Women Bishops Vote

Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by Toma, Nov 20, 2012.

  1. Pirate

    Pirate Member

    Posts:
    41
    Likes Received:
    45
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Uh...it's everyone else? Mark1 said "you all" a couple times, and I don't want to be automatically grouped with everyone else if I don't agree with everyone else on everything. In other words, it's a mistake to assume that the forum is of one mind on everything, isn't it? Or is it?
     
  2. kestrel

    kestrel Member

    Posts:
    88
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    Spain
    Religion:
    Church of England
    I think you are bringing your TEC issues into this question :|
     
  3. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I'm not American, kestrel. I don't know very much about TEC at all. My citizenship is Canadian and my ancestry is English-Scots-Irish. My concern is entirely with the C of E and, to a lesser extent, the Anglican Church of Canada.

    Please don't leave, by the way. There's no need to say goodbye because we disagree. Way too many people are leaving because of the convictions of conservatives. Why not boldly profess your own convictions, and stay on? :)
     
  4. kestrel

    kestrel Member

    Posts:
    88
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    Spain
    Religion:
    Church of England
    Because I don't have the convictions of either group; and I would like to explore the issues, but if my experience in Christian Forums has shown me something it's that when people start to fight there is no way to learn anything. What usually happens is that people learn to distrust each other, and soon we will have somebody telling us that King Wenceslas was some pagan god.

    On top of that, I have a job, evensong, and a book to deliver to my editor by the end of this year. I mean I'm starved for time; it has to be worth it.
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  5. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The thing is though, the TEC church brings itself to our understanding of this question. They both changed standard christian theology because of precisely the same reasons, and the CoE is travelling precisely on the same road that led the TEC to heresy. We are invited, therefore, to study the steps and example of the TEC in great attention and detail, in order to stop and prevent the same heresy from occurring in the Mother Church.
     
    Old Christendom likes this.
  6. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    If 90% of the bishops and 70% of total voted against what I personally believed Scripture to say, then yes I might reconsider my position. So, asking me to reconsider my position because the vote failed seems disingenuous at best. The resolution was about allowing some leeway for objecting pastors and bishops. Well, the measure failed. ALL diocese can now welcome their female priests. With regard to bishops, perhaps it will take 5 years, perhaps not.

    I agree that your position is similar to those Roman Catholics who insist on the Latin mass rather than accepting the use fo the language of the people. Both groups are simply whistling in the wind.

    In the US, the Episcopal Church of South Carolina withdrew from the national Church because the national Church opposed slavery. Bishop Lawrence uses this precedent in supporting his current withdrawal from TEC. I understand who has been on which side over the centuries in the US. I apologize if I don't understand UK politics and who are associated with conservatives in the UK.

    I agree that you conservatives are not all JW's and pre-millenialists. I didn't mention JW's. However, in the US, it is indeed the conservatives who are the pre-millenialists, creationists and those who are waiting for the rapture to take them up to the clouds. I know the strange views of those who agree with me. You might know your allies better.

    I am amazed at the hubris of conservatives who think that it is only their interpretation of Scripture that is correct. The rest are not only wrong; they are heretics. The place for those who think their church is heretical is outside the Church. We look look to bishops such as Bishop Wright. You look to your own interpretations.

    Why do so-called conservatives believe that they are misunderstood? This certainly isn't the case in the US. Your voices have been heard for 150 years. I know that it is very difficult for you to understand that there are many millions (actually billions) of God-fearing Christians who disagree with your interpretations of Scripture and with your considering gender issues the most important dogmas in the Church.

     
  7. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Bishops are not authors of dogma. Neither are laity.

     
  8. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I don't think that another vote is needed. If there is one, it will likely be an up or down vote on re-affirming the Church acceptance of the ordination of women.

    After all, it makes little sense for the views of some pockets of the laity to be respected until they can accept the teachings of the Church.

     
  9. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    There is no reason to respond to those who expect us to accept their personal views based on private Scriptural interpretation that whole provincial churches are heretical or are close to being so. Apparently you haven't a clue what the term heresy means.

     
  10. kestrel

    kestrel Member

    Posts:
    88
    Likes Received:
    43
    Country:
    Spain
    Religion:
    Church of England
    OK, Just back from the Sunday service, that always put me in good spirits.

    I am going to give it another try, and hope I can be of some help along the way. Though I am starting another thread to put the whole thing in more general terms and see what we can grow up from there.

    I hope it is not wasteful strife,

    Praying
     
    Toma and Stalwart like this.
  11. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Ok great. So it's not bishops who 'bring us the teaching of the apostles' after all. The teaching is already fixed and embedded in an unchanging text, and the bishops have to work around that, and/or conform to it. So glad we agree on this.

    I'm baffled, mark. I never even mentioned the idea that you should base your theological views based on this vote. Totally baffled as to where you got this. The source of our ideas must be theology and correct exegesis of the Scriptures.

    Not at all. Patrick and I had just had a fruitful discussion of scriptural exegesis. No one claimed that only their own interpretation was correct.
     
    Toma likes this.
  12. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    "Private scriptural interpretation" does not exist for things that are plain and clear. It is not interpretation to read "let a bishop be a husband of one wife", and then to say "bishops must be male". That's just repetition of what scripture says. Interpretation is when Isaiah says something mysterious, for example, and we need to compare it with other texts to interpret it. Augustine speaks well on this in De doctrina Christiana.

    Heresy is a choice to depart from the orthodox faith and embrace a known error. It's pretty obvious that the created order is made for male headship (find one Matriarch in the Divine Scriptures), so to willfully depart from that is heresy. Such a thing doesn't have to be defined by an Ecumenical Council before it's so.
     
    Old Christendom likes this.
  13. Patrick Sticks

    Patrick Sticks Member

    Posts:
    59
    Likes Received:
    50
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Christian- Anglican
    I often find a weekend away from the hurly-burly of the internet rather good for the soul, as such I hope to attend to some of the thoughts here in an eirenic spirit, perhaps one that Ih have not amply demonstrated priorly. I ask your forgiveness for my temper.

    Well, this clearly wasn't the substance of my post though I wonder if you're going to bring in that sort of relativsm, what exactly your own beliefs are standing upon?

    I think you forget just how popular Arianism was, for many the position of Athanasius was the novelty- exactly why the Church shied away from homoousios-language until the cappadocians. You could say that most, not understanding how God can be both one and two were accomodating to the extreme nicene position.

    OF course this is turning the actual debate in the CoE on its head a bit; the Church has already agreed there is no theological objection, it's about trying to be accomodating to the minority that refuse to accept women priests and bishops.

    I'm not entirely sure I enjoy being called a heretic fueled by satanic pride actually. I would not say the conservative position comes from such a root or from misogyny or an insecurity derived from the decline of masculinity in the developed west, indeed I don't believe it is. Rather, I think it comes from a good place and sincere desire to see the Gospel done. I happen to think the conclusion mistaken, but I do not deny the sincerity of it source.

    But perhaps this ad hominem is truly representative of your thoughts. In which case I guess no good will come of anything I say anymore, because as an emissary of the devil him(her?)self I could hardly be seen dividing my Kingdom against itself.

    The idea of a general council is an appealing one but we tread on dangerous territory, seeing as no reformation church actually sprung from such an entity after all. Sometimes, people move first and others catch up, I think of Vatican II particularly; not a GC speaking universally of course, but a pretty big council that came to accept some of the things protestants had been saying for years.

    Though I dispute the claim of 'harm' over the last 40 years. The injuries resulting from women's ordination have been rather self-inflicted by those that can't accept women as priests. Women priests have certianly not miraculously saved the church, but I think you'd have to provide a lot more argument and information to suggest they've been actively harmful and it not being down to other factors...



    What you're forgetting though is that the conviction and beliefs of the Church of England are strongly in favour of female bishops, as the vote at synodical and diocesian level has demonstrated. The no votes that denied a supermajority can hardly be considered representative of the Church's convictions- especially since some were because the provision didn't give enough to the conservatives, for others it was because it gave too much.
     
  14. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    1) I do not share your definition of heresy. Some Orthodox have used this definition, but most have backed off. Heresy must involve the rejection of dogma not mere theological error.

    2) I reject your first sentence, as I have when it has been spoken by evangelicals in the US for the past 50 years (I was not here for the 1st hundred years of the use of this argument. What is plain to you is neither necessarily true nor plain to others.

    3) A literal interpretation of Scripture is a reasonable approach, but certainly not the only one. IMHO, it is not a reasonable one. I agree that a reading of Augustine on this matter might help. His discussion of Genesis might be considered instructive.

    What was the message in Timothy? Was the message about overseers not having two or more wives as was the custom? Was it about requiring that bishops be married? Some do not even think that we commanded to have bishops. Please, spare me this idea that Scripture is clear on its face, in any particular translation, without considering the culture or the context of the message. It is NOT heresy to believe that there be no bishops at all. IMHO, that would be theological error.

    We are told that women should not wear gold. The language is crystal clear. Men shouldn't wear long hear. We must be clear when use Scripture as a sword.

    4) Arguing from the prespective of man's leadership over women from genesis is totally beside the point. Of course, the words are plain and clear. The cultural standards of 4000 years ago are not relevant to the argument at hand. Otherwise, we would be accepting women treated as property; we would accepted polygamy; we would accept marrying half-sisters; and we would accept slavery.
    ===========================================
    BTW, I agree that the argument against women's ordination is strong one, as is the argument in favor of women's ordination. Some of us are part of the Anglican Communion which has ways of deciding with regard to such differences in theological opinion. That decision has been made long ago. Delaying the acceptance of female bishops is simply an embarrassment.

     
  15. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I guess I should be glad that you do not believe that your interpretation is necessarily correct. I apologize for any offense, and for suggesting that you were doing more than discussing the issues and respecting the views of others.

    A discussion of scriptural exegesis is fine with me. I certainly strongly disagree with both your views.

     
  16. Patrick Sticks

    Patrick Sticks Member

    Posts:
    59
    Likes Received:
    50
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Christian- Anglican
    Now I turn to the slightly more substantial post...

    I would be pleased to be shown what the 'incorrect reading of one word' is, but I should say that if I thought that Gal 3.28 was the entirety of the faith, we'd not be having this discussion. I wouldn't have drawn on all the other examples you're debating below. I'm not going to permit ideas to be put in my mouth. I too, believe I am taking the entirety of the Bible seriously, though I would also add that into this matrix I add the life of the Church and the living Word of God and the experience of grace as playing a part in the proceses of my thought.

    This is difficult for me to address. In part, because I fear any attempt to disagree is just a manifestation of avoiding, escaping and obfusticating facts. What can I do if faced with such circular reasoning?

    It's not so simple though is it? It just isn't, that's a plainer fact. When Mary Mother of God encourages Jesus to perform a miracle before it was his time where is the hegemonic masculinity then? What of three examples of female leadership I cited and you haven't made any response too? What of the Wisdom of God being portrayed as a woman?

    I think the stuff about Adam to be smoke and mirrors, for the Christian Adam has no spiritual meaning. Besides, you're relying on the second account of creation, in Genesis 1, man and woman are created together, and in an interesting bit of hermeneutic, the cappadocians all felt that 'god made man/ god made man and woman' showed a two-stage process of creation with gender division being a secondary characteristic so the human race would survive the Fall, but gender itself not being essential to the human person. Now Basil and the two Gregorys can hardly be accused of bowing to a 21st century secular liberal feminist agenda can they? So why should I pick your interpretation over theirs?

    Particularly since I've never heard anyone else use this line of reasoning- using Adam as a positive example seems rather counter-intuitive to me.

    I say much the same again here. This honestly is utterly incomprehensible thought to me. The Genesis account quite clearly shows both Adam and Eve colluding in their exile from Eden. Furthermore clearly the use of 'adam' in this sense is symbolic: Adam in the christian tradition is a representation of what is true in all of us of our fallen nature. If 'adam' is not primarily symbolic in Christian theology, how can Christ be a 'second Adam' he clearly wasn't the original Adam or even like Adam in his origins and actions. The talk of first Adam and second Adam is to clearly discuss our spiritual state vis-a-vis God, it's not an example of male headship. To assume that scripture is in fact bending to your particular, contextual concern in this instance strikes me as little more than 'special pleading'.

    All the more so since for a lot of Christian tradition, a sizeable portion of blame has been laid on Eve and her part in the Fall...

    I find this emphasis on genital particularity rather mystifying. God doesn't have genitals or a gender, and in light of the fact we're all destined to become 'like the angels in heaven' (which also lack gender and genitalia) I really honestly think you're going to have to find me something explicit within the scriptures where a writer says 'christ was a man and this is fundamentally important to his identity as God', and perhaps then I will be more receptive. At the moment this sounds like extra-biblical invention to me.

    I feel there's a bit of a double standard going on here. You want me to show you women in the NT acting as priests before the official office of priest, recognisable as it is in the Anglican Church today existed, and then expect me to accept that the NT definition of 'overseer' lines up with the episcopal office recognisable today?

    You cannot be serious.

    The Kingship of Israel was a priestly role, in the sense that they were a mediator between Israel and God, and the King stood as representative of Israel; the misfortunes of the tribes sometimes come about because of the personal action of the anointed King. So with Solomon. Constantine himself, apart from inserting 'homoousios' into the nicene creed was regarded as a quasi-co-bishop by the other bishops. In fact wasn't the will of God being better fulfilled by princes rather than prelates so much fuel for the protestant fire?

    Nevertheless, none of this actually answered my question- if the issue is about women having any authority over a church (as the very title governor states) then how do you account for this?
    I think this is obfustication again- Paul is not talking about their overall life is he? But he's quite clear- womn can speak and prophesy in church, just like the men, providing their heads are covered in one section, then in another says they musn't speak in Church. They can and they can't speak?

    You could just admit it's a flat-out contradiction.
     
  17. Patrick Sticks

    Patrick Sticks Member

    Posts:
    59
    Likes Received:
    50
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Christian- Anglican
    The rest I think is not worth dealing with, I'd just be repeating myself. It strikes me though that at the heart of this is the question of how we read the bible. In many ways the whole issue of female priests is an example of how we do it.

    When you said 'words have meaning, and that meaning is objective' my heart sank, because I know that we are never gnoig to come to an end of this argument. Your statement suggests either ignorance of or wilfull blindness to 600 odd years of thought on the relationship between words and objects, and 300 years of thought on interpreter, writer and the written word.

    I could go into a lot of long detail, but I think it's best if keep it simple. We seem to be pursuing two routes through scripture- yours suggets that there is a way of reading the bible that is completely unclouded by your situation and context, it presents completely abstractly verifiable propositional content. If it happens to work for the benefit of white middle class heterosexual men then that's the way it should be.

    That is not my way, and it can never be, because the 'objective standpoint of reason' is the Enlightenment's child which gave birth to the 'naturalism' so prevalent in the world today. What's more it's a myth of the Enlightenment. We understand now that we cannot escape our own historical finititude, or our prejudices. We lack, as Gadamer puts it 'the God's-eye perspective', that fulness of understanding. We have to appreciate that our thoughts are not unmeidated and our texts the product of as well has effectors of social forces. For too long the 'one way' of scriptural exegesis was in fact just 'a way'. And the salvation of our hermeneutic comes from the return to tradition, from awareness of our contextuality in a line of theological discourse, pneumatologically aided (lest tradition be considered unbounded ideology) in which scripture plays a primary part, particularly in setting out much of the language that governs the interpretation. Adaptability to context is key and theologically speaking, remembering that God is not the Bible but communicates through it, we should hopefully be able to discern what is essential and nonessential as the Church continues to embrace all sorts of particularities and contexts into the love of God by an awakening to the polyphonic quality of Scripture- both the reading of texts and the living of the life that enables one to read it which act in interpenetrating harmony with each other.

    The Father's always encouraged us to look for what was right and good in secular knowledge, to listen to voices of other disciplines to help us understad God's world better, take Augustine discussing the fact the earth is a sphere, the interpretation of Virgil as a prophet and of course the huge intellectual debt of gratitude Early Christianity owes to Platonic idioms and ideas. If you want to convince me I'm wrong Stalwart, then you're going to have to condescend to the weaker brother and explain why all postmodern philosophical thinking and sociological and historical research is flat out wrong. Explain to me why anti-intellectualism is the true flavour of Christianity.

    Though God help me if I'm convinced by it.
     
    mark1 likes this.
  18. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Of course, anti-intellectualism isn't the True flavor of Christianity. HOWEVER, it certainly is a popular flavor of much of so-called conservative Christianity of the past 150 years or so, especially in the US. Pre-millenialists, fundamentalists, and creationists are examples that come to mind.

     
  19. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Jesus never refers to her as Mother, or gives her even the time of day. He rarely even acknowledges her, and the 2-3 times he does in the whole of the Bible, he just calls her 'woman'.

    You're importing false Roman Catholic theology of Mary sitting in heaven with Jesus on her lap, and intercessorally telling him (as his mommy), what he ought to do about sinners.

    Sure I did, I addressed them going as far back as this post. In a nutshell the answer is that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with secular female leadership.

    How is it being portrayed as a woman?

    Adam is a 'leader', but not in a positive sense. Precisely as you've argued the Hebrew Kings could be covenantal heads of the nation of Israel in the eyes of God, so Adam was the covenantal head of the whole human race (according to Paul). We sinned, not because of our own transgressions but because he did. We are held guilty for his acts, because he is our Lord and Ruler (unless we switch our covenantal allegiance to Christ).

    Gender plays a huge role in Genesis, because between the two people, Adam and Eve, God placed the headship of the whole human race on Adam. I ask you again, why if Adam was a mythological figure like you said, did God narrate a Creation account with two gendered figures, him picking the male gendered figure to place the human race under? Why didn't he create an non-gendered, androgynous, "First Parent" of the human race?

    But God wasn't done there. He placed the second headship of the human race on another human being with male characteristics. He could've said, like a dutiful post-modern liberal feminist, that he gave up on men, and would try a woman instead, but instead he brought up and assumed to himself the features of yet another man, while women again remained secondary to spiritual leadership, and the cosmic covenantal salvation of the human race.

    You don't read much of the NT directly, do you? It's right there in Paul. Not a drawn out after-the-fact theology.

    Ok we might as well stop here. I already explained, that for Paul the first Adam has a real existence, and he (that is, GOD HIMSELF), paints the arc of whole redemptive history between the first Adam and the second Adam. In one Adam we are damned, and in the other we are saved. If you're not prepared to assert the sanctity of the New Testament, and if you're going to violate its truth, there is no rational argument that can work for you.
     
    Old Christendom and Toma like this.
  20. highchurchman

    highchurchman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    683
    Likes Received:
    539
    Country:
    Britain
    Religion:
    Anglican/Catholic
    Jesus never refers to her as Mother, or gives her even the time of day. He rarely even acknowledges her, and the 2-3 times he does in the whole of the Bible, he just calls her 'woman'.
    Stalwart!
    Christ may not refer to His mother or give her time of day! But I should be very much surprised if Christ, God made man, doesn't refer to His mother in a more respectful way than you make your response sound above!
    On another thread we discussed the Anglican Church response to the Councils and given the fact that the First Council of -Ephesus defined the Lady Mary as the Theotokos, The Mother of God. Whilst the Second Council of Constantinople twice referred to her as,,'Ever Virgin', and this was the usage within the Church in England long after the Reformation had finished ,it was never doubted . Whilst the much maligned Seventh Council definedMary as ,Spotless and 'Immaculate'! I pointed out earlier that the Anglican fathers talked about Anglican Manners, in referrence to Mary!