How to defend the belief only men should be ordained?

Hey lads

I attend TEC because I have no ACNA parishes near me, and you know how they are (liberal/SJW). I can defend my orthodox Anglican views on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc. But I'm not really sure how to defend against women's ordination as a deaconess, or priest, or even worse, a bishop(ess?)? How would I go about defending this belief? I have a lovely deaconess at my parish who is really kind and I don't want to hurt her feelings and the priest at my parish has a wife that is also a priest.... To top it off the deaconess offered to be my God- mother if I get baptized there.

Any thoughts/ replies would be appreciated

 

Hello Anglican04. There are numerous resources making the argument against WO, but as has been seen, even in the ACNA, those who accept it cannot be swayed. Like the debate between monergists and synergists, I find such debates useless, and have wasted so much precious time and energy arguing with others over these issues. For those seeking to know the arguments of each side, the internet provides almost limitless resources. My advice to you would be to hold to your orthodox beliefs and avoid entering into debate with those holding opposing views; it will drain you spiritually and accomplish nothing.

 

Thanks Peteprint!

 

Anglican04.

Holy Scripture gives us the qualifications for deacon, priest and bishop. It says you must be male. Found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

I agree with Peteprint's advice to you. You are in the TEC and the TEC on many subjects abandoned scripture long ago. It is not worth the
drain to engage them. They will not listen.

The ACNA is now fighting WO, and it is not going well for the orthodox. We are starting to see the beginnings of a pro-homosexual movement within
certain parts of the ACNA and in certain dioceses. A not so recent discussion on homosexuals and adopting children came up. The pro-WO's came
down on allowing homosexuals to adopt children. When pushed some would not condemn the act of homosexuality as it is condemned in scripture in both the "Old" and "New" Testaments.

Even my jurisdiction, The REC, on the priest face book chat page has disturbing conversations between priests. Priests who are concerned about our continued association with the ACNA, are starting to be "taken to the wood shed" by priest in leadership positions. As usually happens, with a health
body comes into contact with a virus, the odds of getting sick increase the longer you are exposed. Same with an orthodox Anglican jurisdiction like the REC. The longer we are associated with the ACNA, the greater the odds of being infected with heresy.

Blessings.

Fr. Mark

 

Ughh man! I don't see why anyone would join the ACNA to support WO when there's the Episcopal Church... Orthodox Anglicanism seems to be dying in North America. By the time I'm 18 I wonder where things will be. Thank you Father.

 

Agreed with these parts of what you said. In addition to the legion of arguments from Scripture, the male only OT priesthood; the male-only Apostles chosen by Christ, the male-only historic Church, and the male-only Anglican tradition, you have arguments from natural law -- priesthood is fatherhood, and trying to ordain women into the role of a spiritual father is a supremely destructive act which subverts God's creation. So far I'm saying nothing that others on this site haven't said.

But on this part of your post I nearly spit my coffee out. I didn't expect this depressing and utterly unwarranted out-of-left-field post. Are one-off personal anecdotes now a valid basis for some depressing personal theory? I think not. There is absolutely no evidence of ACNA adopting or promoting or even inclining toward any of the things you list. You really should know better than to instill doubt and subvert faith in young Anglicans, by promoting unwarranted personal anecdotes. The Taskforce on the Family is making no plans to include gay marriage as something blessed by God. In fact the ACNA has split off from TEC on the basis of this rejection of sodomy, so an opposition to the gay agenda lies at the very core of all the bishops and theologians currently in power in the ACNA.

I'm going to go into a rant on this paragraph as well.

You've phrased it in a deceptive way, as if some REC priests 'noticed' the promotion of gay agenda in the ACNA (which doesn't exist, but let's play along), and for this resistance to the gay agenda were taken to the woodshed by their superiors. That is deceptively worded and could not be further from the truth. I know that you are ordained and deception was the furthest from your intent, so my hypothesis is that some deep-rooted grump and grouch has gotten the better of you. It is sinful to despair in this manner, and therefore I would suggest repentance and contrition; priests need to repent as much as anybody else. It is not spiritually well to go around depressing people with hearsay anecdotes and unwarranted rumors.

So let's talk about the REC. Since I'm in the REC and travel quite a bit, I've managed to gather a good deal of info on the REC and it's interfacings with the wider ACNA. There is a small Anglo-Catholic contingent within the REC who have always felt more at home in the Continuum than within the ACNA structure that is being formed. ACNA is a large tent and it is coalescing around the gospel and an intent to chart a passionately Anglican course in a hostile anti-Christian culture. They are united around this. Their goal is mission, revitalization, energy, growth. With it comes the looser attention to precise details in some corners (no question about that). But to an Anglo-Catholic in the Continuum, those details, those Traditions of the Church (and often the Roman church) are themselves the Gospel, rather than being accessories to the Gospel. These people will die for the right color of tunic, the right seasonal liturgical colors, and when they forget themselves, for the opinions of Benedict XVI on topic X Y or Z. These people live in an unreal fantasy world. This explains why the Continuum is dying out. In the next generation there will likely be no one left in the Continuing, non-ACNA churches.

All this doesn't deter the aforementioned wing of the REC. They would rather fight over the right seasonal colors, than fight for mission and evangelizing their neighbors. There are almost no REC efforts in planting churches. And I say this as a faithful son of the REC.

So long story short, if you associate with those kinds of people Fr Mark, you will know that due to their aesthetic allegiances to the Continuum (despite all its failures), they will take every opportunity to backbite the ACNA and look for any signs of it being unwell.

On this, the REC leadership is resolutely opposed. The course charted by Presiding Bishops Grote and Sutton is resolutely to embrace the ACNA and help it from within. You may have heard of a grumbling Anglo Catholic priest complaining about this, and he was likely (and rightly) suppressed by his bishop for this schismatic mindset.

 

1 Tim.3:1-13. It also says he must be married, sober and have well behaved children. This seems to have been completely ignored by the Roman Catholic church and I suppose Anglican bishops don't necessarily have a wife and well behaved children, do they?

Titus 1:1-16. This also adds in addition to him having a wife and well behaved children, that he should not be wealthy, greedy or a drunk. As for "Being a lover of good men" perhaps we should not go there in view of recent scandals.

Surely we can't just pick and choose which qualifications suit our particular preferences. All or nothing, surely. Or do we stop women receiving communion too, because the NT does not speak anywhere of them receiving such?

 

I am unsure how to interpret this statement. Are you advocating for priestesses?

 

Since, "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." Gal.3:28.

And "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." 1 Pet.2:4-6.

This applies to all believers, male and female, man or woman. A Celebrant can be either male or female, (in my opinion). It is not their gender or physical attributes which qualifies them, it is their calling and election by God and their good standing with the congregation.

And priestesses are pagan. Female Priests in the CofE are Priests, not priestesses, there being neither male nor female 'in Christ Jesus' and if the Priest is not 'in Christ Jesus' I do not, for the life of me, know who should be more so, except perhaps the Bishop.

As Luther said "Here I stand". I accept that others disagree. That is what makes the study and understanding of scripture interesting.

 

This would seem to contradict both the Scripture, Tradition and the Anglican formularies but it is clear that these are no longer common ground.

On an etymological note: the word priest is an Old English adaption of the Greek word presbyter which means old man. It did not ever mean a woman which is why the English suffix -ess had to be added in English academia in the 17th century to discuss the phenomena of women who performed a priestly role (always in a non-Christian context). Priestess is etymologically correct for a woman who is a claimant to the priesthood. I understand how for political reasons this is unseemly and wished to be avoided but that does not mean it is correct.

 

Nobody is a 'claimant to the priesthood', regardless of gender. It is God who ordains. "all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

It is not for men to be the 'gate keepers' to the priesthood of believers. The Priesthood is merely an extension of the laity, that everything should be conducted in good order. Men have no qualifications, in Christ Jesus, superior to women in respect of Celebrating the Eucharist.

If you believe they have, according to scripture, perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

I have always been against women's ordination for a number of reasons, most (if not all) of which have already been mentioned by others. One thing I have noticed, and I would appreciate it if someone could show me to be wrong, is that whenever I stumble across an article about women clergy it seems they are always ultra-modernist and revisionist. I see blogs by male priests who are Godly men, orthodox in their theology, etc., but all the women priests I read about seem to be social-justice warriors, feminists, and they are supporting abortion on demand, non-gendered bibles and prayer books, etc. Are there any orthodox women clergy out there? I would love to know if they exist.

 

By claimant I mean one who claims to be a priest. I was simply trying to use a less strong phrase like "a woman who pretends or says she is a priest."

You are right. It is not for men to be gate keepers to the priesthood of believers, but that is explicitly what we are not discussing. We are instead discussing the presbytery. The presbyter-hood is, as it is an office of the Church which does not belong to any of us, is God's. It is for God to govern His Church, which is revealed in Scripture and explained in Tradition. The simplicity of the texts explaining who is and is not qualified for the priesthood (that is the presbytery) or the episcopacy, combined with the universal consensus on how these texts were interpreted by the early Christians leaves very little room on this question.

 

The priesthood of all believers is different from the ordained ministry. It refers to the prohibition to read Scripture, which was only read by the Ordained Priests in the Old Testament, and was thrown open to the laity by Ezra and Nehemiah after the Babylonian captivity. This ability for us to read God's sacred word directly, with our own eyes, is what the New Testament and the Old refer to as the priesthood of all believers. The OT obviously still retained the ordained ministry as a separate institution, and so do we.

 

As others have stated, the debate over WO's ordination is intractable at this point. As a female myself, I oppose WO to holy orders. I think it is easy to see how WO has gone hand in glove with the literal crippling of the Anglican churches in the West. Why? Because the argument for WO is not based on Biblical truth and values, but on leftist secular ideology. Particularly, the notion that everything and everyone has to be "equal" no matter what the cost. That is not a biblical value. Christ is our head- we are not equal to him and must listen to his and the Apostle's guidance.

I've tried talking to a few people at TEC who support WO and found that there is often little faith justification, but more of a feminist motivation to get rid "of the boy's club". Because I am a woman they often voice their true opinions thinking that I agree with them. I don't think that you will be able to sway those set in their ways, but being honest about your views and having well researched arguments to share is important. If you are part of a community where you can't be honest in your spiritual life, that is a bad sign.

The last time I went to an Episcopal church was when a female was acting as a priest. She live streamed the service through her phone! I felt so aghast by the whole show, I couldn't go up for communion. I didn't find it valid and felt it was a mockery of the Lord's Body and Blood. I listened to my gut and have stayed away since then. I have encountered female's serving as a priest in the CoE and the ACNA, and though they were thoughtful and respectful, I felt the same conflict as I don't think they are validly ordained. Being totally confident in the holy orders of the priest and valid nature of the Eucharist is important. I feel that when that becomes corrupted, the entire church body suffers.

 

Being 'called' and being 'chosen' are factually entirely at God's disposal, not man or woman's desire. The church can only accept as honest and sincere the testimony of a postulate, until evidence proves otherwise. This obviously applies to both male and female, the church can only trust that they have been 'called' to that profession of faith, and after due consideration the church is entitled by God to 'choose' to accept a persons testimony, and train them to perform their function, on behalf of the congregation.

They are our servants, not our masters. Jesus performed the exclusive duty of a woman when he washed his disciples feet. This was his example of how we must serve one another, in the Kingdom of God. He is our example of priesthood, not in his 'maleness' but in his humility and Humanity.

I have experienced arrogant and politically correct women in the episcopate, and I have experienced arrogant and bigoted men in the priesthood, ravenous wolves amid the flock. They exist because the priesthood are human beings, subject to all the usual faults of mankind, and the church can ony enquire of others, not read the mind of the individual, when ordaining to the priesthood. May God protect us from them whatever their gender.

I have also much more experience of Godly men and women who are clearly devoted to Christ Jesus, and his 'little flock'.

I speak as I find. So far there has not been a single instance of a female priest being convicted and defrocked for sexual abuse of children. At least on that mostly male human failing, it has to be a 'Plus' for women in Holy Orders,

One could wish it were the same for some men of the clergy. Knowing human nature, though I guess it is only a matter of time before a woman also 'blots her name out of the Lamb's book of life', as some males probably have, from some male deacons right up to some male bishops.

 

Correction!

[del]I have experienced arrogant and politically correct women in the episcopate, and I have experienced arrogant and bigoted men in the priesthood, ravenous wolves amid the flock.[/del]

I have experienced arrogant and politically campaigning, 'chip on shoulder', women in both the laity and the priesthood. Likewise I have experienced arrogant, misogynistic and bigoted men in the laity and the priesthood, ravenous wolves amid the flock, tares amid the wheat.

I have also much more experience of Godly men and women who are clearly devoted to Christ Jesus, and his 'little flock'.

 

Dictionary Definition g0314. ἀναγινώσκω anaginōskō; from 303 and 1097; to know again, i.e. (by extension) to read: — read.
AV (33) - read 33; to distinguish between, to recognise, to know accurately, to acknowledge to read

"Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near". Rev.1:3.

Anyone can read aloud and receive blessing for doing so, even an unbeliever. But only those who have had their robes washed in the blood of the Lamb, can be a Holy Priesthood.

"And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people". Ex.24:6-7.

Moses read The Book of The Covenant to the people, key document of the faith, and Moses was never a Priest. His brother Aaron was though. His brother didn't read it though, Moses did.

Deut.31:9-13 Contains nothing suggesting that the priesthood had exclusive rights of reading scripture. On the contrary, all the elders of all the tribes were commanded to read the law to the people, for as long as the people lived in the land.

"There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them." Josh.8:35.

Joshua was not a Levite, therefore not a priest, therefore not ordained. He was probably of the tribe of Ephraim.

It would seem, from actual study of the Old Testament, that your notion that, "the prohibition to read Scripture, which was only read by the Ordained Priests in the Old Testament", is merely a pious fiction.

 

It is gladdening to see you say that holy orders is entirely an issue of what God wants but then odd to see (right after that) that 'the church' must accept whoever wants to be a priest/priestess, which flies in the face of how God has revealed himself and how his Church ought to be instituted.

 

Testimonies can often be wrong, or false, or misguided, or dishonest. As Scripture tells us, test all Spirits. Don't just accept things blindly and superstitiously. St Paul also allows the possibility that the apostles and even those closest to Christ could teach a falsehood; for he says, if I or even an Angel teach you a false Gospel, you must reject it. Therefore a mere 'testimony' is far from what one needs before allowing a process to go forward.

This does not apply to both male and female. Women have not been called until the last fifty years. So at least for 1950 years, you will admit that they were not called. Since the OT priesthood is a Christian church as well, then we go back to the Old Testament Levites, Priests, and High Priests -- none of which were ever women. So in sum, women were not called for at least 4000 years, or in other words, since the beginning of the establishment of The Church on this earth.

It is not possible that women have suddenly started to be called now, in the last fifty years, just as the epidemic of transgenderism and feminism has decimated the Church. More likely than not, women have bought into the feminist/transgender gospel (a different Gospel from what has always been taught). This would explain better why women are only claiming to be called now, and not before. And it would connect the dots, that a woman 'priest' taking on a fatherly role is an early version of transgenderism -- a woman trying to look like a man.

What are you talking about? Nothing about washing feet is or was an exclusive duty of a woman. Washing was a very frequent act of purification practiced by the Jews, with ritual baths and some in Qumran known to have taken ritual washing at least twice a day.

The ordained priesthood has nothing to do with 'service'. There are many functions which perform service as their core function, and none of them have to be priestly, ordained, or even Christian.