How to defend the belief only men should be ordained?

At lest Stalwart there is SOMETHING you agree wholeheartedly with Isamists, Islamites and Israelites about.
.

 

You mean, besides the facts that food is desirable, sleep is necessary, children should show respect to elders, stealing is wrong, etc, etc? I'm certain we could make a massive list of things that those people and Stalwart (and you and I) agree on!

 

I thought you liberals were opposed to negatively referring to races and ethnicities?
Racism, lol.

 

I don't think it can be racist to simply refer to Israelites. The Bible does it pretty often and they are the only 'race' or 'ethnicity' I mentioned. The others don't count, according to the spelling they don't even exist but I don't see how I can be accused of negatively referring to them. I just wrote that at least there is something you seem to agree with them upon. That's not insulting is it? It was only banter anyway but the whole male 'spiritual' headship thing is highly supported by Islam and other Mid Eastern religions so they can't be wrong about everything according to your way of thinking, it would seem. Personally I am indeed Liberal but not libertarian. Jesus Christ was regarded as far too liberal by the religious extremists of his time. He got into trouble for Liberating the people by telling them the truth.
.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you think modern science would change the traditional stance on WO. If so, in what way?


As an aside, I've become somewhat disenchanted with the 3 legged stool theory, at least, as it is popularly understood. I think it conflicts with the Formularies and is a misrepresentation of Hooker's stated position, which was:

“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience are due; the next whereunto, is what any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after this, the voice of the church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgements whatsoever”(Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie V,8,2: 39, 8-14).
​

But I digress...

 

BTW, tonight I came across this youtube video with Voddie Baucham talking about women in church leadership roles, and I enjoyed it. Quite a number of points were made, including a few I hadn't thought of.

 

It is a 3 legged stool with one leg longer and stronger than the others. You use the fathers and tradition in this instance to understand scripture because while scripture leans towards no WO it does not come right out and say no to WO. You use reason when we come to things like modern science and how to interpret it and scripture together. That is how I view it at least.

 

That kinda destroys the analogy, though. Isn’t the whole point of a 3-legged stool the fact that it’s always perfectly balanced? One longer leg means you’ll be falling over a lot.

 

If it was an actual stool yes.

 

Ordination, per se, either male or female, as it exists in the Church of England today dates from AFTER the scriptures were written and during the time those scriptures were being collected, collated, selected or rejected by the Church of Jesus Christ. Those scriptures were collected, collated, selected and some of them rejected exclusively by MEN. Not because God wanted it that way, but because society was at that time organised that way. Along with all other sorts of inequality yet to be noticed and addressed by a church still learning to know and do the will of its Master Jesus Christ. That learning still continues and comes under the heading 'Common Sense', (one of the strong legs of our stable stool), since everything Jesus Christ taught became 'Common Sense' to those willing to listen to him.

That women and men are equally qualified to be elevated by any Christian congregation to the honourably representative position of celebrant, in their midst, is 'Common Sense' to anyone who is sensitive to the Spirit of Jesus Christ and his personal guidance for his church. There is no prohibition in Holy scripture barring women from ordination or presiding over a celebration of The Eucharist. All arguments against the idea are based upon texts that more reflect attitudes of the general populations and geographical locations at the time they were written, than edicts from God regulating and relegating women to positions of subservience.
.

 

If I may further add to your point, to discuss the subject in terms of ordination at all is inappropriate. Neither the Scriptures nor the Reformers recognized such an act as its own means of grace. We are talking about an office, not the act of transfer. It's a subtle but important distinction.

 

You make a valid point, but ordination, though not strictly 'Biblical' is nevertheless the church's accepted method of conveying God's approval and authorising to the office of officiant, celebrant and / or priest. As such, a congregation of saints should hold the ministry of such an ordained person in high value, unless their conduct has been reasonably proven otherwise. 1 Pet.2:17, 1 Pet.3:7.
.

 

The crux of the issue is what the qualifications are for a person to exercise the Office of Ministry, however constituted. If you look at the Augsburg Confession (art. 14), the Apology, and the Church of England’s Articles (art. 23), they all say that a prospective Minister should be “regularly called”. That, along with the implication that the person is already baptized, yield the two conditions for exercising the Office of Ministry.

 

I think a lot of people agree with your interpretation @bwallac2335 but @Invictus makes an important obervation. The analogy is meant to express Anglican theology's balanced view. Yet, how balanced is a 3-legged stool when one leg is bigger or longer than the rest? I submit this is where the analogy fails. These sources of authority were never meant to be balanced. Scripture is always primary.

Perhaps an analogy that would be more closely aligned to Hooker's actual stance would be an analogy of three gates.

The Anglican Church is protected by three gates. This first gate is guarded by Scripture, the second by Reason, and the third by Tradition. If Scripture allows a doctrine to pass through the first gate, Reason through the second gate, and Tradition through the third, then it is permitted in the Anglican Church.

Alternatively, there is the analogy of 3 filters. When seperating truth from falsehood, the Church pours a doctrine through three filters. The first is Scripture, the second Reason, and the third is Tradition. Whatever strains through all of these filters is pure truth.

...or we can scratch all the analogies and just stick with the tried and true path of accepting only those doctrines that accord with the Formularies, informed by the Church Fathers and Anglican Divines but ultimately relying on Holy Scripture as it one foundation.

As Cranmer puts it, "The most sure and plain way is to cleave unto holy Scripture. Wherein whatsoever is found, must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth; and whatsoever cannot be grounded upon the same (touching our faith) is man's device, changeable and uncertain." (See True and Catholick Doctrine and Use of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper)

 

I do not think Anglican theology is a "three-legged stool," or has ever been portrayed as such, even by Richard Hooker... there is no such mental image in Lancelot Andrews at least that I've read, or any other of our important theologians; it seems to be a mental image specially crafted, out of spare materials, by 20th century progressive theologians to have a basis from which to revise doctrine

"Change my mind."

 

"Change my mind". But nevertheless a three legged stool which has one leg longer than the others is not likely to seat one 'on the level', except under very specific conditions, though it might at least still stabilise the seated if suffering from wobbling uncertainty.

 

Good link—
“Charming as the image of a stool may be, it is not his.”

 

Nevertheless the image is helpful and a worthwhile expression of where the Church of England stands regarding three strains of truth to be considered and balanced in order to obtain God's guidance in faith and praxis.

No one single leg of the metaphorical 'stool' should 'out importance' any other leg. Scripture is necessarily a very important consideration but should not be used to discount the truth components of either history and development of church tradition, (where appropriate) or Common Sense/Wisdom/Increase in knowledge of physics and God's Laws as observed in nature.

The Church is still learning and having truth revealed to it by God. It is not in possession ONLY of truth already revealed, just primarily in possession of truth already revealed, that is, the truth of the Gospel. The Church should always abide in The whole Truth because to fail to do so would result in the C of E part of it withering on the vine.
.

 

This statement seems to imply that, if women had been part of the collecting/collating/selecting process, there might have been some additional inclusions in scripture which would lend support to WO. Well, that is a major statement! Tell us, where and what are these other ancient writings which support WO? The burden of the evidence is on you to produce the documents. (If there are no such writings that might perhaps have qualified as scripture, the statements I've quoted are irrelevant, immaterial, and inconsequential.)

BTW, it's worth noting that everything we can glean from the OT indicates that God set up society in this way (headship of men, submission of women). And when Jesus walked the earth, He observed this "societal norm" and operated within it, but He didn't do or say anything to contradict or 'correct' it, even though Jesus was quick to criticize and 'call out' all sorts of errors, hypocrisies, etc. And when the Holy Spirit inspired Paul and others to set pen to parchment, He inspired the writing of multiple scriptures counseling the headship of men and submission of women.


Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Peter tells us that Christ submitted to the will of the Father, and that in like manner servants should their masters because doing so is good, godly servanthood. Then in the next chapter it continues:
1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Jesus said that he who would be greatest must be the servant of all. Therefore, when men are called by God to submit to Christ's headship, it is our duty and our honor to serve Him with all humility. And likewise, when women are called by God to be under the headship of men, it is the women's duty and honor to serve. It is not the man's place to exalt himself to the level of Christ and to reject proper submission, nor is it the woman's place to exalt herself to the level of the man and to reject proper submission. This is the chain of command set by God in His army: Christ, then men, then women. No army can function with one general, 10 million captains, and zero privates.

God set things up this way as an earthly example and reminder of the spiritual pattern of the bride (Christ's spotless church) and the bridegroom (Christ Himself.) In the structure of the visible church, God mirrors this pattern by calling certain men to fulfill leadership roles that loosely correspond to and witness to Christ. Women are called to supporting roles and to the spiritual adornment (beautification) of submissive roles, for which they should be grateful and should take comfort in the knowledge that she who is called to serve a master will be exalted in the next life. When women rebel against this pattern and clamor to attain leadership roles, they reject the adornment of "a meek and quiet spirit" and belittle themselves before God; men who facilitate this "equality" nonsense are abdicating responsibility while simultaneously robbing women of their future crowns.

So, let's be clear about this. Whenever anyone says they disagree with all of this headship/submission stuff, they are not simply disagreeing with a few guys on a forum; they're disagreeing with God Almighty. They're in rebellion against God. They're saying, "God, you know all things, you made all things, and everything you gave us is good except for this whole submission/headship thing. God, I don't care what scripture says, because you're just unfair and wrong about that! Our 'enlightened' society is more sophisticated than the ones you had a hand in!"

We must remember that submission to headship is not about earthly 'qualifications'. Nor is it about 'equality versus inequality.' Nor is it about devaluing anyone. It's about godly order. It's about fulfilling the godly pattern of life given to us by God and exemplified by Christ, who took the form of man and suffered mortal death as a servant of all, even though He is greater than us all. If a woman would show herself greater before God and men, she will do it through imitating Christ and humbling herself as Christ humbled Himself. She will not seek to be placed in positions of headship over other men, particularly in the church!

 

The pattern can be seen as far back as the creation of Adam & Eve, and how they responded to temptation.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin... (Rom. 5:12) Sin entered, not through the woman or through the couple, but through the man, the first Adam. This is because Adam had the responsibility of headship over Eve; Adam was responsible to not give in to her and received the blame for failing to exercise his proper role.

Godly order: God created man, and then He gave the woman to the man. He then gave man and woman dominion over the animals. The order is God, then man, then woman, then everything else.
Satan's order: the serpent (an animal) deceives the woman, exercising dominion over her. The woman deceives the man, exercising dominion over him. The man eats the forbidden fruit so that he might become like God (knowing good from evil). Satan's order is directly opposite to God's.

WO is an attempt by Satan to resume upending the proper order set down by God.