Women ministers, an exploration

I see something else here on top of what Old Christendom has quoted. I see Paul fiercely increasing and magnifying the rift between the two genders, something that is opposite to what the feminist gang would like to do with their 'everyone is identical in Christ' heresy.

 

And the reasons the Arians put forward for denying the Son's consubstantiality with the Father were also scripturally based.

 

"In Christ there is neither male nor female..." The words of scripture a heresy? You should be careful. You might wake up on the ground like Paul did.

 

And there's also pandering to homosexuality, environmental activism, denial of biblical inerrancy, etc.

Being within the Anglican Communion, or any other Communion for that matter, is not a guarantee of orthodoxy.

 

Those words are not heresy, but that in Christ genders dont exist, IS.

In Christ, men and women are equal but not equivalent.

That's why Paul teaches both that in Christ there is no male or female, AND that women categorically cannot lead the Church. God teaches that women categorically cannot spiritually lead the human race. Adam, not Eve. Jesus, not Mary. Apostles all male. Patriarchs all male. God makes his choice consistently every time. Even the personal pronoun of the God is He, not It, nor She.

 

I chose to pop OC on the ignore list so I have no idea what he said, but I will respond to the comment about everyone is identical Christ heresy comment you made...

What do believe Paul is saying in this passage:

 

Your personal attacks and libel seem to have no restraints. How are you allowed to get way with same?

 

Please see right above your post.

 

Apparently you are not aware of the Wisdom/Sophia/feminine aspect of the Godhead. That is scriptural, even if you deny it. There are feminine metaphors for God's activity throughout scripture. If God's nature does not encompass the feminine as well as the masculine, where do you suppose He got the idea from?

 

He doesn't teach that at all - that was the cultural norm and was pertaining to questions and complaints raised by the Church in Corinth. Again as I said before you need to read the Epistles in context. Like the passage I have asked you to comment on, I notice you have not responded to it - but what you will find if you dig into it is very difficult to understand without knowing what was happening in Corinth at the time, and what complaints had been made to Paul that he was responding to.

A person wishing to say that women don't need to wear a cover in Church today would argue that Paul said in 1 Cor 11:15 that a womans long hair is a covering for her head, and a person arguing today that a women should wear a cover on her head in Church would say that 1 Cor 11:5 Paul says a women must wear a cover on her head in Church. This is an example of how you can cheery pick a verse to say what suits your argument, but if you put yourself in that time and that place the cultural norm was that women wear a head covering when in public as that was the thing to do.

It is no wonder the Church is so fractured today, because groups grab onto to stuff out of context and run with it.

 

Here's a definite must-read: A theological reflection on the women bishops vote in the Church of England, by Charlie J. Ray of the excellent Reasonable Christian blog.

Here's a relevant excerpt:

 

I have not personally attacked you, Celtic. Rather, I rebuked you. This is an act of Christian charity: we're not just worried about the health of the body but more importantly with the health of the soul.

Edited for language.
-Admin

 

Nothing that's clear and unambiguous, like the statements about his masculinity. Not once is he referred to as She, but every time is a He.

I notice you employed a slippery word like encompass to try to score points on this issue, but which gets you into trouble, since if God encompasses Satan, then he must have bits of Satan in him, right? Wrong.

God encompasses everything, but does not encorporate everything. Does that make sense? Certain things, in fact many things are outside of him and his nature (without being the worse or better by it; just merely outside). Paul teaches that man was made in the image of God, but woman was not. She was made in the image of Man.

Gordon, for all that you have not commented on MY post, where I showed that female prohibition from the priesthood was UN-common in the ancient world, and if you like, in the particular circumstance of Corinth. Female headship in churches/temples was an already established and settled issue in the pagan world, and by restraining it to men Paul was acting in a revolutionary and radical manner, contrary to the mores of his (and our) time.

 

"Encompass" is not a slippery word. I never try to score points; I state facts. Many times in scripture God's actions are described with feminine metaphors. And Wisdom/Sophia is just as I have stated.

Edited for language.
-Admin

 

Genders were before the fall.
Now if a plane crushed and me and Stalwart were on it, his family will get more indemnification than mine since I am non EU and not American or Canadian or such.What would happen in Christ, is that me and him are equal and worth same worth, but I will still remain me and he will still remain him. We become one in Christ Jesus but we do not become each other.

 

I know what you are referring to with what was happening in the pagan world of Corinth and because of it the members of the Church in Corinth wrote to Paul asking specific questions relating to that local Church...

That is my point and why I keep bringing up the reason why Paul wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians and what the cultural norms were behind it. I know I can talk to you because you don't appear to be a closed book, go to the library and get hold of a good quality Bible dictionary and a good quality Bible commentary and read the background information on 1 Corinthians and Galatians, bearing in mind Gal was written before 1 Corinthians so readers of the Epistle would know what Paul had said about the equality of the genders, and races in Christ and then apply what you now know to the way he addresses the various questions. The other thing you need to be aware of that he and they would have been aware of information and situations that we have know way of knowing. My example in 1 Cor 11:2-15 is an example of what I am referring to.

 

Why is this not an issue of adiaphora? You know the old saying...."In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, liberty. In all things, charity"....I don't see how the gospel message of the Jesus Christ's work on the cross for all people is hindered it it comes from the lips of a woman rather than a man. I also can't imagine that the promise and blessing of the Real Presence in the bread and wine is somehow rendered null and void if it comes from a duly ordained woman...especially when the 39 Articles expressly state that sacraments administered from wicked or unfit ministers "hinders not the effect" (Article 26). Is it possible that a faithful woman is less worthy than a wicked man? I have a hard time accepting that.

 

I think this is the very heart of the debate, Lowly Layman.

For those who do not accept the necessity of the apostolic episcopate, but embrace the absolute equivalence of male & female, the ministry is open to all.

For those who firmly believe that the apostolic succession exists and that there is no rupture in the grand Patriarchal Metaphor of God's plan for the universe between Old & New Testaments, the ministry cannot be open to anyone but men.

I would not say a faithful woman is less worthy than a wicked man; I'd say all men are unworthy, and that all women are ontologically unable to fill the Role.

 

The main objections aren't just what you described, but (at least for me) these:

The Primary, first and foremost problem is apostolic succession (in the patristic, not Romanist) sense. If women are not a legitimate priesthood or episcopacy, then all those whom they ordain will not be legitimate, and it will be harder and harder to keep track of who was ordained by whom, and more and more Anglican ministers will actually be just laymen and never authorized to be the priests and bishops of God, but that fact will be hard to detect. So like a wave of annihilation it will spread through the Communion and eventually we'll have to say that the whole Communion is invalid and illegitimate (even men), who were not actually properly ordained by anybody.

This is the primary reason why it's not ok to 'just try it', because it then cannot be undone. There is no going back. And if we've made a mistake and allowed something illegitimate like this to pass, we've destroyed the Anglican priesthood and epscopacy -- those very same ancient and reverend ministers who were essentially ordained by Christ himself will have been disregarded and made irrelevant.

Anglicanism has the last line of the Christian priesthood that is Protestant. The other big ones, Romanists, are not protestant and apostolic, and will not ordain Protestant ministers, so this is the end for the apostolic faith in the world.

Does that make sense? The stakes could not be bigger, for the world.

Secondly, regarding preaching, the message may not be hindered but the preacher is not allowed to preach, according to the prescripts of the Apostle. And it does not follow the example of our Lord, nor of the Church Fathers. If we wanted to honor those, we wouldn't ordain women. The main reason for ordaining women appears post 60s, and like I said, essentially stems from a larger feministic and postmodern culture, which is illegitimate.

We are honoring Jean Paul Sartre and Hellen Keller, rather than John Chrysostom or Hilary of Poitiers (not to mention S. Paul). Our whole hierarchy of values, cultural heroes, notable persons, has been inverted! Now that inversion doesn't just threaten to diminish Christianity in one more sphere among others, but to destroy the Church completely, in one fell swoop. That's the reason for intensity.

The unfit ministers are meant to refer to morally unfit. What we're talking about is ministering by those who are actually just laymen. And concerning that unfitness Anglicans have been unequivocal -- it does interfere with the Sacrament, and at no time in Anglican history have we accepted Holy Communion by laymen, which is why it's also a big problem.