Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by seagull, Sep 12, 2013.
What does God say about who can be a Priest? Does God or Tradition say a women can be a Priest, no.
No they are set by God. Jesus Christ set up his requirements quite clearly. Are you trying to be holier than Jesus Christ? Did he have biases that you would like to correct?
Actually, requirements for ordination are set by Scripture, which requires that leaders in the Church be men.
One unfortunate aspect of English life us "exclusivity", based in the main on our odious class system: exclusive schools, clubs, housing developments, etc.
But one of the many joys of the Church of England is that it is not exclusive. Our last Archbishop of Canterbury wasn't English. Neither is the Abp of York. George Carey came from a working class background in east London. Justin Welby was at Eton.
And the CofE is a friendly welcoming church. It welcomes strangers, It is patient. It is tolerant. It is not arrogant or rude. It is mature enough to recognise doubt. And it is calm. These are the thoughts of a journalist, Christina Patterson. She is not a churchgoer and has no axe to grind. But I share her thoughts and welcome them.
Yes, we have our faults. Poor public relations and a lack of discipline might be cited. But the CofE versus the "CEC". Well, it's no contest, is it?
Cite chapter and verse if you want to be taken seriously.
This is the one I see most people using for your argument:
1 Cor 14: 33-35: As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.
There are problems, serious problems with this. I understand that most non-fundamentalist non-literalist seminaries spend some time on this. I have taken courses as a lay person, so would know less that seminary trained people, but the information is readily accessible.
1. The versus do not fit well into the context and flow of the text.. The gift of prophecy in the church is the theme of verses 26–33, and it is the theme again of verses 36–40. The discussion of women seems to be an insert in its immediate context, breaking into instructions that Paul is giving about a different matter.
2. They conflict with what Paul wrote earlier in 1 Cor 11:2–16, that when women pray or prophesy in church — things that were always done aloud in the early Christian tradition — they should veil their faces. Now, three chapters later, Paul is saying they shouldn’t say anything whatsoever in church? It makes no sense.
3. There are copying errors in the bible. Lots of them. In several Greek and Latin manuscripts of this segment of 1 Cor, these verses are found after verse 40. What we have here is probably a marginal note added by a later scribe (possibly based on 1 Tim 2 ) that was eventually incorporated into the text.
I take HH very seriously, although I disagree with him about a great many things, I have found him to be scholarly and well-versed in Anglican theology. I do not take seriously using verses of the bible as strawmen.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to refute the Jews who denied the Messiah-ship of Jesus of Nazareth, did not Paul have to have a deep understanding of Jewish thought and sources of authority?
Does not every apologist for the church start by explaining what a heretic thinks before showing why they think it to be erroneous?
Does not Aquinas in the summa outline both thesis and antithesis to each proposition before resolving them as he sees fit?
But if you don't know what you're attacking/refuting, how can your critique be effective? How am I, confirmed in my prejudices as I am, meant to take your position seriously if you don't show any comprehension of my point of view?
Perhaps you should see this as an evangelistic moment where through gentle persuasion and force of argument, you can pick up some of the threads of secular thought and actually engage with them (which doesn't necessarily mean succumbing to them), in order to show the true reasonableness of your position. Honestly, I am all ears.
Read the Bible than. I do not have the time nor inclination to bother with you at this moment, this is a discussion amongst believers and either their position can be found in Scripture or Tradition or it can't, period.
Not exactly the attitude I was expecting from someone who I presume takes parables like the prodigal son and the lost sheep quite seriously. I thought that if I were persuaded of your view and changed my life accordingly, you'd be convinced there'd be rejoicing in heaven?
For the record, I have all the time in the world for views of the matter, should you ever get round to presenting them.
I have read the bible, but what I found was this overwhelming sense that individual words and phrases and quotations aren't enough, because there are readings and then there are readings, and each is shaped by certain criteria...I happen to think the points raised by the feminists actually quite...illuminating to the meanings of the text and the assumptions many of us make in our readings.
On the most matters concerning the Church I'm conservative. But I support the ordination of women in the Church in all positions. After all we can see in the Gospels that the female disciples of Jesus were the most faithful servants. See Mary the Magdalene...I will also recomend you a Bible verse. Romans 16:1
I could care less for feminists or there silly thought patterns, just another bunch of dumb liberals
Not a very Christian (or literate reply). Not a good advertisement for the "CEC". In contrast, Alcidiades comes across as very cerebral.
And in contrast, arguing about the size of brains is the mark of true saintliness. Thank you for showing us what passes for Christian conversation in the CofE.
Well this passage isn't dealing with ordination, so the point is really moot. But, the nature of the text seems to indicate some sort of particular situation in Corinth, at least from the interpretations I've read of it, rather than a universal rule of feminine silence.
The church may be pretending to be all things to all people, but discussion and life together among those groups appears to be quite argumentative. This entire forum must be quite scary to a new believer or someone investigating Anglicanism. The whole thing pretty well clarifies my decision, in a strange way I say thank you and goodbye.
I would concur with Jeff that the tone of the forum has changed from that I found upon joining...and not for the better. Yet, I think there is hope for the place. After all, I have agreed with Jeff about something twice on the same day.
it seems that about every 3-6 months or so, there's a family row on here...last time or the time before that, it was calvinists and arminians, now conservative v. liberal. it shall pass. Prayers for all in the foxholes.
I think we've had creationists v evolutionists, too.
We do have some very bright people at our church, mainly scientists, and reference is occasionally made to this. But in the main we talk about things like The Good News from Wales, the weather, church social events, football, supermarket prices and the pills/medication we're on. We're normal, friendly northern English people, you see. Very Anglican.