There is evidence of female deacons in the early church, but the evidence shows that no females were ordained as presbyters. I think the fact that women could be deacons tends to argue against the claim that the early church excluded women because of unenlightened social backwardness. The traditional stance of the church (not talking about society, but about the church) from its earliest days has been to ordain only men to the priesthood. Insisting upon WO is a source of friction and potential schism. We should ask ourselves whether championing this alteration of commonly accepted church practice is worth the risk of schism and/or disunity in the church. Is it worth chancing the further fracturing of Anglicanism? WO was the primary sticking point which prevented the official formation of ecumenical unity in the 1980s between the Anglican Communion and the Eastern Orthodox; was it worth this loss to have a few female priests? We should also ask whether the WO issue is worth the damage done in our attempts to win people over to Anglicanism. How many times have people been deterred from joining us because they could not stomach, due to their understanding of Scripture, the ordination of women as priests? It might also be worth noting that the argument made for WO, that the society back then just wasn't as enlightened about women's capabilities as we now are, is much the same argument made in favor of same-sex marriage: the argument that we are now more enlightened about the capability of same-sex couples to share love. Arguing for WO can be a "shoe in the door" toward arguing for same-sex marriage and for ordination of practicing homosexuals. When people interpret the Bible in a way that allows for WO to priesthood, that interpretive technique also lends itself to read the Bible so as to normalize same-sex marriage. (If there is no male or female in Christ, then why can't Adam and Steve be married in the eyes of God?) In the US we saw TEC fractured (and the ACNA formed) over these two issues; shouldn't we learn from that mistake and try to avoid it? This whole notion of our new-found enlightenment, in which we contextualize the words of Scripture according to evolutionary improvements within society, feels a great deal like the argument in favor of elevating and embracing progressive traditions, the way the Roman church has done. Setting the Canon in stone and enunciating the doctrine of Transubstantiation occurred at Trent. The doctrine of Mary's bodily assumption was declared in 1950. Blessing same-sex couples was legitimized by the RCC just weeks ago. If we are going to embrace this notion of allowing Scripture to be contextualized by our 'discoveries' about ourselves, then why aren't we Roman Catholics? Or EO? Shall we admit that we cannot understand Holy Scripture properly without an infallible teaching church to spoon-feed us our beliefs? Shall we toss Sola Scriptura, the primacy of the written word of God? Those who favor WO for priesthood are the egalitarian liberals who fit in better with the broad mass of society than those who strive to conserve the traditional norms of the church. Since the church is called to be holy (set apart) and different from the world (we are called to live in it but not of it), is it appropriate for the egalitarian, liberal Christians to impose the world's norms upon the church? Is this the loving way to treat the conservative brethren? Is it just to oppress the theologically conservative Christians? If WO might cause a brother to stumble, should one still push for WO (1 Cor. 8:13)?
Rexlion - I must say you will most certainly incur the wrath of many for stating these things. Good luck.....
There is lack of evidence of all sorts of things concerning the pre-sacerdotal Church of Jesus Christ. At this time the only 'Priest' in the church that there was evidence of, was Jesus the Christ himself. There seems to be no hierarchical designation given in scripture whatever to the person who presided at Eucharistic meals in the early church. In fact when it is reported in Acts 2:42 and Acts 2:46 that they met in their own homes 'breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved', it would have been more likely that the celebrant would have been a woman, as it was and is at every shabbat celebration before and since and it was an actual meal, not just a ceremony. By earliest days you can only be referring to, at its earliest, the latter part of the second century AD, because before that time there is no mention of a class of 'priests' anywhere among the leadership of the early church. There is actually not so much an insistence upon WO as there is an insistence on male exclusive ordination to the Anglican priesthood, even when that exclusivity is insisted upon by women. One might also ask whether it was worth the risk of schism, back in the 1800's when the Anglican church faced the prospect of opposing or supporting slavery in principle. Many slavers, at that time, were influential Anglican church builders and financiers, putting forth scriptural justifications supporting their claim to 'the supposed fact' that scripture supported their view that slavery was historically a perfectly legitimate business practice. In fact it does not, and Jesus Christ had never stated his approval of it. Neither did any of his Apostles. Neither had they left any recorded objections to women celebrating the Eucharist. It is probably an incorrect assumption that Jesus required disciples to - "Do this in remembrance of me", and was addressing only men in order to exclude women. It is unlikely that a passover meal in those days would have been so segregated anyway. Cooking and waiting on guests was part of the whole family experience. Would it SPIRITUALLY have been a loss to the Anglican church to have 'lost' its lucrative income from the proceeds of slavery? Very few, would be my guess. Institutional misogyny is now regarded in western civilisation as somewhat a thing of the past, best kept there. When considering whether to follow Christ, due to their understanding of Scripture, most non-church, English speaking people today would find an exclusively ALL MALE priesthood somewhat of a contradiction to most of what they actually by then know about the teaching and character of Jesus Christ. For this , "Thin end of the wedge", argument to work at all assumes inherently that there is something 'bad' about women being allowed to remind us of Jesus's death and resurrection at the Eucharist, and therefore remind us all of our own need of renewal by faith in Jesus Christ, the person. One of the things that needs to be renewed in us MEN is the fact that we are partners, with women in creation, not 'masters', from the start, and even more so now we know our salvation is entirely centred with God, in Christ. Only if you are equating 'being a woman in Holy Orders' being similarly, somehow committing a 'sinful' act. The objections the Anglican church would have for not giving its blessing to homosexual unions assumes that a supposedly 'sinful' act will necessarily be taking place within the 'relationship' being blessed. What 'sinful act' would you be assuming would probably take place after a woman is ordained and celebrates the Eucharist? I don't think to two issues are at all synonymous. You are subjecting your 'straw man' to slave labour here, I think, working the poor thing to death in support of your argument against. If the issue of 'WO' is indeed due to only a 'contextualised' understanding of scripture, you may be right, but IF SO you will have to ditch an awful lot of accepted Christian Praxis on the same grounds, since the church has adopted many of its practices on the grounds of new and innovative interpretations of scripture, compared to the current established view. Without such 'revised' interpretations of the scriptures, 'in their proper contexts', there would have been no Reformation, and possibly no Enlightenment either and we would still probably be believing in a cosmological, three layer universe. Hell, Earth and Heaven. The call for Women's Ordination did not come from outside the church though. It came from within it, primarily from the women themselves, who are the church, just as much as men are the church, and gradually supported by those men who could see the inevitable trend towards spiritual emancipation for the whole human race, LED by Jesus of Nazareth, and his teaching and praxis, in opposition to the hidebound doctrinal legalism, spiritual stagnation and traditionalism of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Movements, whose spiritual descendants are somewhat still in evidence, alive and well in the church of Christ today. And WO does not demand anyone, 'eat meat sacrificed to idols'. It only assumes everyone should receive communion from anyone to celebrates it. See Article XXVI. .
I don't think this warrants much response and there's no indication that any response will be met with anything other than you repeating the same tired talking points that have been stated, disproved, and restated ad nauseum. It all comes down to "it's never been done that way" which is the most hollow of arguments against progress and inclusion. It was the argument used by misogynists to keep women from being doctors, scientists, or lawyers; from voting or seeking office; from owning property; from having autonomy over their bodies (consider that marital rape was legal in all 50 states until the mid 1970s!); from pursuing higher education, from running businesses, opening a bank account, or working outside of the home without their husbands' permissions. And each time this argument has proven to be utterly without merit, utterly unfounded. But now in the case WO, mysogynists tied a corollary ot it "because God say so" and somehow that makes it different. Until you point out that God didn't say so. Then they hastily change it to "because God didn't expressly say you could". It's just so repetitive and ridiculous.
Actually, I was using "sola scriptura" as the reformers meant it, which is equivalent to prima scriptura. A more prevalent usage of the term "sola scriptura" in recent times has been to indicate what should actually be called "solo scriptura," and that is not what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. I should have clarified what I meant by the term since, yes, we Anglicans say that the Bible stands alone as the primary authority, with tradition and reason serving as secondary authorities.
I was just tossing out some thoughts on the subject that I'd not seen expressed on the forum, to add to the discussion. Most people here have made up their minds already, and they are free to "take it or leave it," but future readers seeking pro-and-con reasoning may find some value in what I wrote.
Good discussion which has proven, yet again, a definitive marker between/among we Anglicans. For future readers, the decision is rather straightforward: are you orthodox or not? Do you wish to practice the faith in a manner consistent with our fathers or wish to go the road more temporal? I suggest my orthodox path is inductive in its reasoning, not reductive, and will not change my opinion because, as is often the case, my opinion means little when taking into consideration the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. But, above all, I will not discourage anyone pursuing their path if ultimately we all remain brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ our Lord. Does that mean I will think “you’re okay; I’m okay”? No. However, I have - as a Christian - been commissioned to love; not to judge; but, as an Anglican, will continue to pray we all return to that One Church. Amen.
What a long discussion! My question is, how many of you have had a female pastor? I have. It changed my thinking about this issue
I have when I was a member of the Episicopal Church (USA). Regardless of how we may think or feel, if you subscribe to orthodoxy and the faith delivered onto the Saints, the notion of women priestess is rather clear. In the United States, it was 4 rogue Bishops that unilaterally took upon themselves to ordain the first woma/en priest. Sadly, that ordination was not declared void and the offending Bishops were not disciplined. There is a role for women in the Church, just not as Priestess.
There is nothing more orthodox than following Christ's example. Which means there is nothing more orthodox than following Christ's example in loving, accepting, and including all people equally and radically. There is nothing more orthodox than following Christ's example in challenging the traditional thinking of the day when such thinking runs counter to the Gospel message that all--men and women-- are one in Christ Jesus and none receive favor or privilege over the other. There is nothing more orthodox than following Christ's example in correcting the religious authority when they replace the Word of God with the traditions of men. Orthodoxy is not bowing to the peer pressure of the prejudices of the dead past. Orthodoxy is always staying true to Our Lord, His Spirit, His Love, and His Compassion, making Him and Him alone our touchstone, and measuring ourselves and the mission of the church in His Light.
THEY are not 'priestesses', (was this intended as an insult? If so your prejudice is exposed), they are priests. You don't visit a doctoress if you are ill, or a female conductress if you play in an orchestra, or attend the preaching of a preacheress or have your car fixed by a mechanicess, if she is a woman. You have fallen foul of the reason the early church soon reverted to a male only priesthood. The development of Gnosticism and other heresies caused the church to want to avoid any possibility of the very clear associations that historically attached to pagan and Gnostic 'priesesses' which were a definite THING at that time during the development of christian hierarchies of clergy. Faithful Christian women suffered for near on two millenium as a result of such primitive, male ecclesiastical fears. Ironically there were plenty of MALE Gnostic priests as well though, so their logic was not all that supportable, except in the minds of males. A 'priestess' is an entirely different animal of entirely different religions from an Anglican Priest. Enough of the insults and derogatory terms for our Anglican priesthood. A person’s role, profession, vocation or title need not necessarily be defined by their gender. To label them 'priestesses' shows misogynistic disdain for their profession and ordination, based purely upon their gender, not their calling. A very unchristlike and arrogant attitude indeed. .
From the outset, the Church was a leader in social change and made enormous contributions in medicine and education, social justice, the abolition of slavery, and the rise of liberal democracy ... In the 21st mission do we have a ministry to continue to lead such social change, or are we now to lead the retreat? There is more than one way of looking at this issue. I have a great deal of respect for varying views, however they need to be authentic. For me, the account of the encounter between Jesus and the Woman of Samaria in John Chapter 4 is one passage that has had a great deal to do with the opinions I have formed. Yes, I have had several. A bit like Male priests, some are better than others, some exhibit great kindness and some do not. Some are effective communicators and some are not. Gender does not make a vocation authentic or otherwise.
@Tiffy etal. We will disagree and continue to do so. This particular topic has expanded into some eleven “chapters” and with discussion becoming either repetitive or bitter it’s clear there is not enough Godly wisdom in this forum to change one’s mind: Me for you; You for me. So be it. As for me, today’s (Tuesday morning; First Sunday of Lent) morning prayer (BCP, 1928) set the right tone for me to conclude my input on this thread: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. I will continue to offer up intercessions for One Holy Catholic Church with prayer “for thy holy Church universal; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life (‘Prayer for Conditions of All Men’). Amen.
I too pray for insitutional unity but not at the cost of making women or any other category of people take a backseat to get there. Marginalized communities have made far too many hard-won strides to force them to give up their dignity and equality just to appease the self-appointed catholicity police.
But presumably prayer also that 'Conditions on All Women', includes keeping their place and keeping silence in the church or maybe not, since THEY are not mentioned in the title. I'd say Amen to this prayer anyway, but not because I think that Men and Women of The Church universal have 'places' in which they should be kept. They don't. .
This is an interesting quote in relation to the subject under discussion. Paul was stating the fact that the Corinthian 'leadership' was critically sitting in judgment upon him, (similarly to the treatment female priests are subjected to by some members of the church of Christ). Like Paul though, they consider it 'a very small thing', since it is God who is the judge of all and only His opinion about us matters. Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation, (or not), from God. 1 Cor. 4:1-5 You or I, either supporting or against WO are 'not aware of anything against ourselves' for holding those views. However neither of us are thereby acquitted. It is God who will decide if we are right or wrong to oppose it, or not, our individual opinions will not untimately decide the matter. God is the judge, a fact that Paul is at pains here to point out to his detractors. THEY are not as important to him, or to God, as they may think. .
The concept of apostolic succession in the ordination of priests is rather fundamental to the Anglican understanding of church leadership If we want to talk about orthodoxy, it's worth noting that Jesus chose no women as apostles. That might be a significant clue. Now if we want to talk about female pastors in non-apostolic-successive denominations, that's quite a different matter IMO. They are welcome to govern their denomination however they wish. But in a denomination that upholds apostolic succession as a necessity, and that says only a validly ordained priest may consecrate the elements, it should be incumbent upon the members (clergy and laity alike) to respect the precedent established by Jesus in the type of persons He chose (males only). Christ most certainly did not set an example of "including all people equally and radically" in the apostolate (nor did He do so, btw, in regard to those whom He said would be eligible to enter His eternal Kingdom).
So it should presumably not be of any significance whatever that Jesus of Nazareth chose only Jews as his Apostles then. Why does this not set some sort of precedent for leadership qualification in today's church but not that all those Jews happened also to be men then? The reason Peter was 'enlightened' on this point was because under the New Covenant, Gentiles were no longer declared 'unclean' by God but declared now 'clean' by faith in Christ. Women, per se, have never been declared 'unclean' by God. God declared all that he had made 'good' and we are all declared 'New' in Christ by faith in Him. So why are Gentiles, never having been chosen by Jesus of Nazareth to be his apostles, allowed to be priests in the Church of England, but women, also never having been chosen by Jesus of Nazareth, to be his Apostles, according to your reasoning, disqualified merely by virtue of not having been chosen to be Apostles. In fact it may be possible that Junia / Julia (Junias) may have been an apostle and apostles were more than only those considered to have been sent by Christ only during his lifetime on earth. Strictly by that faulty 'reasoning' St. Paul was not 'sent by Jesus of Nazareth', during his lifetime on earth, so couldn't, according to that critera have been an apostle, and we know that by some in the church he was never considered to be so. Saul never met Jesus of Nazareth before he had been crucified or even before he had ascended to heaven, yet he considered himself to be an apostle. .