Now there’s a topic guaranteed to arouse strong feelings. I should be surprised if someone has not already got their answers ready as to why women cannot be priests. Those arguments have a long pedigree and remain convincing to both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, whilst the Church of England in the UK has managed to find a way of saying that women can be priests, but it is okay if you can’t accept that, as long as you accept it as being the position of the C of E. Naturally that has people at both ends of the spectrum of views on this dissatisfied, and women priests have been known to say occasionally that they feel that the language in which this is sometimes discussed makes them uneasy. Some feel that it is about time that everyone came round to their position, which, in that sense, aligns them squarely with those who have always opposed the idea of women priests. But that’s not what this posting is about, although it is relevant to it.
The readings for the feast of St Mary Magdalen reminded us of something that the Church has not always been good at stressing, which is the role played by women in the Church, and we see this from the beginning. But, as has often been pointed out, the Risen Christ is first seen by a woman, which, in Jewish law as it then existed, was not testimony which would stand up in court. This is of a piece with what we can glean from the New Testament about the earthly Mission of Jesus.
Many posts have appeared here about the role played by women in the New Testament and St Mark tells us that, in addition to those he names, “many other women” came with Jesus to Jerusalem. This was unusual at the time, and we know that the pattern continued from what Paul says. Romans 16 contains a long list of female names, and it is clear that they played a key part in the work of the first generation of the Great Commission. For those interested in a plausible fictional account centred on Phobe, I can recommend Paula Gooder’s book of that name which also contains some useful information on the role women played.
What is worth noting, in addition, is that the vivid picture we get from Paul is of a church where women and men minister together and where there do not seem to be rigid distinctions based on gender; those who can teach, teach, those who can prophesy, prophesy, there was no gender basis on which work you could do for Christ, just as there was no racial basis. Where the Spirit moved you, that was where you went. It is interesting, in relation to Phoebe, to note that St Paul describes her in three ways: as a benefactor, as a deacon but also as a sister. It is not her gifts not her position which define her within the body of Christ, it is the fact that she is a sister.
Those early Christian communities were, in that sense, more like some modern ones than was the case for many hundreds of years, where women and men worked together to build the kingdom. Yes, that is one of the things which led the Church of England down the route of ordaining women, and it is one of the things which its advocates elsewhere press. But if we stand back from the polemic which so often distracts us at this point, and from our current positions and those of our churches, it may just be worth looking at the fruits of the ordination of women and wondering whether they suggest the working of the Spirit or its absence.
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have a clear position here, and I would hope that those who disagree with it will respect that; but, back to my initial comment, I hope that those of us who take the traditional view will at least be open to the question and examine the evidence. What is at issue here is not, pace the protagonists on both sides, but how we can disagree in faith, hope and charity. Too often our Christian history looks suspiciously like the rest of human history with us moved by the secular emotions of our fallen nature. But, one might protest, “this is a really important issue and it is important to – assert the eternal teaching of the Church/the lessons we have learned/that I am right – [delete according to taste]. It is precisely because it is important and it is precisely because we need to learn lessons that we should disagree as Christians should. The question, which I daresay comments will answer, is whether we can?
All Along the Watchtower 
I wrote about this sort of thing on my old blog Catholic Scot (Women Bishops and Catholicism https://catholicscot.blogspot.com/2014/07/women-bishops-catholicism.html) What I would say here is that the key question is not ‘who can become a priest?’ but ‘what is the fundamental nature of the Church?’
Does the Church have the authority to discern the mood, or the reality, of the time and so modify its practice accordingly? Well, its practice is based not on a philosophy developed by wise men of another era but upon the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. All that this revelation intended to convey was revealed by the time the last Apostle died. The Church has custody of this revelation and is responsible for unfolding it. What it cannot do is add to it or take away from it. So, adaptations of practice need to rest upon the faith and morals which the Apostles established as the revealed truth of God more than they do upon the zeitgeist of the current epoch.
Which means, I think, that those arguing for the ordination of women would have to demonstrate that this was something that the Apostles would have been willing to do based upon their inspired understanding of the content of the truth revealed in Jesus Christ apart from any cultural considerations of their times and places. And also, for Catholics, they would further have to demonstrate how ordaining women would not overturn the dogma of infallibility given that the reservation of the sacerdotal priesthood to men has been defined as being a part of the Magisterium. Roma locuta, causa finita is a valid argument for many of us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s my position also, Steve, but there is a counter which is what is posed here. The Church St Paul describes is not the one we have run for a long time. We don’t see the defined positions as sharply etched out as they became. Now that may, of course, simply be a matter of development, but I am not sure how it fits with the position of women, who seem to have been rather more active than they subsequently became, raising the question of how far it was cultural considerations which determined their exclusion from the priesthood.
In a way, it’s unresolvable, which is why I wonder what the experience of the Anglicans may have to tell us on this matter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To the extent that we think of the priestly role in terms of a pastoral and/or a teaching function then certainly there are plenty of unordained women who could easily outperform the average ordained man. The sacerdotal role of the priest though, which has a transcendent quality to it, is of a different order to those other functions. Those who are enabled to effect the miracle of the Eucharist are granted that status despite not because of most of the human characteristics which they personally bring to the table.
So, I think that giving a place in the ‘official’ life of the Church to the teaching and pastoral skills of women is certainly something that Catholics have been slow to learn from the world around them although it can certainly be deduced from the practices of the Apostolic age. Nonetheless the specifically priestly role of priests has been, for reasons that may seem unclear to us, reserved to men and ultimately that is something we either accept and stay or reject and leave.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Steve, that is certainly my position, but I do wonder whether it depends on ignoring what we see elsewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chalcedon – I don’t have a dog in this race since I’m not a Catholic.
I’d say, though, that this post says quite a lot about you – and I get the impression that you are not as comfortable as you would like to be with the Catholic church.
As Scoop pointed out when this topic was raised a few posts ago, this is now infallible papal doctrine, where John Paul II wrote some garbage about men having the potency to become priests but not to give birth, while women had the potency to give birth but not to become priests.
I would hope that this piece of writing by JP II was intended as a sick joke – even if the conclusion (no female priests) is correct, the way of reasoning looks very much like the `Kirche kuche kinder’ view of society favoured by Adolf Hitler and is not one that I particularly like.
This, for me, was more important than his conclusions about the priesthood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Jock. Scoop, like myself, takes the view that it is infallible dogma, but there are many in the Church who disagree with us.
In a way this subject points up a problem that I have always had, which is I will keep thinking and questioning and trying to understand others rather than just settling down and saying “that’s what I think and there’s an end to it.” One reason I ceased to be an Anglican was that I felt the Church had left me behind. I still have more in common with Anglo-Catholics than with any other group, but labels have always fitted me badly – and they continue not to quite stick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As you will appreciate, this is also how Brexiteers felt under sucessiver remainer governments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, and as we move to the delights of a no deal Brexit, no doubt all will be converted by its joys!
LikeLike
Chalcedon – 1) clearly if there is going to be a Brexit (and this was decided back in 2016) then it has to be a `no deal’ Brexit, otherwise it doesn’t make much sense.
2) politics is a cess-pool. This certainly describes both EU politics and UK politics irrespective of whether the UK is in or out of the EU and I’m not at all sure that this is the sort of issue that Christians should be getting their water heated over.
The mission, of bringing people to Salvation, is something that seems to me to be completely orthogonal to the issue of Brexit versus remaining within the EU.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we have to consider the basis for Paul’s clear teachings and consider whether (a) we actually understand them, (b) those bases are preserved, and (c) what tradition has to say.
By way of analogy, Paul’s teaching on veils depends partially on erroneous medical beliefs of the time. We now know that this basis is invalidated, but that does not entail that the other bases for his teaching have been invalidated.
Paul’s teaching on women is founded partially on Genesis 3,so think if was blog are to address this, we would need to lay our readings of Genesis on the table.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That would be part of it, Nicholas. But what concerns me, I think, is that this reasoning seems to assume that the Holy Spirit stopped working in the Church at some point in the past.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas – ummm – nowhere does Paul mention that his teaching on veils is dependent on medical beliefs.
As far as I can see, where Paul gets it from is completely clear – Genesis 3 is part of it, he always has a firm eye on the Scriptures, understood in the light of the cross and he always states clearly where he gets it from and any underlying assumptions.
Another issue of importance – he would clearly have been very, very surprised if somebody had told him that 2000 years later the second coming would not have taken place. He wasn’t trying to change society; he didn’t expect society to last very long, so his imperative was to bring people to Christ within the context of the society to which they belonged.
Sure, there are some parts of the letters to Timothy and Titus which seem to be setting out longer term objectives, but the basic idea in his mind was that the second coming would occur very soon, perhaps even in his own lifetime and I have found it very helpful to bear this in mind when reading Paul.
LikeLike
Paul’s dependence on medical teachings for one strand of his doctrine is apparent in the Greek. It is not apparent in English translations, especially for non-Greek readers because they usually don’t appreciate that Koine and Classical Greek do not possess technical vocabulary. You have to use context to determine that a word is being used technically because words generally have broad semantic ranges in the abstract. This medical belief in the veils doctrine is fairly common knowledge in academia and I believe it is the consensus view in fact. Be that as it may, it does not undermine the argument as a whole because that is only one line of reasoning for Paul. I will fish out the relevant scholarship for you and post that after retrieval.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nicholas, you may be able to throw light om 1 Cor 11:10 – “for this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is an Enochian interpretation of Genesis 6 reference, which was the view held by Paul, Peter, and Jude and was prevalent during the Second Temple period. An argument can also be strongly made that this was indeed the intention of the author of Genesis 6 based on contemporary ANE literature (I favour a Mosaic authorship based on older traditions, with the text edited under subsequent scribes (see e.g. name changes so that later readers knew what places in Israel, etc were being referenced at the time).
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thank you, Nicholas.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Click to access Stuckenbruck-Why-Should-Women-Cover-their-Heads-bc-of-the-Angels-1.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re: scholarly literature, this article is a good starting point, published in a serious academic journal. If you care to search JStor, you will also find similar articles and acceptance from various other scholars.
Click to access Martin-Pauls-argument-from-nature-for-the-veil-in-1-Corinthians-11.13-15-testicle-instead-of-a-head-covering-1.pdf
LikeLiked by 4 people
Nicholas – thanks for this – I’ll read it properly later. I get the impression that the author has a one-track-mind. There are some choice quotes here – but I won’t write them down because there are ladies reading this and I’m sure that Chalcedon doesn’t really want his blog to become x-rated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Laughing!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nicholas – if you’re preaching at your church tomorrow, then I’d suggest that you give the sermon on this topic and that you quote extensively from this paper. It certainly contains a lot of spiritual nourishment and would brighten up the service considerably. Let me know how you get on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was due to preach earlier this month or last month (I forget), but since lockdown we just have weekly newsletters and podcasts from our pastor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Outstanding article and a topic close to my heart.
Jesus never called a woman to His ministry. My dearly beloved younger sister (in her early 60s – a mere child [wink]) full of the ‘narrative’, maintains that He couldn’t because of the time and place. That Jesus could do anything He wanted to do, even in that time and place, has never quite occurred to her.
What Jesus did do was welcome women to study at His feet – simply read the story of Mary and Martha. It’s important to note that He didn’t just heal men – the woman with the issue of blood, the twelve year old girl, the mother-in-law; women are as important to Jesus as men are.
The New Testament is liberally sprinkled with the mention of the women who supported His ministry and assisted the Apostles in their missions. Our churches today reflect what has always been so; the women keep the church running – ask any priest.
But Jesus never called a woman to His ministry and those women who seek ordination are seeking after that which is not right for them to assume.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you Audre. You reflect my own position, as well as that of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and my own position depends upon the latter, and indeed would be worth nothing were it not.
What I wonder is whether there is anything to learn from our Anglican brothers and sisters who have gone down the other route. That, of course, can be read both ways, is there anything negative as well as positive?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church (ECUSA). The last straw – after carrying an increasing burden of doubt – was when the Presiding Bishop (equivalent to Archbishop there), Kathryn Jefford Schori, made a YouTube video of a ‘teaching’ she was giving to a congregation. (I’m shuddering typing this) In this teaching, she was explaining how Jesus is NOT – I repeat, IS NOT – the only way to the Father. That all roads lead to God. She was Presiding Bishop!!! For SIX YEARS! Someone on her ‘team’ got real smart, real fast and had the video removed.
Can we learn from holy women, of course we can. Would I attend a women’s only Bible study, of course I would. The Church, in her wisdom, gives us (women) great opportunity to spread the Gospel and to serve Jesus – non-ordained ministries to women and children, helping at care homes and hospitals under the oversight of the priest, outreach to those who have fallen by the way. One needn’t wear a collar to serve Jesus. There’s a lot we women can – and should – do; we don’t need the collar and vestments to do it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Audre – yes – this does illustrate the point that `sometimes 10 minutes can be 10 minutes too long …’ You can get some duff male archbishops too, you know. And if Scoop shows up, just ask him what he thinks of the current pontiff and a substantial number of (male) Catholic bishops.
But TEACHING has nothing whatsoever to do with PRIEST – whether women should be allowed to teach and whether they should be allowed to be priests in the Catholic sense are orthogonal issues.
Scoop on a recent thread explained exactly what the priesthood was all about and why it was impossible for women. Apparently the priest has to act `in the person of Jesus’ and hence the priest `PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL’ (I Kings 14v10) because that’s what Jesus did – and it is generally accepted that women cannot do this.
This seems to be a fundamental aspect of acting `in the person of Jesus’. You always have to ask yourself `What Would Jesus Do’?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, THAT thought had never crossed my mind! (laughing…) Not altogether happy about it now being there!
What would Jesus do? Exactly what He did when He walked with us on earth – choose Godly men to start churches and love the women who support the Godly men.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I fear that +Shori was representative of a certain type of modern bishop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“fear” is exactly the right word. The site Archbishop Cranmer posted a letter from Archbishop Welby et al laying ground work for a female Archbishop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It seems to me that Christ as divine and human has a better understanding of what we today call psychology and nature of both the male and female human person than do we ourselves. Nothing is hidden from this knowledge of His complete understanding.
When Paul speaks of head coverings for men and women he also alludes to the nature of men:
1 Corinthians 11:3,9
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
9 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.
Again when Paul speaks of the ordering of our households he makes the statement below:
Ephesians 5:22-26
22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:
23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:
26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life:
It may seem a small matter in today’s views of things but it seemed important enough for St. Paul to speak to these issues and it seems quite understandable when viewed from the aspect of what Christ’s Church was going to look like: i.e. a well-ordered home or domicile.
We have had people who have argued (I think rightly) that men are born with a violent almost barbaric nature when left to themselves and that women tend to tame man’s nature which I think is right using broad strokes. That would tend to agree with St. Paul’s teaching.
It is also true that men will take leadership roles only when it is obvious that only a man can do the work. Otherwise, he will let the woman do what is his role and he will take the easier road of non servum.
As to the ‘times and culture’ of the peoples argument, it was more uncommon that men were taking the primary role in the many paeanistic and animistic religions of the day where women priestesses were aplenty. So the male (headship) as representing Christ’s headship of the Church (His Domestic Household on Earth) seems a break from earlier religions that were prevalent around the world and it seems to have endured until this small slice of time in our time, place and culture decided that we should turn this household on its head and the we know better than did the Author of our own being and nature.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As you probably know, Scoop, women like to say, “Well, the man may be the head, but women are the neck that turns the head”. They don’t even see the irony in what they’re saying.
If the man is the head of the wife, and the wife ‘turns’ the head, isn’t she leading him away from his straight and narrow view of duty and loyalty? Something to ponder, yes? The neck turns the head from its appointed role.
Brilliant comment, Scoop. Thanks so much.
LikeLike
All I know is that a (loved) woman is the best intercessor to get mercy or permission from a man and that is probably why Mary is our strongest ally in gaining the forgiveness of God for our many mistakes and outright disobedience. The same could be said for the children in dealing with a father after violating the rules that the father laid down for his household.
Wives generally have a good deal of influence on the men of the world and especially in the Church. They seem to be the heart of the body which can only be appealed to by love rather than strength. If a woman appeals via strength then we have strength vs. strength and neither the woman or man wins in such a marriage where the 2 become 1 body.
If anybody represents a neck in the Body of Christ (the Church) it would likely be Mary who turns the head to look upon the sinful and disobedient sons and daughters with compassion rather than scorn.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You write very thoughtful comments, Scoop; I appreciate your taking time to lay out your thoughts so logically.
Being Anglican, I have a different view of Mary, but I certainly respect your views.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You have a different view of Mary, but what is the objective true view? Mary aside, isn’t the differing views the reason we ultimately find ourselves in these days? Isn’t this the dictatorship of relativism?
I don’t have a particularly strong devotion to Mary at the time being. I pray the rosary, but the Catholic Church is a big tent. So either what is said about Mary by the Catholic Church is eithe true or it’s not.
Same goes with other things too. We may disagree on the propositions, but surely there can be agreement on the centrality is the splendor of truth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
There is splendor in truth; we have only to look at Jesus for the splendor in truth.
What I learned from Bonhoeffer is this question, “Is it important to our salvation?”
I am not insulted, offended, or challenged by the Roman Catholic understanding of Mary. I think the Anglican understanding is closer to who and what she is and represents. Until we get to heaven and get full understanding, I think it’s a moot point.
LikeLiked by 3 people
There’s truth and then there’s a person’s relationship to truth-which is different than relativism. Your quote, “Is important to our salvation?” Well, maybe to some people and not to others.
In regards to Mary, there’s some debate about dogmatically defining her as coredemptrix, I think that would be a bridge too far and maybe just too confusing for some l.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Salvation is through Jesus alone. End of story.
How one views Mary, is a matter of training and/or personal insight. I’m not offended either way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And I think that is where I find the bridge too far. However, there is a matter of the movement of the will to faith in the Prime Revelation who is also the Prime Revealer, Christ Jesus. For example, a miracle is a sign of credibility so one can move their intellect to things not self evident. The Gospel is a sign too, history etc. Christ alone saves, no doubt, but you don’t think the means that moves the will is different for each person? And that would be argument to Boenhoffer is that he leaves no room for nuance because without our will and our own personalities, we’d be gracebots or gracezombies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The movement of our will, Phillip, is dependent on the Holy Spirit. Atheists ‘will’ not to believe in God or the Godhead. For the Christian, either by baptism, or training, or insight, our will is to be in the will of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think I agree with that statement. The human is composed of body and soul, hylomorphism. The soul’s powers which is essential to our the life of the faith is the intellect, will, and passions. The building up of virtue in the intellect and the will help control our passions. All of which The Holy Spirit maybe able to appeals to us and even infuses our souls with graces that may tip our wills one way or the other, nonetheless there is a movement of the the will on the part of each person, where we order our wills to the God’s will or the Elect are just gracebots.
LikeLike
You are more than welcome to disagree with me – hashing these things out should be fun and thought provoking. Which this discussion has proved to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No doubt. I rather enjoy talking to you. Neo, was right that you are certainly an addition. On the Pilgrim Road might have lasted if you would have joined it. Probably not… ha!
LikeLiked by 2 people
What a lovely thing to say! Thanks so much! It has been fun. I’m looking forward to a long relationship here. Thanks again.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Maybe this will help your understanding of Roman Catholic?
https://stpaulcenter.com/understanding-mary-as-queen-mother/
LikeLike
That’s a fascinating read and again, thank you for the link.
Quick family history; Dad was raised Roman Catholic (his confirmation name was Paul – do they still do that in the Catholic Church?) and Mom was raised Lutheran. When they became engaged, Mom didn’t want to be Catholic and Dad didn’t want to be Lutheran so they decided to become Episcopalian and raised us Episcopalian.
All that being said, all of my first and second cousins are Roman Catholic, as Dad is the only one who converted out of the faith. So I’m fairly familiar with the tenents of the Catholic Church. Add to that a number of years watching EWTN and I feel I have a fairly good grasp of the Marion devotion in the Roman Church.
So, again, I think one’s outlook or opinion of Mary and her standing in the overall story of Christ is a moot point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, we still take a saints name when we are confirmed into the Catholic Church.
Seems to me that Mary was not concerned that Christ, out of love for her, would not do what she asked of Him at the wedding feast of Cana. Her simple almost queenly advice to the waiters (servants really) was told by John:
John 2:5
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Her will and Her Sons Will seem to be compatible to how Mary operates in the Church. The difference being that she acts in complete love and trust that Christ will answer Her wishes because she is not asking for that which is not also the Will of God.
What better intercessor do we have than one who remains an advocate for Her children (those in the Church) and continually in communion with Her Son our God and Head of the Church. He is the King and She is the Queen Mother. The difference is only the sincerity of Her commitment to love and obey perfectly according to His Will. And that She does for both our sake and the sake of the Church and its Head, Her Son, Jesus Christ the Head of the Church and the Bride Groom of Spouse of the Bride of Christ. Symbolically these words are used by the early Church and Apostles for a reason. In my mind then, if they found it important enough to write in such a way were not delivering information that we might later call a moot point. Just my opinion but I favor the metaphorical portrayals as something worth our time to ponder.
LikeLike
I love your comments, Scoop; you go the extra mile and I truly appreciate it.
All I can say is that I am happy for you if by praying through Mary you are comforted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, you as an Anglian and I as a Lutheran have a somewhat different view of Mary, but is that tradition or novelty? Henry VIII made the pilgrimage to Walsingham just as every monarch since the Conquerer had, to venerate her, and Luther venerated her all his life. In truth, the Anglican shrine at Walsingham is still going great guns, as is the Catholic one, and the Orthodox chapel and Methodist chapel aren’t all that far behind.
I agree with Phillip on the bridge too far, but I also know that praying through Mary has on occasion given me much comfort. To go back to one of my old analogies, the foot of the Cross is indeed a destination, but it is also a junction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have never prayed ‘through’ any intercessor. Jesus is our only mediator and Advocate. The Holy Spirit interprets what we can’t articulate – He does this without our asking.
I understand about the ‘junction’ but it doesn’t lead me – and I’m speaking for myself, not my denomination, just to be clear – to Mary. Anglicans, the denomination, honor her, revere her, see her as an example of obedience. We don’t assign anything other to her than these attributes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Depends on which Anglicans, most Anglo-Catholics are all but indistinguishable from Catholics on the matter, at least in my experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps – and this is just a guess because I nave no experience other than here in the States – perhaps an English Anglican is different from an American Anglican, or through prayer, meditation, or influence an Anglican might come to what you see as a Catholic understanding of Mary? I’m not certain. But I do consider myself Anglo-Catholic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you believe, as I do, that Mary is in Heaven, then asking her to pray for me is the sort of thing I ask people to do when I know them, that’s it, sort of, for me!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know, and if i wasn’t Lutheran, so would I be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Audre – gosh – that’s interesting – thanks! I always thought that Scoop’s views on women presented a theoretical construct and it never occurred to me that there might exist a real live woman who would actually agree with him.
My own grandmother (a fine Baptist lady) was known in the town as `the skipper’ because it was completely clear that she ran the show (and there was no attempt to put up the pretence that you talk of that someone else might be running the show). My grandfather was a fisherman and she was the one who kept the accounts for the boat and paid the men – he seems to have been very happy to leave all of this in her hands.
The view of `ordering households’ presented here by Scoop is not something that is part of my own experience – although I have read fictional novels where this sort of thing happens.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am not sure that your exegesis of the passage in Corinthians is exhaustive, Scoop. You are assuming that ‘head’ in verse 3 has the meaning you wish it to have. i.e. that it means person in charge as in Headmaster. That may be so, but it appears in the context where St Paul is writing about actual heads and their coverings, and your version makes no sense in the context of verse 10 which talks about a woman having “a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” There he is clearly referring to a woman having authority over her own head, not a man or husband having authority over the woman’s head.
If St Paul had been writing about authority, his ordering of priorities would seem very odd if you stop to consider it. Surely the correct hierarchy in terms of authority is God, Christ, man then woman. Here he seems to be saying that every man has his origin in Christ, the Creator, and that, as Genesis 2 tells us (see verse 8), woman has her origin in man, as Christ has His in the Godhead; that makes more sense of the order of things in the letter.
It also makes more sense of the reversal which St Paul makes in verses 11 and 12. Women did, as verse 8 (citing Genesis) tells us, come from man, but in verse 12 St Paul tells us that just as woman came from man, so man came from woman and that both sexes come from God. This means that both sexes should be able to pray and prophesy in the assembly without causing offence.
You are on surer ground with Ephesians, but note there that the word you translate as “women” is also translatable as “wives” and I should have thought makes more sense thus translated, as it would be somewhat ambiguous otherwise – hard to see how any other woman could! That seems unexceptionable in the society of its time, but as advice for the ages seems less timeless.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Chalcedon – thanks for this. What you write here makes a lot of sense.
Actually, I feel that if Paul had had a wife of his own, then his perspective on women might have been different. He’s a great theoretician, but sometimes the applied side leaves something to be desired.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks Jock. What I find interesting here is that when the usual appeal to what did the early church do does not turn up what some of us think it ought to, we find reasons why that’s not really what the early church did, and immediately we (and I include myself) resort to a few passages from St Paul which we then claim have universal validity. It may be true, but the methodology is interesting!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Of course my comment was not meant as a complete exegesis as the Church has volumes of books that do this from theological, spiritual and symbolic foundations.
I agree with your saying that: “Surely the correct hierarchy in terms of authority is God, Christ, man then woman.” precisely is the point that I was trying to convey in the first reading. If the hierarchy is clear . . . then it is once again applied to the household. I think the Church was meant to be a household as well.
Two heads (men) do not make a household; it is a monstrosity. If the 2 become 1 then perhaps a head and a heart are more likely to be assumed which creates a complimentary structure that works and balance these individual natures into a better and fuller nature which our families and the Family of God surely are designed to be. Some fail and others strive.
For instance I think of my wife as the heart of our family and yet she sees me as the head which does not mean that she has no say. In fact, her input is equally as important to my decisions even though she leaves the final decision in my domain. Women, in my opinion are more closely aligned to the contemplative (or Holy Spirit) than to the ministerial priesthood of men in representing Christ as the Head . . . acting in the person of God. Women are more likely to be intercessors and mediators within the body which does not go unnoticed by the Head which is Christ represented by the male hierarchy. They each have their own part and to set the Church up as an equal opportunity corporation is like having two of the same sexes operating as a household. They are missing 1/2 of the whole.
The Church itself is thought of as female as is the soul of both men and women. It seems only fitting that men might have some role to play in the Church which is specifically given to them . . . to be physical representatives of Christ the Head of this Heavenly Family called the Church. Together with the hyperdulia offered to Mary I cannot for the life of me able to see any reason for women to feel that they are left out of the Church. The head is as important to the family as is the heart. Two hearts just as 2 heads seems to be symbolic (not to mention a psychological) barrier to men. Perhaps that is why we are seeing an increase of effete (or even effeminate) men taking the reigns of power today in much larger proportion that we have ever seen in the past. At this rate, the Church is going to become bereft of men and it may in time devolve into a simple cult of women; a Church of Feminism. Men in the Churches here in the US are leaving in droves . . . especially among the young post Confirmation boys. They see Church as a girlish nonsense. It is sad to see, but they do not see priests as real men who should be admired than simple men who are too effeminate to want as mentors or ideals for their spiritual lives.
LikeLiked by 2 people
priests of god were the levites. the levites and nobody else but the Levites. male levites. jesus last words on the cross were….it is finished. and the viel was rent from top to bottom. we can now approach god for ourself. no more priests. the priestclass was done away with. anyone calling him or herself a priest of god is a liar and the truth is not in him.
we now have, what some ppl call, evangelicals.the first evangelist was a woman. the woman at the well. she told the whole town that she met the messiah. and told them where to go to met him also.
the first ppl to proclaim the lord has risen were two females.
LikeLike
A shame that St Paul and all the people who gave us the Bible don’t agree with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shhhh … (I’m clapping my hands)
LikeLiked by 1 person
good brother paul knows there are no more priests of the living god. no christians considered themselves priests.there were priests of false religions. scripture backs me up.
good brother, if you can show me where paul disagrees with me id love to see it. thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Here’s a non Roman Catholic site explaining it for you https://www.christian-history.org/bishops-elders-pastors.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks good brother. i read it. it was clear a priest is one wh does sacrifices for the people. intermediary for god and the people. decons and elders are just everyday people it says oversee the congregation. i knew you would try to use that as priests. the article says as time went by, bishops came up who ruled over their territory. i guess that warms your heart to have men ruling over men in the name of god. these rulers were the beginnings of that state run religion catholic. born again folks have no one person ruling over them. we are all brothers. no one lords over another. but, catholics cant imagine not being ruled over by some guy in a costume. you know, its your god given right to belong to any religion of your choice. by the way, the article said there was no bishop of rome till about 120AD and he was sure of that.
LikeLike
Let’s us see. The article, by a non Catholic agrees with me and with what the Church has always taught about priests. This Church gave you the Bible. It’s you and a tiny number of people like you, or the Church which gave us all the Bible … no, still can’t see it being you who is right and everyone else wrong.
LikeLike
we have the bible, gods word. how we got it in our hands is immaterial. who wants to take credit for gods word. you are correct…bosco is always wrong. dont accept my word for anything.
LikeLike
No, how we got it into our hands is very material. God did not dictate it to the Evangelists, He did found a Church, and that Church discerned which books were and were not Scripture.
LikeLike
If I may – I believe you meant God ‘founded’ – ‘ed’ – as opposed to found a church”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Numbers 3:5-10 “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, [6] Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto him. [7] And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of the congregation, to do the service of the tabernacle.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
we have no need of priests to go to god for us. we can approach the holy of holies ourself.
LikeLike
The Church, which told you what the Bible is does not agree. So, you, or two thousand years and the Church …
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chalcedon …. ummm …. I think you’re on dangerous ground here.
In the time of Elijah, `the church’ (and we’re talking about `the church’ that God Himself had established) did not agree with Elijah.
Elijah was right and `the church’ was wrong.
I don’t really want to get involved in a ridiculous discussion between you and Bosco – so I’d suggest that, without any reference to Bosco at all, you write a post where you tell us where you think the bible comes from (including what Jesus meant by `Scriptures’ and why he thought of these writings in this way) and the role of `the church’ in the writing of it.
As I can see it, Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and came to us through `the church’ and it was God’s way of telling us just how bad `the church’ (by which I mean the church that He established) really was. He wants us to understand through the Scriptures just how sanctimonious and false `the church’ really is.
This goes right back to the Pentateuch, where the `priestly’ part of it lays down laws whereby every single one of the patriarchs would have been put to death for some misdemeanour had these laws been applied rigorously. We also see it in Nememiah and Ezra, where it is completely clear that Ezra was a racist, duffing up perfectly good marriages because the women were `foreign’ (and the writing makes it clear that he wasn’t remotely interested in whether the woman was a believer or not).
The people who really got up Jesus nose and inspired very negative reactions where the church people – the pharisees and the priests.
So for me, the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and handed down via `The Church’ is God’s way of telling me just how bad `the church’ really is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thinnk we need to make a clear distinction, as Jesus in effect does, between pre and post Incarnation. What is founded upon the Rock of Peter or Peter’s faith if you prefer, is the Church of the New Covenant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chalcedon – well, I disagree with this. Human nature remains the same before and after the crucifixion. This includes ecclesiastical types and I see the Christian church post crucifixion as a continuation of the synagogue pre-crucifixion.
Those things that God was warning us against, through the sanctimonious parts of the pentateuch, the priorities of Ezra, when Jesus spoke out against what was happening in the temple and against the pharisees, you can see them *all* in the church today – so these parts of Scripture speak to us today and apply equally to the church at Jerusalem, the church at Rome, the church at Wittenberg, you name it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It depends what you mean by a continuation, Jock. Yes, huiman nature has not changed, and clerics will, as it were, sometimes be clerics and be guilty of the sort of behaviour which Our Lord condemned. But I should be interested in some reading on it if you are suggesting that the Synagogues of Judea and the Churches founded by the Apostles are the same thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This seems to be the view that Karl Barth takes in his commentary on Romans 9.
I’ve mentioned it before here.
I don’t think I recommend it and there is a lot of pretentious drivel there, but there are some ideas that are well worth taking on board.
His whole thesis seems to be that when Paul says `I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel.’, Barth identifies the `Israel’ with which Paul has such concern with `the church’.
Later on, he mentions Jerusalem, Rome, Wittenberg altogether, where the meaning is completely clear. For him, the New Testament church is a continuation of the Old Testament church and is essentially *opposed* to the gospel; the aim of the church is to bring order, while, when the gospel breaks in on peoples lives it brings disorder.
I thought that Barth on Romans 9 – 11 had absolutely nothing to tell me about Romans, but it did have an awful lot to tell me about the church. He basically saw the New Testament church as a continuation of the Old Testament church and he saw the transitions from Jerusalem to Rome and from Rome to Wittenberg similarly to each other – sometimes the church has lost the plot so badly that a phase transition is needed.
As I said, I’m not sure you want to spend time with Barth on Romans – it didn’t leave me with the good feeling of a `must read’, but the section on Romans 9 – 11 is where I got my basic ideas of `the church’ from.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanbks Jock, this would repay further work on my part by the looks of it.
LikeLike
good brother paul says about the priesthood.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
jesus is our high priest.there are no priests among christians in the OT. not one.
LikeLike
Well the Bible and the Church which gave it you doesn’t agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
here are of the few referrences given in the article;
8 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
warns of men wanting the flock to follow them and speaking perverse things. sound familiar?
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
1Peter5;1
thats right. no titles such as Holy father or your eminence or Father and no big paychecks. sound familiar.
still no priesthood amongst the lords people. you can feel free to find solace and comfort with the priestcraft of your religion. in the protestant world, which i have been assigned to by cathoics, there are no priests. pastors and ministers…not one single priest, because they know the bible and know there are no priests. you might say its just bosco who imagins no priests in the new testament, but also the whole sum total of the protestant world doesnt believe in priests. but, who cares.
LikeLike
Well, let’s see. There has always been a priesthood in the Church which told you 1 Peter is Scripture. So, either it did not know what it was talking about, in which case you have no way of knowing that 1 Peter is Scripture, or it does, in which case you are wrong. Take your pick, but either way you are wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gad dang. ive never been so wrong 100% of the time as i am in here. maybe i should go see the doctor. dr kavorkian
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t go that far Bosco. But I really would consider whether your logic holds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kudos for your patience. What I hope will happen in this on-going conversation, is that Bosco will run out of ‘possibilities’ and realize the One answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
….. and what *is* the answer? I see that Chalcedon picked holes in the rubbish that Bosco wrote, but he clearly failed to answer his own question!
It’s like watching a penalty shoot-out when both sides are trying to get the ball into their own net!
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is a post on its way Jock. In the meantime I dug out this old one from Geoffrey, which has some good things in it and from which I don’t dissent https://jessicahof.blog/2013/02/25/the-early-church-and-scripture/
LikeLiked by 1 person
One reason Jock thinks (probably correctly) that I am wasting my time, is that Bosco keeps repeating the same thing over and over. It may be I have now found the perfect riposte – in effect to do the same!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chalcedon – where the post of Geoffrey Sales goes wrong is its failure to acknowledge that (a) the entire message of salvation was already present in the Old Testament and (b) people were already coming to a saving knowledge of Christ, even before the foundational ministry of Peter and the apostles was completed.
From the passage in Isaiah that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading, we see that he understood the trinitarian faith, the necessity of the crucifixion, what was going on between Father and Son and he was brought to this faith through the Old Testament scriptures.
Sure, I’m very glad that we have the writings of the apostle Paul and the other New Testament authors – I feel that the Ethiopian eunuch must have had a brain the size of a planet (even taking into account the work of the Holy Spirit) to figure it all out based solely on Isaiah without the gospels or the letters, but there we have it.
As far as the trinitarian faith is concerned, I feel that he is ascribing far too great a role to the early church – and misses the important issue of the Old Testament writings, which already contain everything.
The role of Christ as second person in the Trinity was already established in the Old Testament – the function of the New Testament writings were simply to record the information to establish that Jesus was the Christ and (importantly) to clarify theology which was already present in the Old Testament.
The church, if it functions properly, is all very nice and helpful, but the Ethiopian eunuch came to faith before the church built on the foundations of Peter and the apostles had been established.
LikeLike
You build a lot on the Ethiopian, who of course famously asked how he could understand all of that without help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chalcedon – because one thing the Ethiopian illustrates is that it is not an intellectual issue. The issue with which the Ethiopian is having difficulties is “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”
He is not asking `what does this mean?’ The important point is that he has already figured that bit out. He is asking `who is this man?’
So – the bit that he needed help with (and you seem to be saying – with justification – that the help came from `the church’) was identifying the second person in The Trinity, the one who suffered unto death.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Jock. One problem I have with this is that if the OT was all we needed and it is so clear, why did all the Jews at the time not see it? Indeed, why does Jesus change Simon’s name to Rock and then say He founds a Church upon that rock?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chalcedon – I get the impression that certain things were strongly understood and that the problem was a moral problem and not an intellectual problem.
For example, the stoning of Stephen doesn’t look like the reaction of people who hadn’t a clue at an intellectual level. I think that Saul of Tarsus understood very well what it all meant and that the difficulty was entirely a moral difficulty.
So it seems to me that Saul had also reached the same conclusion about the prophet Isaiah, what it meant in terms of the second person of the Trinity, that Jesus was indeed the Christ and – unlike the Ethiopian he refused to accept it.
So we’re dealing with a refusal at a moral level rather than an intellectual difficulty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That makes sense, thank you Jock.
LikeLike
i was simply helping the conversation by stating …not for females to worry about being priests, because jesus did away with the priesthood. i believe paul says for women not to be pastors over men but can be leaders of womens groups. i believe the bible but i dont agree with good brother paul on that. i dont see why females cant get up befor the congregation and speak. i used to be a fan of kathrine coulman and went to one of her rallys.
LikeLike
If everyone and lick and choose which bits of Scripture to obey, where does that leave us?
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes, some pick and chose. i try not to be guilty of that. i have been chewed out royally by females on this subject. females should be silent in the church. what i was explained, was that women used to sit in the rear and talk while the pastor was running his mouth. it was distracting. so good brother paul told them not to talk in church. but its cleaqr women should not be pastors or deacons. deacons are not the equivalent of priests , as you might believe. they saw to the floors being swept, there being enough chairs, maybe seeing to some snacks, enlisting people to help in these tasks, and so on. we are all equal in gods eyes, but he made a difference in male and female, and in the christian world, females have a role which doesnt cross over with mens roles. just a few, not many. its hard to enforce these rules in todays world, what with women and their liberation and laws against discrimination.
i might not agree with good brother paul on this issue, but i dont chose to discount it. i dont pick and chose. i am forced to abide by it, like it or not.
LikeLike
How do you account for Junia being an Apostle, Bosco. That’s Paul’s description of her.
LikeLike
ill have to re read that. i have nothing against females being apostles but i thought an apostle was one who was with the lord. thats my understanding. but i dont care. i have my own walk with him. i dont care who did what.
LikeLike
good brother paul was mentioning a bunch of people who he wanted greetings to. this junia was just another. my quess is, she was one of many that jesus delt with who arent mentioned directly. he had more followers than just the 12.
LikeLike
Indeed. Paul calls her an Apostle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 – My younger sister, full of the ‘narrative’, does that. Doesn’t like verses about men being the head or not teaching men in church – those kinds of references.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…… it’s what everybody does (except that other people do it on a higher level and with more sophisticated reasons)
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is, I think, one of the points of the Church.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – maybe it is supposed to be one of the points of `the church’ – but commentators such as Scoop would be the first to point out to you that `the church’ isn’t making a very good job of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since it is run by fallen human beings such as ourselves, are we shocked or surprised?
LikeLike
hello good sister audry, pleased to meet you. it just dawned on me that there is something more important going on in the world. the time of Jacobs Trouble is on the way, better known as the Tribulation. jesus said there will be pestilence and rumors of wars and famine. we are having a dress rehearsal of the pestilence now. looks like a science fiction movie out in the street. everyone wearing masks. freaks me out every time i go out.
some say the trib will happen after the rapture and some say the rapture will happen during the trib. i say the born again will be taken first, then the devil can have the earth and its inhabitants. this is inline with scripture. then there are some who dont believe in the rapture at all.
LikeLike
Hi, Bosco! I wondered if you’re American? The reason I ask is, your pseudo and ‘avatar’ (if that’s the right word) remind me of my childhood. We used to have Bosco – a chocolate mix for milk – and the clown looks like the Bozo the Clown I grew up with, lol!
Anglicans don’t believe in the rapture or the tribulation. I don’t scorn it; I just have nothing in my faith tradition that guides me that way. I know that tons of people do, however. A great online preacher is John Hagee; he did a really involved map and timeline of the tribulation and the rapture. I’ll admit, he’s powerful, and he had me watching for awhile!
LikeLike
yes, im a yank. i am Bozo, at your service. but i had to change my name because i forgot the password.
well the rapture and trib are going to happen, believe it or not.ill explain more later if you want. i have to go do something now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite frankly, Bosco – John Hagee did an excellent job of laying the whole thing out so you can relax; put your feet up.
LikeLike
thanks. ive been watching hagee for at least 20 yrs. i only stopped cause i dont have TV. just internet.
LikeLike
Which is where you can see him now.
LikeLike
i never think to search for him because im hageed out kinda.
so, you got your fill of the trib and the rapture from good brother hagee. do you believe any of it despite your beloved religion not believing in it?
LikeLike
I’ve been meaning to write my own post also in response to this series on women in Christianity. I have been mulling some of the arguments Paul uses and trying to see if my understanding of Genesis points in a liberal or conservative direction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No – it doesn’t make sense to me – in spite of the work Hagee did.
LikeLike