Aged fourteen I was opposed to women priests. I was an Anglo-Catholic and for me Gospel had to be sung by the priest (male obviously), the bells had to be rung at the point of consecration, for me it didn't work unless certain words were said, and the thought of a woman doing the ritual would have made me nauseous. After that I became a Conservative Evangelical (not much of a shift there). The scripture was the very word of God, and I accepted what people told me without questioning it. They knew the scripture better than me and so I tried to be a subservient woman (clearly on a hiding to nothing there then!)
My reasons not to want women to be priests (or Bishops) were a mixture of ignorance and ... err.. oh.. ignorance. Clearly people must have better reasons to resist Women Bishops than I had, but I have found myself increasingly confused about this. So to remind myself, here are the reasons... (I think):
Some Anglo-Catholics
1. Jesus was a man, he appointed twelve disciples who were men, and they laid hands on other men who became Bishops and so it went on.
2. Rome doesn't allow Women Bishops (or Priests) and we want to be in communion with them.
Some Conservative Evangelicals
1. The Bible says that women should not exercise authority over men.
2. There is an order, that God created women to be helpers.
I have a few questions about this:
- Jesus's twelve disciples were men, yes, but they were also Jewish and circumcised, should we insist on this?
- Jesus had many female disciples, not mentioned in the Twelve, but then if women were seen as possessions and of little worth at that time, surely this explains why only men were mentioned in the Twelve?
- The Catholics don't accept Women Bishops, but there again other denominations have women in the highest positions of authority, so are we not worried about being in communion with them?
- The Bible has evidence of Women in positions of Authority - Deborah, Priscilla and others, do they not count?
- Our Queen is a woman, and there are women in authority in many walks of life, do those who oppose Women Bishops also refuse to work for women in secular life?
Whilst I believe many people have genuine theological reservations about Women Bishops, I also believe that there are some who are merely prejudiced against women (like I was), and this debate can become very murky for that reason. However, we cannot assume misogyny and we must be gracious (note to self). I think the debates in the General Synod yesterday were very good and honouring and I hope we continue in that vein.
16 comments:
I am surprised at your caricatures mate. I am surprised and saddened that you make a clear statement about Anglo-catholics that isn't wholly true.
Let me be clear. Not all Anglo Catholics are against the ordained ministry of women. It is a very unhelpful bandwagon that damages those of us who do support all callings and charisms. Such generalisations as this cause damage to christians like me who are more and more assumed to be anti-women when it is just not the case.
No wonder half the non Anglo catholic women in Christendom think I am a sexist pig. It simply isn't true
In response to your last sentence. As the debate continues in other forums, may all "honour one another and seek the common good".
Sorry Cloakey.. I will correct....
Thanks Nancy - enjoyed reading your post on the subject.
I'm with Cloakey - being Catholic does not - repeat NOT - mean effin' eff (Forward in Faith, if I may utter the odious words!).
And as I've told you before, it's not about equality, it's about vocation and God can call whomsoever he wants.
Doorkeeper
Where does the bible say women should not exercise authority over men? I'm interested as we discussed the Ephesians passage recently with a very different take on it...
If it's of any worth, as you know I was unsure about the role of women priests (yes from a woman that's not a great statement...) simply from my own experiences. I have changed my view you will be pleased to know...
redx
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1 Tim 2:12
Oh thanks for sharing that Red - it does make a difference :)
L
x x
hmmm. I hadn't come across that before. not sure what my take would be, other than being a bit irritated with Paul.... I guess it depends on whether you take the entire bible as the Word of God? or whether we discuss/debate and so on what the true meaning of various passages is. Particularly as you say, there are several women of authority in the bible.
why is it never easy....?!
x
You state in your argument that while Jesus chose all male disciples, He also chose all circumcised Jews, and ridicule insisting on these as necessary qualifications for a priest. However, as I am sure you will be aware, scripture makes it absolutely clear that gentiles and the uncircumcised may equally be reborn as Christians as Jews. It is therefore disingenuous to proffer this an argument with respect to Christ's own decision on whom He selected to lead, i.e. only men. In 1 Tim 2 Paul goes on to justify his insistence that women should not usurp authority over man by summarising Genesis saying that Adam was 1st, Eve second; Not Adam but Eve was deceived by the Devil. Hence the role of male and female were set from the beginning, for all time. This may be inconvenient, but we can either believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God - or not. If we seek to edit it to meet our own will or political convenience, we attempt to usurp the LORD, making an idol of ourselves.
Hello Epistle, and welcome.
I like your name, does it suggest you are an apostle? (Thinking about it perhaps I might use 'epistle' as a new nickname for Ron ;) )
Yes, I have no problem with uncircumcised men as leaders.
To offer back your own argument, I am sure you will be aware, scripture makes it absolutely clear that women may equally be reborn as Christians as men.
Paul in Gal 3:28 also says that in Christ there is no male or female, and Paul seems to have no problem with Lydia, Priscilla and the apostle Junia. Furthermore the epistles are only one half of a conversation, the other half we have lost, and I know if I overhear one side of a telephone conversation I get the wrong idea.
How about if we believe that the Bible is inspired by God and people, and that it does contain some errors and cultural influences.. what happens then?
Maybe one way of reading Genesis 2 is not 'Adam first, Eve second', but that 'Human' consists of both, now divided, and that any role/activity is Humanity at its most complete when both are included.
Yes, good point :)
Helps if people don't think 'made in the image of God' is male too!
The thing with Paul's verse quoted was the beginning "I do not...". This is clearly his opinion. It isn't backed up by other verses and the idea that God only used women when men weren't available to lead makes a mockery of saying that he is omnipotent. Esther is an entire book about a woman raised up to leadership.
I find Paul an interesting character. At one point he teaches not to take your brothers to court, yet he takes the Pharisees to the highest court in Rome! I have spoken to people who find Paul a very big reason not to believe in the Gospel, and I don't have an answer to that one.
It's not impossible to believe that the Bible is the Word of God but also be aware that not all parts of it are to be doctrine. The "leopard never changes its spots" verse is often misquoted but no-one would use that as doctrine!
God doesn't make mistakes. He designed a woman before he created man, and this is obvious from genetics.
Ah Yes, I must admit to a love/hate relationship with Paul too.
It is surprising that the beautiful Eden creation myth is still interpreted as literal truth - a speaking serpent notwithstanding - to uphold Eve's disobedience as evidence of female unsuitability for an equal role in religious ritual.
All the components of this pre-biblical myth-history circulated in Abraham's country of Mesopotamia centuries before the Old Testament was set into written form.
At its origins the story of the naked couple - preserved for posterity in some of the world's oldest literature: the Gilgamesh epic - had nothing to do with original sin.
On the contrary when this important myth-history is interpreted as myth-history, not litersl truth, it preserves an inspirational anthropological record of value to all human beings.
See;Eden: the Buried Treasure, by Eve Wood-Langford, published by Authorhouse.
In reference to the quote from the Epistle of Timothy. I regard any religion as having Scriptual Authority if its a confirmed statement from the originator or authority of the religion- and then it can be disputable. So unless Jesus is confirmed as making a ruling, all others' opnions may be guidance but not authority.
There have been many accreations added to religion and then later removed and forgotten by the laity.
Timothy on behalf of Paul represents a debatable theology and not an infallible statement. Many letters and books were disregarded by the ecclesiasticals because they did not fit with the theological scheme or canon law being developed from the second to sixth century; this includes women clergy. Women deacons exists in the R.C. until about 550AD and many dissenting or heretical sects had women clergy.
I think it's a bit of a generalisation to suggest that women may have been 'possessions and of little worth' in NT times. Doubtless some were badly treated, as they are today. At the same time it's not hard to find examples of extremely powerful women, and for every Alexandra Salome or Cleopatra Philopater, there must have been thousands more with dominant positions in their own families, who weren't queens and didn't make it into the history books. We need to take a proper look at the evidence and see where that leads, rather than going by the ideological stuff we sometimes get deluged with.
There's no real evidence, incidentally, either that any of the Twelve were ever bishops, or that they ever ordained bishops.
Post a Comment