Well, I'm accustomed to the C of E, having being born in and living in England all my life; so I 'get' it, but at the same time the historic Church had piles of debates on this, parliament used to debate on this, Hooker wrote volumes on this, etc. The Anglican Church does have doctrines (such as if you mentioned transubstantiation you'd likely be redirected to the local RCC) or if you said you're a Calvinist and follow TULIP you'd be redirected to the Presbyterian Church. These things are explained and have been thoroughly debated. So we're not a vague wishy-washy Church. I understand some things are less well exposited, but there are lines that are rarely crossed, such as with transubstantiation etc. There's a limit to what you can do. If you want to go beyond what has traditionally been the limit, people are going to ask why, such as with the Tractarian Movement. It needs explanation.
I would point out that the concept of complimentarianism, which only first appeared on the scene in 1988, is far more of an innovation than women priests, which has been practiced in the Anglican Communion, with ever-expanding acceptance, for 80 years.
Having never come across the term 'complimentarianism' before I looked it up. I've now realised that my son has become a complimentarianist but I am now a Christian Egalitarianist. And to think I was completely unaware of all this until today. .
Now that I know of the existence of this new fangled concept 'complimentarianism', I'm intrigued to discover exactly what innate universal human characteristics complimentarianists all agree, ALL women lack, which disqualifies them from leadership because God simply did not equip them for it. Also what innate universal human characteristic men are specifically, naturally endowed with, by God which apparently equip them all for leadership in the church. Presumably there must be some human characteristics which would either disqualify or qualify men and women for the responsibility of leadership in Christ's church, because priests and leaders have to undergo some sort of selection process, quite rightly, to identify these human traits before the church will accept them for ordination. So which human characteristics, do we suppose, might some men have that all women do not, in the estimation of complimentarianists, which, in their opinion, automatically disqualifies all women from leadership in the church? .
Complementarianism is a few years older than women priests in England in that case. Nevertheless, we know what was happening throughout the history of Anglicanism, no new word for a perspective in 1988 made a difference.
You are totally misunderstanding the theological reasons here and trying to find biological strawmen. Biology is not the reason.
I don't think any of the critera I suggested were actually biological in nature, at least not physically so. Temperament, faith, morality, intelligence and knowledge of God's ways are not 'biological' so on what other critera are women presumed excluded and considered by others as unfit to lead congregations, in the faith, even those who have written their opinions in the New testament or only started to call some leaders in the church 'priests' by as late as the latter 2nd century of the church's existence under The New Covenant, have not given any really convincing reasons, (to enlightened ways of thinking), WHY women are considered by them as being unsuitable for leadership? Only apparently that they should not be regarded by the church, as so, because that was the opinion of the male writer at that time. .
Those are the ones that are usually trotted out to support a case against. But the people in the pews, I can assure you, have many reasons beside theological ones for objecting to the notion of women priests or leaders in the church. I could tell you what I have found some of their reasons to be, and they are far from being 'theological'. Although they rarely articulate other reasons, it seems that they hold to those views far more passionately than any of the pro-lobby, who are just generally in favour of 'letting the girls have a try at it, for a change, because they can't be any worse at it than some of the men have been so far'. .
People in the nave usually do have odd views, but we don't go to them for doctrine. The reasons are theological and if you asked a priest of that persuasion he'd hopefully explain it to you. We don't get our doctrine on behalf of laymen.
The church does not go to get the opinions of those in the pews in order to formulate its docrine, I agree. But opinions have a bearing on the number of bums on seats, and THAT seems to matter to a lot of anti women's ministry types. One reason given to me once by a priest of 'that persuasion' was that it would prevent the Church of England 'getting back with Rome'. So not ALL reasons against are theological, by any means at all. Another reason I have been given was that "she couldn't imagine a woman was actually Jesus, and she liked to do that when watching the priest do communion". Some possible objections I've heard are even more removed from 'theology' than these two I've mentioned. Even wandering into the realm of unmentionability in polite company. None of them, in my opinion, have been good theological reasons for not having female priests though. How could anyone formulate genuine Christian doctrines that could accommodate those kinds of opinions? This leads me to a certainty that there will ALWAYS be some people who will continue to object to it. Just as there are people who will object to ANYTHING the church decides to allow or disallow. The same as there were people who nailed Jesus to a piece of wood for disagreeing with their view of how their religion SHOULD be properly done. .
Doctrine needs to be true, not accommodating. If people don't want to come to church because it doesn't align with that they think church should be, they're welcome to stay at home.
I assure you, they do, but not necessarily justifiably. According to the 39 Articles, refusing communion is refusing Christ, not the celebrant. Even the communions celebrated by a wicked priest are valid, because the validity of communion is determined by the recipient not the celebrant. Surely it cannot be suggested that communions celebrated by a woman are less valid than those celebrated by a wicked male priest. To refuse communion is an insult to Jesus Christ. To receive it unworthily is sinful. .
@Elmo well put. But does women's ordination rise to the level one of those uncrossable lines? And, if so, why? Your point about transubstantiation being a rarely crossed line within Anglicanism is well taken. The Anglican Reformers' incredulity for Transubstantiation was codified in the Articles of Religion as well as in the wording of the Lord's Supper. There are few instances of Job 38:11 in the big tent of the Anglican Church but this is definitely one of them. No such historic prohibitions exist regarding the issue of women's ordination. I suppose someone may try to make hay out of use of the words "man" and "men" and masculine pronouns in Article XXIII. XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation. It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard. However, I think a fair minded person would recognize that these references are to be read in a general sense, to include both male and female sexes. After all, the first sentence only uses "men" and masculine pronouns, when describing those who shouldn't be ministers of the Word and Sacrament. And nothing in this context exhibits an intent to exclude women from the subject matter of the sentence despite limiting the gender references to the masculine any more than one could argue by this reference that only men are unfit for ministerial offices. The second sentence, may textually give credence to an argument that only men were permitted to the episcopate because it uses the term "men" in reference to those with the lawful authority to choose and call ministers, but I would argue that given the historical context of the ratification of Articles, where the choosing and calling of high ranking Church officials was subject to royal discretion, one of the "men" involved on the choosing and calling was in fact a queen. Lastly, I wanted to point out that, at least in the American brand of Anglicanism, which follows the Articles of Religion instituted in 1801, the requirements for the consecration and ordering of bishops, priests, and deacons were "set forth by the General Convention" (see Article XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers). Therefore, such forms and requirements are subject to the future amendment by a General Convention. Which was what happened in 1973. I agree with you that this is not a biological issue. But I completely disagree with your contention that this is a theological one. What it has become is a political and social issue that unfairly prefers one gender over another for no other basis than their gender. For what it's worth, in my opinion as a lowly layman, this runs counter to the explicit scriptural call to show no partiality or preference within the church and conflicts with the Bible's call for radical equality (neither male nor female... all are one in Christ Jesus).
What exactly are the theological reasons you're thinking of for denying Orders for otherwise qualified candidates solely on the basis of sex?
I enumerated them earlier in the thread Not saying I agree or disagree. I do believe it is a theological issue that some people have mistaken for a social/political issue. As the reasons for not allowing them are theological (e.g., we are all one in Christ Jesus spiritually, but temporally here on earth there are distinctions such as the man being the head as Christ is the head etc.), as put forward by the RCC and OC and, until last century, the AC and some still within the AC.
s Quoting a classic complimentarianist 'theological' reason looks suspiciously like you have already taken a position on this question, when you say the objections must entirely be theological. Though I would agree the only valid objections probably are the theological ones. As for the one you mention supposedly supported by complimentarianist theory. If indeed St. Paul wrote 1 Cor.11:3, St Paul himself is a little contradictory, of the notion that Christ is subservient to God. (an impossibility, if God is Trinitarian in nature and the persons cannot be divided, since God cannot be subservient to himself, only in constant and complete agreement within God's trinitarian existence). None are afore, or after other : none is greater, or less than another. So the Pauline statement: "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; (not just the men in the church - THE whole CHURCH), he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." Colossians 1:15-19 seems to be somewhat contradictory to the notion that: "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor.11:3. The Persons of the Trinity are co-equal, not hierarchical, so the premise that the head of Christ is God is a false premise, and the other premises are similarly likely to be false as well. In fact the head of every human being is Christ, (male or female, i.e the church), Christ is Lord of ALL, and Christ is the 2nd person of the Trinity, co-equal with the first and third members of the same. I don't believe Jesus Christ was a complimentarianist. I don't get any indication in the Gospels that he had complimentarianist views, even though most of his contemporaries probably did, and for many generations after, some still continuing to espouse them. .
I apologize if I missed the specific points. Please help me to understand how a woman representing Christ temporally is objectionable. That sounds very much like the concern is biological when it gets put like that. Also, why would the temporal characteristic take precedence over the eternal truth? I just don't understand what point is being made here
It is not biological in that it is not based in any ideas of women being inferior intellectually, spiritually or otherwise. It is not based on notions like this - the idea that she can't serve literally because, to put it crudely, she has a vagina. It is biological in the sense that is is taking account of the temporal reality that, here now, there are men and women and they do have different roles in life (if one doesn't accept this, none of the argument will seem sensible). It's based on Marriage/Covenant Theology of the women being the Church/Bride and the men being Christ/The Bridegroom. This is taken in turn from their acting in persona Christi in that they officiate at the Sacrifice on the Mass. This is crucial. Women were deacons in the early Church and the difference between a priest and a deacon is that deacons don't bless the sacrifice etc. The Roman Catholics describe it thus: There is a covenantal, nuptial reality built into creation, reflected in God’s covenants with humanity. In the Old Testament, God is described as a husband married to His chosen people. In Ephesians, Christ is described as the groom and the Church as His bride (see 5:21-32). The entire Church is feminine in character, responsive to her head and groom. Why Can’t Women Be Priests? | Simply Catholic Now I can also see problems with this and if I were to rebut it, I would probably say something along these lines: If there is a difference between men and women here on Earth, as it were, that's granted. However, if we take Paul's all are on in Christ in a spiritual sense, as I believe it is intended, then if we take the Mass/Service to be reflecting a spiritual reality, Heaven brought to Earth etc. then men and women are acting in a spiritual capacity and there would, theoretically, be nothing stopping women from being priests as there are no 'women'. At present, though I appear to be arguing against, I don't actually take a stance on the issue. I am very conservative in my application of sex roles, however. The truth is, I just don't care enough about this issue I've only been giving arguments that others might give when faced with such like what Tiffy says, which I find not very well supported and not one Father or other ancient authority has been mentioned save Paul, while the rest is 21st c. social liberalism and liberal Protestantism, a political not a theological resort. I am only asking that with changes this drastic and unprecedented, we at least have a comprehensive answer for those who ask us, which is really all I wanted whether I ended up agreeing with it or not.
What 'sacrifice? Such nonsense! There IS no sacrifice killed and slaughtered TO bless or to offer God. Only OUR sacrifice OF PRAISE and THANKGIVING. Heb. 13:15. We anglicans don't want this Roman Catholic nonsense imported into the Anglican understanding of what actually is happening at the Eucharist. This stuff is as concocted as the transubstatiation nonsense imposed in the 12th centruty by an over enthusiastic, literalistic, scripturally under educated pope. The woman is NOT THE CHURCH. The whole CHURCH is the metaphorical bride of Christ. That includes MEN and WOMEN being the BRIDE of Christ. It is a metaphor, not a reality. Please try to understand. MEN are also metaphorically the Bride of Christ, because they are also spiritually the church. Women also are the church, so are also, but only metaphorically, the bride of Christ. May God preserve us all from literalist idiots. Gosh, give me air. .