Women Clergy, Any Good Arguments?

I know all of the good arguments AGAINST female clergy, but do any of you have/know of any good arguments in support of it? I go back and forth on this issue and sympathize greatly with both sides.

Justin

 

Virtue Online just published a great article on this. Canon Jeff Williams takes an exhaustive list of pro-WO arguments and answers them http://www.virtueonline.org/women-priests-and-bishops-and-bible-canon-jeff-williams

 

Hmm...Summed up a few ones that come to mind...

-Contrary to the traditional stance, we know today that Mary Magdelene was quite an important individual during Christs ministry and not a fallen woman (No, I'm not going down the Da Vinci Code route). If the male sex is set for the role of priest and preacher, why was Christs greatest miracle (rising from the dead) revealed to a woman?

-More than that, why do the Epistles themselves speak of Deconesses/female presbyters and of women like Phoebe who apparently had a fairly influential leadership role in her church? She wasn't alone, Pricilla, Persis, Mary, Junia and a few others were singled out as leaders or instructors of the faith.

-Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (admittedly this one won't wash with Orthodox or Catholics, they'll just tell you that private interpretation is heretical and sideline it).

-It may be a stretch, but several Classicists believe frescoes like this http://www.jesuswalk.com/kingdom/images/fractio-panis-catacomb-of-st-priscilla-1800x1206x300.jpg from the Roman Catacombs depict a woman breaking bread; i.e: Holy Communion. There's nothing to confirm this is a bona fide woman priest, but it seems a rather odd choice of motif for a Christian tomb otherwise.

-"The Call": I'm not sure how heavily this is emphasized by other Christians but one things Catholics place huge focus on is discerning ones vocation. You don't choose to be a priest, some individuals are called to serve as a religious. Now if this is the case, why do some rather remarkable women appear to get this same call? You could just scribe it down to eccentricity or wanting to be special, but considering that so many women (womenpriests.org, wearechurch.com) are willing to go as far as to receive formal excommunication to take up the role of minister this seems to suggest some women are called to teach.

-Paul: Paul states rather clearly in the epistles that a woman should not teach men, should submit to the males in her life, should cover her hair in church...All things that nobody but fundamentalists, amish and SSPX do these days. Why cherry pick what's ok (women not covering their head) and what isn't?


There's probably a lot more, I'm just tired atm

 

Thanks for these...I agree that these summarize the primary arguments I have heard presented on this topic.

 

Very interesting article. I liked it a lot, although I don't agree with its conclusion.
-Justin

 

Bishop N T Wright's address, from an Anglican and a Biblical scholar's point of view, always impresses me:

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

 

I like N.T. Wright a lot. He was my favorite theologian when I was still NOT a Christian and was trying to introduce myself to the possibility of Christianity. His book with Marcus Borg was particularly helpful. However, I never found his arguments about women's ordination very convincing. I think he takes some pretty big leaps in logic, but that's just my opinion!

 

Fair enough. I quite like the way he tries to get inside the way of life of the 1st Century. The smell of the Palestine sheep, as it were.

 

Two thousand years ago, God made Man came down from Heaven and took His place amongst humanity. He chose, (at least ,) twelve Apostles and some seventy priests . All men! He could have chosen women there were some, quite a lot, mentioned in scripture and there must have been others. For some reason I can't tell they have a different role from men. Now we are told that it wasn't Christ's doing, but the whole scheme of redemption has limped along for two millennia along a slightly perverted path. Now at a cost of a schism in the Body of Christ this error has taken the first steps to rectify the mistakes made so long ago. Not by a straight forward change, but a change that has reduced the already torn garments of Christ in to rags! Are we to think that Christ didn't know? That he didn't understand that women were being sidelined and not only that , but, the Holy Ghost also missed out on the matter?

 

All of the pagan religions had priestesses, but the revealed religion of God to the Jews only allowed men to serve in a priestly capacity and this continued with the Christians. If the early Christians had ordained women priests it wouldn't have scandalized the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, or Celts, but would have been outside the Jewish tradition based on divine revelation. Those women who feel called to the priesthood either have to believe that there is a new revelation, or that the Bishops of Christ's Church for 2000 years were resisting what the Holy Spirit wanted and what Christ had intended.

 

Being picky on my part, but your terminology, highlighted above, is not that usually accepted as that from a friend ! The Anglican Faith is traditionally that of the catholic church, being simply Christ's Revelation, Scripture and interpreted by the bishops and the fathers of the Catholic Church of the
first three centuries. In short we hold the Catholic faith without addition or diminution. (S.Paul.)

 

The Seventy? You know the Seventy were all male?

 

Of course not! But in 80 yrs of study I've never heard of a women amongst them! Have you?

 

It might be helpful to at least consider the cultural milieu. Women didn't get to do anything back then did they? Basically they were property.

 

I'm old fashioned, my mam always said so! I believe in a God that made the earth in six days.It could have been 1000,000 years, who knows?
I believe he came down to earth to redeem mankind as a man and being crucified ,Dead & Buried rose again from the dead after three days. I still believe he could have had women Apostles or Priests had he intended them. I can't believe he just forgot them!

Highchurchman!

 

I like your quote actually from Calvin! best thing the old chap thought of, in my estimation! I defiinitely agree. even though he 's a heretic!

 

I wonder about the cartoonist and his background. I like Calvin because he's not a bad kid, just getting into it all the time. Makes me feel better about myself.

 

The matter of women and ordination in my opinion comes down to this. In the world in which Jesus lived the concept of our equal status had not been canvassed, such as in John 4 the disciples where surprised that Jesus would talk to a woman. In such a circumstance it is hard to see that the ministry of women would have been received - despite this the first resurrection appearance was to a woman - so without women the men may never have heard. The world in which we live is a world in which if we do not recognise and affirm the ministry of women our ministry will not be received. As such it seems imperative for our credibility. If Jesus was live today, my more cautious and evangelical friends would ask 'what would Jesus do', and I believe that the only answer that make any sense would be that he would select an apostolic team that would reflect a gender balance. I don't think it makes sense to look at the witness of scripture without putting it firmly in its social context.

 

The problem with that is it assumes we have something we can teach Jesus. Among other things it commits a heresy of Arianism, in saying that he was just a well-meaning good man and not the living God.