According to Laura McClure, "[In Athens] Women also served as priestesses, as dedicators, and as euergetai (benefactors). At home, their rituals accompanied nuptial preparations, the laying out of the dead, and the departure of soldiers for war. Female religious activity was considered so critical to the welfare of the community that it was sanctioned by law and financed by the polis." Greek social conditioning would have been quite amenable to the new church having priestesses. The Holy Spirit was sufficiently able to overcome "social conditioning" to the extent of inspiring women to prophesy and speak in tongues. Paul’s letters show that women were active in establishing the church and that he held them in high regard. Yet Paul expressly forbade women from having positions of authority over men, and gave theological reasons for this.
The function of a New Testament priest is not to have authority over other believers. It is to enact and call to remembrance the historic death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, (essentially to recall within ourselves our own conversion from death to life in him), and to celebrate his continued presence with us, his church. This is a roll which no apostolic authority has made any pronouncement on in scripture, because the New Testament priesthood did not exist within the Apostolic era, priests followed after it. .
Nonetheless, a NT priest does possess a certain authority over the flock he tends, and the people respect him and conduct themselves according to his authority. Additionally, the priest is the only one authorized to consecrate the Eucharistic elements or (ordinarily) to conduct the baptismal liturgy. (If the Eucharistic liturgy is little more than "calling to remembrance" and "celebrating His presence," any of us would have permission to lead the liturgy, as in a Baptist, Assemblies, or Nazarene church.) Or do you wish to claim that the rectors and vicars have no authority whatsoever? That would be an untenable position, don't you think? Authority comes in more forms than just 'lording it' over people; that is what you're really arguing the priests lack authority to do, and you're correct... as far as that goes.
I would say that rather than 'authority' the New Testament priest has responsibility commanded by Christ himself, and that is why they are 'set apart' and ordained by the congregation for a special purpose. This is what 'authorises' them and gives them 'authority'. Not the fact they they may be MALE. Though Peter was male, that in itself does not exclude women from obeying the call to 'feed Christ's sheep', if the responsibility has fallen upon them for them to do so. There are sufficient examples in scripture of women in leadership in the early church. It was one of the things which was distinctly 'Christian' in character within believing communities. Even then this was counter cultural, (which faithful to Christ's teaching Christianity of course, SHOULD be). Little MORE THAN? What? This is the very function ordained by Christ himself when he instituted the memorial of his passion. Christ gave no other reason for doing it except "In Remembrace of His sacrifice of himself for us". Everything else it may mean to us is in addition from the church, not a command of Jesus Christ in the scripture. Not that I disagree with what the Anglican church teaches, though I don't think Jesus Christ actually taught that anything beyond obedience and grateful remembrance of him is commanded of us in the Eucharistic celebration. .
Been reading with interest but surprised that these quotes are not made: 1 Timothy 2:11-15, A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Timothy 3:1-2 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; . A husband to one wife comes across as Bishops being male. 1 Corinthians 14 34-35, Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Add to this the tradition of the Church to only have male leaders and Jesus's example of only choosing men as apostles even though there were many women followers. There is also Genesis 2:18, The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” It implies to me men are to lead and women to help. Separate but complimentary roles; not equal. This is reflected in the New Testament in Titus 2:3-5, Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. If I am to be obedient to the word of the Lord than I find it hard to reconcile the above with women priests. The arguments for women priests don't refer to scripture but to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How do we know that they are not being deceived with the devil whispering "did GOD really say?" When I reinterpret or ignore the above verses am I really putting GOD at the center of my world or am I really just trying to my GOD conform to me? There is an argument that 1st Timothy was referring to a particular set of circumstances in a town where Timothy was living but that is conjecture as it is not mentioned in the bible. Matthew 7:17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. The top 100 churches in America by size are all lead by men. We are created by GOD and our natures have been designed by him. Men are more rule based and women are more about relationships. Women wont to be inclusive at the expense of doctrine, this is lived out in the liberal churches whose attendances are free falling because they are bad fruit. Hell is inclusive as the path is broad and leads to destruction but heaven is exclusive as the path is narrow and few go down it. There was a study by Lego on the differences on how boys and girls play. What they find is boys will learn everything about the character and pretend to be that character. Girls project themselves onto the character, which is why all the leads in Disney films are replace with brunette women that look a bit like the producer Kathleen Kennedy. Do you want a Priest leading the service faithfully representing Jesus or projecting themselves on to Jesus's character? What is the scriptural support for women's ordination and how has the above been negated?
Are you suggesting that it is a better thing to play at BEING Jesus, to impress others who need a man as a stand in for him, than for us to model our character and behaviour upon Him? THAT would be a weird notion of what should be going on at the Eucharist, in the minds of those participating, surely. I'd have to say though that, having considered your reasoning and exposition of the scriptures, in your case against women's ministry in Christ's church, I find your scriptural arguments scarcely more convincing than your implicit trust in the 'inspired' Word of Lego, when it comes to 'proofs' for the invalidity and inappropriateness of a female representative of the congregation of the saints reminding all of us sinners, of the source of the fruits of our salvation, (as Jesus commanded us to do), and her expressing, on our behalf, our Eucharistic thanksgiving for his once for all sacrifice, in his propitiation for the sins of the world. I guess Eve would have been just as qualified to express her thanks for Jesus 'crushing the serpents head' for her, as would have been Adam, since Jesus went through all he went through in his Passion, for BOTH of them, (Adam - the human race), not just Adam, the man. .
Oh Mr Tiffy, you a called me out. Lego, Disney what utter rubbish do I write, what was I thinking? But, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Timothy 3, 1 Corithians 14, Genesis 3, Titus 2, are they rubbish too? If you respond please type slowly, I don't read good.
The real question is what possible reason justifies discriminating against women as priests solely on the basis of sex?
Where does scripture support the idea of female priests? Especially since priests are supposed to be an extension of our Lord? Are some now suggesting that our Lord was female or non binary?
where does scripture support female priests? This has nothing to do with discrimination, it’s scripture based.
Except that is not the question. Unless you answer is 'why not?' which is not exactly a theological answer. I'm a Theology student. I'm in my 2nd year and I'm being baptised into the Anglican Church. I need answers that are a bit more fleshed out than this.
I think there is a huge amount of biblical support for female priests. Denying someone orders on the basis of an inate characteristic, such as the candidate's race, sex, gender expression, and sexual orientation, instead of on the basis of individual character and merit, is the very definition of discrimination. Scripture is just the pretext used for it in this instance.
Well, I'm a woman and it doesn't bother me. There aren't many Catholic and Orthodox women clamouring for this. It's a rather niche issue in some Protestant circles. There is a deeper theology into why some Anglicans don't accept female priests, which is the same as the RC/OC reasons. The main one is that the priest is acting in persona Christi and Christ incarnated as a man. They represent Christ while the women represent the Bride, the church. As Paul says, in marriage the man is like Christ and the woman is like the Church. It's a standard theology that's been had for thousands of years and is unlikely to change in more conservative circles. The second reason is that there is no Traditional support for female priests. There is for deaconesses. That the Church has never had female priests until the second half of the 20th century ought to be taken into account and it is expected that people will ask why the change? What did we know all of a sudden in the 1990s that we didn't know for 1,800 years before this? It's a valid question. The third reason is that the priesthood God instituted is all male. As the Church is the New Israel and the Law has no female priests, the continuance of an all-male priesthood is the logical conclusion. The first Christians were Jews and Jews have never had female priests.
Congratulations on your baptism! It wasn't a very fleshed out answer, I'm afraid, because it wasn't an answer at all. It was a question (hence the question mark at the end of the sentence). And I think it's a much more valid one than yours. Denying the opportunity to roughly 56% of its membership to fully participate in the life of the Anglican church demands justification. And the best I've received so far in this thead is 5 cherry picked Bible verses devoid of context. I'm no 2nd year theology student, but I am an attorney with 12 years experience, and in my professional opinion that sounds like a pretty weak case.
The in persona Christi is not a valid Anglican argument following the Reformation. One which I've already touched on in this thread. I would also point out that any arguments to Judaism are misplaced. Upon the completion of Christ's work on Earth, the Law was fulfilled and was replaced, as was the priesthood (See Hebrews 7:12-19). The sacraments of the Old Covenant were also done away with and replaced. Instead of circumcision, which only applied to men, we have Baptism, which is equally open to men and women. If one sacrament can be made accessible to women, why can't the ecclesiastical sacrament of Holy Orders?
I was just giving the arguments. If the clergy, historic and many modern, believes they are solid, they must have some backing. There are Anglicans who concur with them. Over here those churches get alternative oversight. No, it isn't. So why is everyone on this thread giving me their opinions when I specifically asked for none? I asked why does the Anglican Church ordain women. I got nothing.
@Elmo that was a cheeky answer I gave you and I want to apologize for it. I am sorry. There is some merit in your point and it deserves a more serious response. I am a man. I don't speak for women and, while I have listened to a great deal of women who have spoken about it, can't pretend to speak to a woman's experience in the Church. More to the point I can't say I have heard all women's POVs on this issue. But, a point that I would offer here, is that while you are a women, you do not represent all women. People of good will can disagree. My concern is that your statement carries the implication that, because you don't care, no woman should. I think hearing all voices is important. But a literal reading of the Bible verses that @Listen2Cranmer provided earlier in this thread would demand all women's voices, including yours, be silenced, regardless of how it applies women's ordination. And I cannot believe that Our Lord ever wanted that to be the case. And neither should His Church. Again, I sincerely apologize for my snarky comment earlier.