Participating in Church by succession of male clergy

I don't exactly know how 'apostles' were actually defined back when the letters were written, (Romans I think was relatively late, say late 54 to early 59, possibly dictated by Paul during his 3 month stay in Greece, at Corinth, Acts 20:2f), it seems to have been a title awarded to those who had been 'sent' by Christ i.e disciples who had followed and known him during his ministry on earth. It is even possible that that might have included many of the 72, some of whom could have been women, Paul was an exception and his credentials may have been questioned by some in the church because he was 'sent' some time AFTER Christ's death and resurrection. Christ had many female followers some of whom had even substatially funded his ministry on earth. It is not too much of an impossibilty that Junia could have been one of these or perhaps one of the 500 or so who heard the words of the Great Commission directly from Christ. Or even one of the women and children added to the 5,000 or the 4,000 MEN that Christ fed in the wilderness.

Unsurprisingly they would all have been Jewish Christians, not killed during the persecution on Jerusalem but having escaped into the diaspora. Paul claims to have met her in jail along with others and even that she was a relative of his, also implying that while he was opposed to the ministry of Christ, she was in fact perhaps one of his many disciples before his death and resurrection. It is characteristic though that, because of her gender she does not get much of a mention in the rest of the New Testament, which was entirely written by men and composed against a deeply misogynistic prevailing social background, which Christianity became considered by it's opponents, so subversive of. All the more remarkable then that Paul, of all people, should single her out and mention her in such glowing terms.
.

 

It's worth noting that apostolic succession applies also to confirmation. Historically, confirmation has been seen as the "ordination" of the laity to participate in apostleship. Reread our service with that notion in mind.

In one sense, no one today is an apostle, as we are limited to believing without having seen. In another sense, everyone in the church is an apostle, having received, or being destined to receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands as a commission to bear witness to the gospel. Apostolic succession applies to the laity just as much as the clergy.

In this way all women even today, in unity with the historic church, receive a commission of apostleship. Jesus commissioned Mary Magdalene, of even more note than Junia, to be an apostle, particularly to the apostles. Apostleship itself is not episcopacy. The first bishops were apostles, yet not all apostles were bishops.

 

If it is true that in the culture of that era wives had no particular rights over their own bodies, much less any right over the husband's, then the instruction Paul penned in 1 Corinthians is quite revolutionary, isn't it?

1Co 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
1Co 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Perhaps Paul was a radical.

 

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

I do not believe St. Paul the Apostle was a misgynist. Most certainly when compared to his former self as Saul, the Jewish Christian hunter. His teaching on human relationships between the sexes must have raised quite a lot of opposition to him within even the churches that he had himself established. Particularly at Corinth, where we have evidence of it in his letters to them. I think it was not just disputes over circumcision which was generating factions in the church, it was also converts, both Jewish and Pagan, who simply could not overcome the social programming they had been subjected to by the societies they were inevitably embedded in. Paul's teaching was radical for that time and societies. He got it from studying the teaching and praxis of his Master.

I don't believe Paul was hopelessly conflicted over equal 'rights' as redeemed human beings, he was I think consistently supportive of equal rights, that is why I think the passages found at some places in 1 Corinthians are uncharacteristic of Paul but very characteristic of his Corinthian misogynist opponents, the enemies of Chloe's people. To write a 'strong letter' to an entire church on the mere say so of the messengers of a female house church leader, means that Paul held her in considerable respect and trusted her judgment in the way Christianity should be practiced, but clearly wasn't being by some men, who considered themselves, leaders at Corinth.
.

 

This is all a bit above my head here and I won't comment

I'm fed up going with all the ways of the world; my own mistakes have been glaring and brutal, and I truly just want to do what God wants me to do. All I'm trying to figure out is how best I can do that. I guess I started the thread because I am keen to "do it right" though maybe I'm getting too caught up in some parts of the detail and can't see the wood for the trees.

I've looked here and there and have had different answers which is understandable. What seems clear to me is that I God isn't going to punish me for doing my best and would much prefer that than I sit and analyse various options while doing nothing. I am very sympathetic to Orthodoxy but there are some things I find difficult with it and with that in mind, I am planning to be confirmed in the C of E. It has problems but at least I'll be part of the Church as Christ's body on earth, and it seems to me that is the most important thing

 

You have your priorites absolutely correct Barnaby. It matters very little which ministers of which denomination get you baptised. It matters only WHOM you are baptised INTO or in which 'denomination's' faith you are confirmed. It is not THEY that make this happen for you, it is HIM whom you recieve that makes it all happen.
.

 

Thank you, Tiffy for your words of encouragement. I’ve kind of got myself in a muddle with all the theory and that’s one of the many reasons I need to be part of a Christian community. I need a Priest and fellow parishioners who will give me a shove in the right direction when i need to get over myself

 

If you haven't, give St Cyril's Catechetical Lectures a read. Cyril was a 4th century eastern bishop, and this work is a must-read for any and every Christian. I think you will find it very helpful and rewarding, as well.

 

I feel very confident that you know now all you need to know about 'getting it right'. Baptism or Confirmation are in fact an expression of your wish to become a disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ. The denomination does not matter, it is not a denomination or any of its staff that you are joining. You will be joining Jesus Christ himself, just as much today as you would have been when he was ministering on earth in Gallilee. The Holy Spirit is HIS spirit, i.e. 'The Lord', who is with us 'till the end of time. As his disciple, your teaching will come from HIM, just as it did for St. Paul. The words may come through others, but the teaching will come from Him, and your spirit will know his voice.
.

 

Thank you I will look this out.

 

Thank you. An awe inspiring thought.

 

And especially through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

1Ti 2:12-14 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

In a brief video, these two gentlemen make some interesting observations about the passage. For one thing, they said it's pretty clear that Paul is prohibiting something. I thought the most interesting statement came near the end of the (less than 6 minute) discussion, when the question was posed: how could we tell whether this prohibition transcends cultures (i.e., it is for all N.T.-era cultures)? The answer: look at the context. Paul roots the reasoning in (1) the order of creation and (2) the order of the fall; these two reasons are about as far from "culturally dependent" as one can get in the Bible. If his argument had been based on the relative ignorance or poor education of women, we could see a strong cultural dependence in this; but instead it is based upon unchangeable things that God did in His divine wisdom, and it thereby raises the prohibition to a similar level of unchangeability.

The point about "imperial ignorance" was quite interesting, too. (Watch the video if you want to know what was meant by this.)

 

i agree!

 

The presumption overriding all that is said here relies entirely on the fact that it was actually authored by St Paul himself, so has unquestionably apostolic authority.

But do we really believe that, in view of all the other things Paul has written about where our salvation comes from, Paul would have written this: ?

"Woman, (all women) will be saved through bearing children, if she continues (they continue) in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."

Modesty would be whatever was currently considered modest by Roman society at the time or what had been imposed by the church, (such as happens in Plymouth Brethren etc.).

Faith, love and holiness would presumably be also applicable to men in order to guarantee their 'salvation'. I have no argument with that in itself, though St Paul never insisted on it.

But 'through Bearing Children'? - - How does that fit into St Paul's well established concepts, so articulately set out in Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, etc.
Rom. 5:10, Rom. 10:9, Rom. 10:10, (Are we to assume this only applies to MEN?), Rom. 10:13, 1 Cor.15:1-2, Eph. 2:5, Eph. 2:8, 2 Thes. 2:13, even Tit. 3:5.

Could this possibly be written by someone of lower intellect than St. Paul, and if so why should we not consider the possibility that the following sentence is also not written by St. Paul:

"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent". It is certainly written by the same person who writes "Woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." (Implying inadvertantly that childless women are therefore not saved)

That looks to me very much like conditional salvation, through holiness and childbearing. Seems to me to have been written by someone who does not fully understand where, and from whom, salvation for the human race actually comes from, or who it actually applies to.

I therefore don't consider his opinions on the matter of women's silence or their lack of leadership potential, worth any serious consideration either.

I think also that those who DO are as foolish as he was.
.