Church (ie Paul lol) was trying to PROMOTE women in church rather than the opposite. I can find the verse if need be...

[Mr Tom]

Woah there, are people trying to say that the Anglican church is Roman Catholic? because that would obviously be wrong! however they/we are CATHOLIC as such

[pmcleanj]

it was the Anglican Church that severed itself from the Catholic Church of Rome.
The Anglican Church did not sever itself from the Catholic Church. The Anglican Church is and continues to be part of the Catholic Church. The portion of the Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome has promulgated dogma which is false. We reject the false dogma, in order to retain true Catholicity.

(Is there a "Catholic Church of Rome"? I believe there is only one Catholic Church.)



I think there is a risk in trying to be two things at once though in that you end up assimilating parts of each and but end up being neither. Catholic and Reformed are not "two things at once". They are two aspects of the same thing: being a Christian.



if there is no single reposit of truth then it must exist in some kind of sliding scale of relative truth This is a false assertion. Truth can exist without one person knowing all of it. Truth is not some quantum probablistic event that collapses to a value only when it is observed.



I was baptized as an adult in the Episcopal Church, but if it's inappropriate for me to post here I will stop. The question is, are you posting here as an Anglican? Every faith group has a few former members who, having turned their back on what they once believed, then present themselves as knowledgeable in everything that's wrong with their old community. If your role here is to get us to see the error of Anglican thought, then yes, that is inappropriate. If your role here is fellowship, or honest inquiry, then please stay, inquire honestly and listen to the answers, and fellowship with us. You are very welcome.

[Rilian]

The Anglican Church did not sever itself from the Catholic Church. The Anglican Church is and continues to be part of the Catholic Church. The portion of the Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome has promulgated dogma which is false. We reject the false dogma, in order to retain true Catholicity.

I’m still not following along with your perception of the English Reformation, but I’ll leave that alone.

Catholic and Reformed are not "two things at once". They are two aspects of the same thing: being a Christian.
To what point in the life of the Christian Church do you trace that though?

This is a false assertion. Truth can exist without one person knowing all of it. Truth is not some quantum probablistic event that collapses to a value only when it is observed.
Truth exists independent of all us. Truth does exist in the word and became present in the Incarnation. There may be elements of truth in many places, but I still accept the fullness of truth has to be found in one place. I would think anyone who joins or stays in a church believes that their church contains the fullness of truth. Were you to begin saying all churches contain truths, potentially in equal measure, then I think you’ve stepped into a relativistic position.

The question is, are you posting here as an Anglican? Every faith group has a few former members who, having turned their back on what they once believed, then present themselves as knowledgeable in everything that's wrong with their old community.
I think I’ve been asking more questions than I’ve been presenting myself as knowing XYZ about Anglicanism. I don’t consider myself an Anglican now, and I'll admit my knowledge about it was never very great. I am sensing it is probably better if I don't post in this forum though, so I will refrain from doing so.

[pmcleanj]

To what point in the life of the Christian Church do you trace that though?
"That" again? Catholic and Reformation principles have always been compatible, throughout the whole life of the Church. The Church has always transcended local and temporal definition and existed as the "whole company of all Christian People", "The Bride of Christ", "The Body of Christ", "The Family of God". And the members of that body have always had the responsibility to examine everything and to reject false worldly authorities.



Truth exists independent of all us. Yes, exactly. Independent of all uf us, independent of the groupings we make of ourselves, independent of our mortal framework, independent of the subsets into which we categorize the Body of Christ. Truth is of God.


I would think anyone who joins or stays in a church believes that their church contains the fullness of truth.
I haven't noticed that tendency among Anglicans. To my mind, such a belief sounds rather arrogant. Truth is contained in Christ: neither the Anglican Church, nor even the whole Catholic Church, is Christ.

[Yahweh Nissi]

This is an unfounded assumption. To whit:

Scripture commands us to "let justice roll down like a river, and righteousness like an everlasting stream". Sexism is a basic form of injustice. Opposing it certainly does not "totally ignore scripture".

Scripture shows the example of the disciples establishing a process of discernment, and relying upon it. Scripture also shows us that it is what a person does, not her breasts and womb, that matter to God: "Blessed [is] the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

It's nice you recognized the reason in the arguments given. But just because they didn't flaunt scripture citations doesn't mean they weren't informed by scripture.

My appologies. I have got anoyed with someone before for seeming to think I should proof-text everything I say, but I have been guilty of that here myself - sincere appologies. I in no way inteded to infere that the views people held were not founded on scripture.

However, a consideration of the scripture that deals with this must occur in a debate on the issue. Sexism is indeed a form of injustice - but that is not to say there should be no differences between men and women. Equality and uniformity are not the same thing. Obviously men and women are different physically, and there are, in general, differences in character to. The three persons of the Trinity are totally equal and united, but have different roles. It would not necessarily be a suprise were God to say there were certain things only one of the sexes aught to do. An assumption that any scripture that seems to be against women's ordination must simply be cultural because God would not do something unjust and sexist like that is incorrect. I am not saying that this kind of thinking has influenced the views of any here, but it certianly exists. I often encounter it in myself - I am happy to take scripture that agrees with what I think at first sight, but try to find all kinds of reasons why scritpure I do not like should not apply to me or the general situation today. As the general view of todays society is that there can be no differences between the sexes - that all must be alowed to do anything and neither sex is inherantly more suited to a particular task then the other - we must beware that this may prejudice our reading of scripture and be very careful to analyise it with an open mind, wanting to discover whatever it is God is wanting to tell us, not what we want to hear.

I want to hear scripture tell me that woman's ordination is OK, and I think that is the case - there are many examples of women being involved in some kind of ministry, and those passages against could well be due to wanting to maintain good order, and not hurting the consiounces of those who would be very unused to women having leadership roles and would be uncomfortable with it. But I am not sure, and ideed I think there are not the scriptural grounds for being sure - just a balance of probability. Most of those against women's ordination are not sexist or biggots - just people trying to do the will of God. Tolerance works both ways - one must be tolerant and respectful of those more 'conservative', 'fundamentalist', etc, as well as those more 'liberal'.

God bless,
YN.

[Polycarp1]

We don't ordain "Females". We ordain Priests.

We don't ordain Priests because they want to be ordained, or because we want them to be ordained, or because they have a right to be ordained. We ordain them -- or, our Bishops do -- because God has called them to be Priests. Our whole discernment process is precisely about listening to God to understand whom God has called.

And our discernment processes, when followed, reveal women who have been called by God to the priesthood. So, either those women are indeed called, or our discernment process is giving false results.

In retrospect, both are true. We can look on the fruits of someone's "priesthood" after many years, and see where a ministry has become an exercise in wielding power, where people have been driven away from God and the Church, where Bishops are flouted and their pastoral role handicapped by the actions of those to whom their flocks are entrusted; where priests have become burned out and discouraged by striving to be what they are not truly called to be. We can look on someone else's priesthood and see pastoral care, compassion, sacred and profound celebration of the Eucharist and valid proclaimations of Reconciliation, outreach and people brought in to the Church and united into God's family. And both women and men can be observed in both situations.

Frankly, our discernment processes seem to be pretty good. We see far more of the latter than of the former.
I thought this was exceptionally well said, and puts the focus where it belongs.

If we conformed totally to whom Christ called as the apostles, we would ordain no one but Jewish men, since He never called a Gentile to the ministry during His own earthly Ministry. But Paul's words that in Christ there is no slave or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female, ought to be the last word on the matter.

To be sure, Tradition held that only men could be ordained -- for many centuries in which women were traditionally not educated to be teachers and leaders. But even within this women exercised leadership roles -- St. Monnica, Elizabeth of Hungary.... Though another man was the "official" Minister General, for 25 years after the death of St. Francis the real leader of the Franciscans was St. Clare.

I have seen men and women whose call to the ordained ministry I would question. And I have seen men and women who definitely were called by God to be priests in His Church. Praise God that we have gotten beyond the necessity of abiding by a tradition that was being used not as a defense of the faith but in an exclusionary way.