Not at the expense of scripture. Scripture defines "contemporary Christian understanding," not the other way around. We, you and I, agree that not everything in modernity is bad or wrong, but on any occasion where modernity directly contradicts explicit statements or precedents in scripture then the error is modernity's, not scripture's. In the case of "priest," there may be liberty to organize and structure Christians and their leadership in ways not known in the NT era but that is not a license to do anything.When we are discussing the meaning of "priest" in contemporary Christian usage, surely evidence of contemporary Christian understanding is not irrelevant?
Then don't change the subject.All cases, no.
We are not. We're discussing whether or not women can be priests. Nothing more. To define the term "priest" in any way other than the precedents set in scripture is to assert what is de facto extra-biblical. To then use that extra-biblical definition to answer a question creates several fallacies, beginning with special pleading.But again, if we are discussing what the contemporary role of a Christian priest is...
No. It is not. That's part of the problem and the reasons why women have been excluded from positions in which they might otherwise serve God and do so well....then surely the practice and understanding of communities which have priests is relevant?
Then do not make that argument. It is fallacious.It was not exactly equivalent, I agree...
Irrelevant. If the role has changed in order to prohibit women, or changed in any manner that excludes women contrary to the standards and precedents set in the NT then all those changes are wrong. Change, in and of itself is not wrong, but the types of change may well be so....the world has changed, the church has changed...
According to who? Is it the Catholics, the Anglicans, or the Lutherans who get to serve as arbiters?...and the way this role is expressed has changed.
Maybe in your denomination, but not in mine or in many others.But modern day Christian priests are functioning in the NT office of elder, even though that office has developed somewhat over the last twenty centuries.
Your avatar looks female, and your profile says you're female. If that is the case, then whatever institution/organization it is in which you participate as a priest then your existence answers the question asked. Why is there a need to redefine the term(s)? I was raised in the Episcopal Church and came to Christ, after many years away, in a conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist, charismatic Episcopal congregation. In the Episcopal churches here in America there are the ministers (priests or reverends) and the vestry (administrative elders). Wiki puts it this way: "The title 'Elder' is usually given to those Anglicans ministers who are not vicars but hold a learned role within or beyond a congregation, such as a Reader who assists a priest or a Pioneer Minister who seeks to engage with those who are outside the traditional Anglican Communion structures." That is just an example. The salient point is that the Anglican Church does not get to define terms for all the rest of Christendom. The Presbyterian Church, alternatively calls both the priest/minister/reverend and those elected to administrate the local congregation "Elders," but it makes a distinction between the "teaching elder" (the priest/minister/reverend) and the presbyters, who make up the "ruling elders", (sometimes called, "committee elders," or "administrative elders)." The priest does not rule the congregation and the elders do not teach (unless denominationally qualified to do so). Why should we not have that example define the matter and require everyone in Christendom to follow that example?
Can you see the problem?
Can you see how far afield of the op you've gotten?
Last edited:
Upvote
0