Paul realised the revolutionary nature of the Christian life. The world into which he was born had, as all societies do, its established hierarchies. In Judea a male Jewish rabbi held a position of more privilege than another man, whist men held more privileged positions than women, although social class was also a differentiation. Gentiles were not allowed to eat with Jews, and Samaritans were to be shunned. Into this world came the message of the Messiah. Paul is clear about the significance of this.
To the Gentiles he proclaims: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” He criticises the Corinthians for the way they have been discriminating against the poor. He makes it clear to Philemon that Onesimus, his slave, is his equall when worshipping God and needs to be treated as such. He could not have put it plainer to the Galatians:
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And so we are. The poor God will, we are told, exalt, and the mighty shall be put down from their high positions; the first shall be last and the last shall be first. It was no wonder that Jesus was crucified by the authorities. If this had been a secular message it would have been seen now as communism, but it is not a secular message, it is a call to hope and redemption to us all.
But as part of that, it seems plain that one of the things that was supposed to mark Christian communities was a want of hierarchical differentiation. Grace is free, it cannot be merited and you and I cannot earn it. If we are “good” that is the outworking of Grace and the hope that is in us, it is not because somehow we are earning salvation. Yes, we run the race, as Paul did, because each and every day we wrestle with sin and with our fallen natures. But there is nothing we can do to win Grace.
The twelve Apostles were all Jewish men, and that was to be expected. Thy represented the twelve tribes of Israel. But long ago the Church decided there could be more than twelve bishops and that they did not need to be Jews. Why then, in this revolutionary new life in Christ did they need to be men?
It seems clear from Scripture that they were not all men. Despite centuries of men (interestingly usually from the Reformed traditions) claiming that there was a man called “Junias” who was an Apostle, it is clear that there was no such man, rather there was a woman of that name. As C451 has written on this I will say no more, except to wonder why, even now, men are at such pains to mansplain that the word “Apostle” does not, here, mean what it usually means. It’s a wonderful example of circular logic and goes like this: “we (men) know that all Apostles of the sort of Apostle that Peter was, are men, so, given we have to accept that Paul called this woman an apostle, that word cannot mean here, what it usually means.” Honestly, you could not make it up – except of course, they have. Oddly, when “Junias” was the preferred reading, no one thought anything other than that “he” was an apostle of the usual sort.
What cannot be disputed is that women prophesied in the early Church: Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied; women in Corinth prophesied (albeit that some didn’t wear head coverings, an issue to which I will return in a later post); and we know that prophesy in the early church had an educational function. We see from Acts, as my next post will outline, how truly the early Church lived up to the revolutionary idea that all were equal in Christ, and I will leave to a third post further reflections on the role of female “Apostles” in Paul’s church, and the issue of how, by concentrating on a particular interpretation of a few verses, that revolutionary insight was watered down by later generations. But for now, I’ll stop here.
All Along the Watchtower 
I shall look forward to more – thank you for the reference to my piece.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks you x
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are a few problems with interpreting this passage from St. Paul:
* It is debated whether the name is Junia (female) or Junias (male). The difference is where the accent mark is placed. The oldest surviving manuscripts do not contain accent marks. Scholars generally lean toward the idea that the name is female, but others in history (and some even today) contend that the name is a male. Outside of Romans 16:7, Junia(s) is not mentioned in the Bible or in early Church writings.
* The passage has also been translated in various ways that can differ in meaning from the presumption that the name referred to is an apostle:
KJV: “. . . who are of note among the apostles . . .”
NAB, NRSV: “. . . they are prominent among the apostles . . .”
ESV: “They are well known to the apostles . . .”
NJB: “Greetings to those outstanding apostles, Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who were in Christ before me.”
DRB: “Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles.”
The passage has been translated by some as a direct reference to the two names as being members of the apostles, but others have translated it as the two names were simply well known to the apostles. There is no definitive way to translate/understand the passage.
* Even if we were to accept the name as feminine (likely but not certain) and that the name is referred to as being a member of the apostles (highly debatable), we are still stuck with the fact that the term apostle did not always connote ordination as we understand it today. Apostle simply means one who is sent. Paul notes that Jesus appeared to 500 (1 Cor. 15:6); perhaps he gave a message of spreading the gospel at which Junia was present. Perhaps Junia is the wife of Andronicus, and they were simply referred to as a team. Mary Magdalene was traditionally called the “apostle to the apostles,” yet no one who used that expression considered her to be among the Twelve.
There are simply too many debated and disputed elements to definitively say just exactly what St. Paul was trying to say here. What we do know is that, outside of this one highly debatable and disputed passage, there are no references to a woman holding Church office requiring ordination. In fact, if the female-apostle advocates were correct, it would seem quite odd that the one single female apostle would be lost to history. Her uniqueness would seemingly have set her apart for praise and honor amongst the earliest Christians.
And if she points to an acceptance of ordaining women in the early Church, why then are there no other known examples? In the New Testament we see other examples of women in prominent roles in the early Church, yet none of them holds what we would consider a Church office of ordination.
The meaning of this passage is far from clear, and the overwhelming testimony of the rest of Scripture and Tradition argues against considering Junia a female apostle.
There is no limit to the searching by wannabe priestesses who want to change 2000 years of Tradition. Not a jot or a tittle is left without some novel “proof” of their frustration with the Church as Christ left it to His Apostles. It reminds one of our own dystopian time where a man can “self-identify” as a woman or vice versa. It is simply non-sensical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As my piece makes clear, Scoop, there is no known example of the name “Junias” in ancient history; none. St John Chysostom and others (as the piece makes clear) knew it was a woman’s name. You are flogging a dead horse here. Jess is right, before it was clear it was a woman’s name, no-one opined that “Apostle” meant anything other than what it means. I shall leave it to Jess to deal with the mass of scholarship which deals with the disputed passages in St Paul, and to the other female “Apostles.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
And corroborating evidence that is nowhere to be found, I hope. The passage is unclear even to the scholars. I am supposing that JPII was in error in claiming that the Church has not the ability to ordain a woman to the priesthood? It does seem that this is simply a modern problem as most of them are from the modernist camp: Corruptio optimi pessima.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Who knows? You think your current Pope is often in error.
As I say, the substantive issues will be dealt with in future posts.
LikeLike
He isn’t??? Pachamama worship may be OK in the Anglican Church but I don’t think so.
LikeLike
I think it was your Pope did that – leave mine out of it – or are you not in communion with your own Pope any more?
LikeLike
I am. That Pope is Benedict XVI. There are more believers than you think amongst religious and hierarchs in the Church. You keep dismissing the fact that heretics and antipopes have been part of the history of the Church. We need keep vigilant. I am trying to do that and pray for wisdom in the matter. Either Christ is ignoring my prayers or I am deaf to His voice. Regardless, my prayers are continuous for staying within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church even if we become a remnant. We are no longer one: as we are divided by issues such as LGBTQSTUV . . . , abortion, Communism, Marxism, Socialism, etc. We are not showing much holiness with all of the sexual misconduct which continues unabated (my priest found child porn in the rectory when he moved in and my Bishop is under investigation) as Bergoglio gives a pass to all of the perverts he has raised to bishops and cardinals and given them prestigious positions. We have the destruction of the Church in China and Bergoglio’s alignment with the unholy UN who would like to kill off mankind to the 2 billion soul level. So, so much for Catholic or universality of the Church as we find ourselves living in a Church that is a moral mouthpiece for the immorality of humanity and the Democratic Party. As far as Apostolicity goes . . . even some of our hierarchs may be in doubt as Bergoglio has won great accolades from the Masons. Something was wrong with both the resignation and the lobbying and the election on the illicit 5th ballot. And until God shows me that these objections are boundless then I will await to see how He will save the Church. In my mind it will have to come from a new group of priests . . . one of which I got to know this past year in seminary. He is a loyal traditionalist and claims that many of the seminarians are in the same camp that I am in . . . as is he.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I take zero interest in your church and your quarrel with it. If you don’t think your Pope is the Pope, frankly, I don’t care. I certainly would not call myself a member of a church where I did not believe that the person heading it was the person who should be heading it. But it’s your sad business.
LikeLike
Funny that. You keep poking your nose into my spirituality and rebuking my assessment of the crisis that my Church is enduring. Why is that it? Are you disingenuous or are you simply trying to arouse anger? I would guess probably both. If you truly weren’t interested you wouldn’t keep prodding for answers which you say you are not in anyway interested in. That makes you a liar.
LikeLike
You’re a wonderful example of that cafeteria catholicism you so often condemn. Sorry if that offends you, but get over it, and yourself.
LikeLike
It does not offend me since it is a bold lie. And getting over oneself might best describe a course of action more suited to the esteem you seem to give yourself. It is simply the continuation of your gaslighting of others and it is therefore of small consequence and worthy of little consideration.
LikeLike
If I was wrong in thinking the basic definition of a Roman Catholic was one who acknowledges the Pope, fine, so be it – your problem.
LikeLike
I got in to trouble last time on this issue, but my own view is that Junia was a church planter (possibly in a team). I think she preached the Gospel and helped establish new churches.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think anyone knows but this is what I have gathered:
+++
First, there is a grammatical problem arising from the Greek language. In Romans 16:7, the ending for the name of Junia in the Greek is -AN, which would be the direct object (accusative) form both for men’s names that end in -AS (like Elias, Zacharias, Silas, Thomas, or Cephas) or women’s names that end in -A (like Martha, Joanna, or Lydia).
Therefore, it is impossible to tell from the Greek ending alone whether the person described by the apostle Paul is Junias (male) or Junia (female). In truth, the oldest manuscripts, the unicals, are written in capital letters, without accents. Hence both genders would be given IONIAN, leaving the reader to decide which gender Junia was.
Thus, from a grammatical standpoint, both genders are possible. The question is, how are we to decide which interpretation is best when both are allowed by the Greek?
Secondly, let’s assume that the person Paul refers to is a woman by the name Junia. Does Romans 16:7 require us to believe that Junia was a female apostle? The answer depends on how one understands the phrase translated “among the apostles” (EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS). In Greek the phrase is ambiguous. Does it mean that Andronicus and Junia were numbered among the apostles (as the NIV has it, “They are outstanding among the apostles,”) or, does it mean that their reputation was well known by the apostles (as the KJV puts it, they are of “note among the apostles”)? Again, the question must be asked how are we to decide which interpretation is best when both are allowed by the Greek?
We should recognize five relevant facts: 1.) Paul’s doctrine of headship was firmly established on the creation order (1 Timothy 2:1; 1 Corinthians 11; Ephesians 5). 2.) Jesus Himself ordained only males as apostles. 3.) Every known apostle in the New Testament was a male—Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14, 4), Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:6, 9), Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6), Titus (2 Corinthians 8:23), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25). 4.) While women played important and vital roles in the early church’s soul-winning ministry, none of them is known to have served as apostle, elder, or bishop. 5.) The apostle Paul, who worked closely with these active women, taught that the headship function of elder or overseer could be held by only a person who, among other things, was the “husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6) and therefore, a male.
The above considerations lead to the conclusion that the phrase “among the apostles” (EN TOIS APOSTOLOIS) is best understood, “of note among the apostles” in the sense that Junia, whether a male or female, was well known by the apostles, not numbered as one of them. The most biblically-consistent understanding is that both Andronicus and Junia were well known and appreciated by the apostles as Christian converts prior to Paul’s own conversion.
+++
So can you jump to the conclusion that Junia is an apostle? I suppose so, if and only if you are willing to discount the lack of support for this conclusion elsewhere and use presumptive reasoning to fit the conclusion that you are desirous to achieve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think the Male reading makes sense because this is a Latin name transliterated into Greek. Junius is the Latin male name in the nominative and the Greek version in the nominative would be Iounios not Iounias. The Greek masculine accusative would be Iounion not Iounian.
Prepositions are awful in Koine Greek and not much better in Classical, which is one of the reasons I dislike reading the Epistles in Greek, where a lot can conceivably turn on a preposition (in fact this is where Augustine of Hippo goes wrong in reading Romans 5, which creates problems for original sin).
Apostle from context actually can mean several things depending on the context. I think the easiest reading here is that she was an apostle in the meaning of church planter. That reading fits with Aquila and Priscilla, with the Greek, and with Tradition, since it doesn’t require her to be a Presbyter or Episkopos.
LikeLiked by 3 people
True, but it’s a woman, and we men know she couldn’t have been an apostle. When we thought it was a man called Junias, we had no problem – go figure!!
LikeLike
Augustine isn’t wrong.
LikeLike
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one, but I’ve analysed the Greek and “because all sinned” is a better reading than “in whom all sinned”. I don’t say that he was bad at Greek, I say that he mistranslated here, which is not the same claim. It would have been an easy mistake to make: prepositions are terrible in Greek.
LikeLike
I am no scholar, but both Henry Chadwick and Peter Brown who are, say Augustine’s Greek wasn’t terribly good – are they wrong? It’s a genuine question.
LikeLike
I don’t think we need adopt an extreme position here and I can see why Augustine would construe the passage in that way especially in light of similar passages in the Intertestamental literature. But I think in this particular case, he got it wrong. The preposition isn’t right for Augustine’s construction and you don’t need a federal headship reading to still get an orthodox view here – “because all sinned” fits better and still permits a reading that involves the transmission of a sin nature from Adam to everyone else. Adam sinned – which resulted in death – sin spreads to everyone else – everyone else sins – therefore everyone dies.
LikeLike
those are dated materials. Robin Lane Fox massive volume biography refutes that claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for that, I shall catch up.
LikeLike
Augustine by Robin Lane Fox, 2015. It’s a tome clocking over 600 pages. I am familiar with Fox’s scholarship as an expert on Alexander the Great from days as a classicist.
LikeLike
I just don’t see how the verse in your ‘updated’ translation negates the first clause, in fact, I would argue that it fits the context better in Augustine’s translation.
And the trouble here is that most scholars, like David Bentley Hart want to challenge this because #1 Calvinism and #2 (In Hart’s case) He’s a universalist.
LikeLike
The logic of that part of the passage is that everyone sins and therefore everyone is subject to death. Paul is recapitulating Romans 3:9 ff, in which he explains that everyone sins and quotes from Psalms and Isaiah. In Romans 5 he explains that sin comes from Adam and that sin results in death. He explains that we all die because we all sin and we all sin because Adam sinned.
LikeLike
“and we all sin because Adam sinned.”
Aquinas would say that Adam was created in original holiness, this is the language that Catholic Catechism uses and basically what Original Sin is the disorder of our passions and will with the greatest power of the soul, the intellect. In original holiness, the will and the passions follow the intellect and Adam’s sin causes that to be disordered for all men.
#1 I’d argue that if you want to know Augustine, read Aquinas–not Calvin. #2 I don’t see how what Aquinas claims is really any different from your conclusion.
LikeLike
As I’ve explained via Robin Lane Fox time and time again, secular Classical scholarship with no skin in the theology game, as utterly refuted that idea Augustine by the time he was writing against Pelagianism was deficient in Greek.
This is a tiresome historical untruth that needs to be vanquished.
LikeLike
I agree! xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is “Junias” which is unknown – there are many examples of Junia in ancient Greek. C451 covered this is some depth.
Before Luther the Fathers agreed she was a she; I’d not base myself on Luther personally. I will deal with the question of the “Apostle” and its meaning in my next post. Junia is certainly not the only example.
I am not sure that using language such as “wannabe priestesses” strikes anything other than a disparaging and partisan tone or that it helps to show anything other than your own obvious prejudice. I shall not be responding in kind, and linking it to gender issues is, similarly, polemical in intent, another red herring I shan’t be picking up.
LikeLike
Is it worse than your “mansplaining” and the prejudice that this type of language conveys?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes.
LikeLike
To be clear, I think there are good arguments against the position to which I think Jess is moving, but I don’t think the arguments thus far advanced are good ones. The “Junias” one is a dead duck, none of the Fathers uses the male form. It seems to have started with Luther – one of the many, many places I disagree with him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed so. But did could the text also be rendered that they were known to the apostles rather than that they “were themselves” apostles? That is a bit of a stretch as there is nowhere to be found any supporting evidence for this. Also, were all the “prisoners” of Christ then apostles as well. What type of apostle are we speaking of since there are two interpretations of the meaning as well? It takes multiple “jumping to conclusions” to make it mean what the feminists want it to mean.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ll leave Jess to expound what she’s read – then I shall come in 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s fine. I will leave the answering of Jess to you and then I may respond if appropriate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Scoop, and yes, by all means, come in with anything helpful to the cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you – “trembles a bit” …! x
LikeLiked by 1 person
The issue of the position of women in the early church is covered in this small online book by a former chairman of the Evangelical Alliance. It is a matter that divides evangelicals as much it does other Christians. Jess, I think you will find the section interesting. https://www.academia.edu/31792788/Complete_Book
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many, many thanks Rob – I will read it tonight xx
LikeLike
What does mansplain mean?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It means that only a woman’s explanation can actually be true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It sounded sexist to me. Uncharitable at the least. I can’t imagine men being allowed to say the equivalent.
From a rhetoric standpoint, I read it and if I was willing to accept the general argument, that sentiment became void immediately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Men have spent most the ages telling women what they think, and if you talk to women of your acquaintance you’ll find they will be amused or astonished at your ignorance of what men do.
LikeLike
I was lucky to find a woman who is happy in her gender and femininity and has no beef with men. In fact she likes men and their perceptions to balance her own thoughts. In fact I never saw a divide until the age of radical feminists and abortion which they pushed like a sacrament of their cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course you never saw it, you still don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because it never existed until after 1965 and blossomed with Roe v Wade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really? Words, fortunately fail. before 1965 no man ever told a woman what to think and that he knew best? Or was it just that before then women felt unable to complain?
LikeLike
No. But of course, that’s a male view – odd the way any attempt by a woman to explain to a man attracts that sort of disdain. Thanks for illustrating my point 🙂
LikeLike
Your futile accusation of misogyny is nothing more than your own misandry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sorry, I dd not realise you were such a snowflake. If I upset your well-known sensitivities, well, tough. You’ll get over it I’m sure – if you need counselling, bill me.
LikeLike
Snowflake? I suppose you are used to speaking to effete men who would rather agree than speak their mind. You have misused the term dreadfully. But I expect nothing less from you. I don’t need counseling and it is not me who is hiding behind a veil of faux spiritual superiority. You, my dear are a narcissist and quite adept at gaslighting those who can be gaslighted. I’m not one of them.
LikeLike
You seemed upset; you still seem upset. I trust you will cease being effete and get over it. I believe the phrase is “man up.”
LikeLike
A laughable attempt at a masculine reply which is proof that you do not understand what effete is. It is the inability of men to speak their mind due to pressure such as shaming and those who try to convince you that they are on the high moral ground. It silences the effete and real men speak out no matter the consequence.
LikeLike
As do “real” women. What sort of man can’t take that without complaint, I leave to you to decide, I am done with it.
LikeLike
Again,this illustrates my issue with the slang word. The uncharitable internet, it’s just sad.
LikeLike
What is really sad is a man exists in the twenty-first century and can be so blind to the way in which so many women see the way men work with them. When you have stopped being sad (take care, Scoop will label you effeminate) it would be a good idea to google the word and see what it represents. It is the reality many women have lived with – and with which many of us will live no longer. That is what is really sad, the lived experience of millions of women. How typically male to thing that it is your hurt feelings which should concern us.
LikeLike
It makes me sad becaue are we not people? Are we not sons and daughters of God? These are not the words of Christian anthropolgy, it’s antithetical to both Salvation History and the Gospels.
For example, it seems, in your mind, that Scoop has hoodwinked his wife into some form of servitude, that this isn’t the life she has deemed to be the truth. And yet, she is very accomplished leader in their diocese, so she breaks the mold to which you want to generalize their relationship?
Is there not hate here? And from whom does it originate?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no idea how you get to the conclusion in your second paragraph. I feel sad that a woman who clearly is more able than many of the disgraced priests cannot lead in that way, but if that makes me a man-hater, your bar is, I suggest, a little low.
As I suggest in today’s post, generation after generation of men have perpetuated a myth about a female apostle, where was the “are we not sons and daughters of God” in any of that. What is sad is that such tropes get dragged in by men when they get called out for their behaviour. C451 sets a better example here.
LikeLike
The early Christian movement didn’t develop the word Apostle. So the context of how Luke and Paul uses must be understood in the greater cultural use of the word. In the Greek world, the word Apostolos belongs to political institutions and in the pre-Christian Judaism understanding was to convey the political term of envoy. To be sent on Mission. So, the role you’re conjuring of Junia just isn’t simply the same function of the understanding of a highly debatable context of the use of the word Apostle that is translated in many different ways.
And that’s the historic criticism method B of exegesis that you to fail to employ when attempting to “go back” to the sources to apply an anachronistic understanding to the etymology is the word. I would suggest that Chalcedon should understand all of this explanation as a professional historian and at least any suggestion of role she played with a highly debatable passage must synthesis this particular etymology on the world Apostle in the greater Greek world and the normal function of the office of envoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Care is needed, and Paul’s use of the word is critical and it is that, rather than the wider Greek usage which sets the tone. As Jessica suggests in her post today, it is wider than the twelve, but the twelve have a particular purpose. That said, I think the comments in today’s post are well-founded in the scholarship, and it will be interesting to see her comments on tradition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honestly, I was just trying to let her opinion ride, but trying in your words cool down the rhetoric, I think most would notice the radicalness of the tone in both content and comments.
So, I’d agree care is needed! A careful approach to understanding the development of particular roles of leadership in the pre-Easter lay Jesus movement and the post-Easter Jesus movement. The irony here is that the new testament is entirely the latter, and the consensus of scholars try to reconstruct the former from it.
Again, this gets into Nicholas and my disagreement on the development of the word Priest or elder. What exactly is the priesthood and the sacraments. In a Christian denomination that doesn’t have such a robust theological understanding of the Blessed Sacrament or understanding of the priesthood, what particular sex is a member of its clergy simply might not matter. I suggested to him you cannot look at the word simply in a vaccum. And like Apostle, it’s the similiar, there must be an understanding in the development of the word in line with the development of the words: Apostolos, Episkopos, Presbyteros, and Diaconus.
Now, many protestants use Hebrews to indicate the end of Old Testament priesthood; however, does this necessarily follow historic critique and development? The early Jesus movement must be understood pre-Good Friday in line with the Pharisees, in fact, prior to the last passover of Christ, the Sadducees wouldn’t have seen Jesus as separate from that particular group. And finally, there’s the Essenes and their cleansing of the priesthood understood in the Qumran documents.
Of course, the question then becomes what is the development of these words with new cultic practice of the New Covenant and the last supper. The exegesis is very tight here with Jesus during the cleansing of the temple quotes in the same phrase both Isaiah and Jeremiah. The understanding that somehow there is a suppression of the Church fathers in the development of any sort of priestly office simply ignores well founded evidence in the late first century from Ignatius of Antioch that expresses both the terminology and the ontological application of the priesthood.
Any particular lay movement from the Jesus movement must be seen as clearly separating from the pharisse movement after the Sadducees arrested Jesus and had the Romans exexcute him.
There is just no understanding of historiciam in any of these posts. It’s exegesis based on the rejections of late Patrstics and Sola Scrptura, there’s no proper use of historical criticism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you really think my tone “radical” you live a remarkably sheltered life, but so be it.
If you look at today’s post you will see that I accept more than one meaning to the word Apostle, and indeed, I cite, as C points out, St Paul’s use. Did you read that before explaining it to me?
I don’t know who you are arguing with, but as a high church Anglican I accept priestly orders, and if you are arguing that Anglicans do not have a robust understanding of the priesthood which is why the sex of the priest does not matter, I’d ask your basis for such a generalisation. What Anglican works on the subject are you familiar with? Have you read +McAdoo’s work here, or any of the work cited in his “Anglicans and Tradition” (1997), or Podmore’s “Fathers in God” (2015) or the works cited there. If so, then I am surprised you advance that argument to an Anglican. If not, then I am surprised you advance the argument at all.
If you can show me where I am basing myself in sola scriptura, I’d be grateful. As for rejecting late patristics, it wasn’t me who rejected Chysostom’s gendering of Junia. It wasn’t you either, but you seem to focus on the shortcomings, as you see them, of one of the participants in this discussion.
If, after a careful and prayerful examination, you feel you are as critical to the other party in this discussion, fair enough. I simply ask the question because I believe in your good faith.
LikeLike
lol, Seriously, read the opening of this comment, just read the beginning of this comment… you don’t think it’s rude in any normal sense? It seems every comment that I tried to deescalate you turn it to 11.
Generally, when I write in a comemnt section full of all comments I try to tackle them all with the content to save having to comment to all of them. And, again, trying to tackle more than one tradition, I think I implied either protestants who do not have a priesthood and/or those who do not have a robust sacramental theology. Regardless, many of the Anglicans who swam the tiber and became Catholic priests would probably argue that their main reason for doing so is the complete loss of the sense of the priesthood–in fact, if I remember right, that’s much of the catalyst for Chalcedon.
All of which then begs the question…what’s the purpose of these posts when much of what you’re arguing for is as such in the Anglican tradition? Or I guess, maybe I should ask, who is the intended audience?
LikeLike
Yes, seriously, if you think my views “radical” then one day, when you meet a radical feminist, you will get what I mean.
The purpose of my posts, like those you post is surely obvious? It is to present my views. Here, for example, you seem to be assuming that high church Anglicans lack a serious sense of the sacramental if they support the female ordination.
That seems to me to be a prejudice. You advance no arguments, you do not answer my questions about the basis upon which you advance such views, and so what am I to conclude? That you are aware of the Anglican arguments to which I refer and have good arguments to the contrary? Or that you can’t be bothered actually answering me? The former conclusion is hardly supported by your want of answers. The second would suggest either that you know you are right, but can’t be bothered to show why, or that you have not actually read much/any Anglican theology but have an opinion you wish to advance in spite of that.
For sure, many Anglicans who swam the Tiber did so for the reason you suggest, C can answer for himself. My simple point, clearly too simply for your mighty intellect, is there is another side to the coin, and my purpose is to illustrate that. If anything in that is unclear, I am sorry.
LikeLike
I gave a historical run down of the development of etymology and you said I didn’t present any evidence?
I didn’t present any evidence on the validity of Anglican orders because we’re talking about the context of Apostle then you used a red herring fallacy to move the argument away from the etymology of Apostle. And then accused me of prejudice…
LikeLike
As I never raised the issue of the validity of Anglican orders, you might want to read what I wrote and eschew the herring fallacy. If there’s an accusation, it is that you either are not reading what I am writing, or you are so buried in your own solipsism you understand it in your won special way.
My point, now made thrice, is that your assertion that it was only those churches which did not have a high regard for sacraments that accepted the ordination of women is simply incorrect. I cited some well-known sources to that effect, which you have now ignored twice.
I leave those reading these exchanges to judge which of us is responding to what the other wrote.
LikeLike
“My point, now made thrice, is that your assertion that it was only those churches which did not have a high regard for sacraments that accepted the ordination of women is simply incorrect.”
lol. Yes for some reason you keep talking about this when it was a single sentence in the midst of three paragraphs surmising possibilities– That’s the red herring, because maybe it doesn’t matter to some demonination–I don’t know, which was the point of the statement, as I continued on to the actually issue at hand the etymology of Apostle.
It’s either a red herring or you’re gaslighting after I may have hinted at your bias, but you went full blown calling me prejudice, if I were in your position, I’d delete your comments.
LikeLike
You just don’t get it. You can set whatever agenda you want, but when you are responding to my post and I make a point and you call it a red herring, it is you who is behaving with a lack of etiquette. If I were you, I wouldn’t see this. You are you, and you don’t. That’s the very definition of the male gaze. Best of luck with that.
LikeLike
Thank you. You will see I have offered what is, I hope, a reasonable answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The word is effete not effeminate though it is probably a lifestyle you approve.
LikeLike
I leave that to those who use such words, assuming they know what they are talking about from experience.
LikeLike
It’s when men tell women what they should be thinking. Happens an awful lot, men are often too busy explaining to notice 🙂 x
LikeLike
So, if men hold to a particular opinion, that is against your own, is that automatically mansplaining?
And if someone holds that clergy should be male, do you not like these people, maybe men?
I just don’t see the use from your entire piece here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you really don’t know what mansplaining is, look it up – I am not womansplaining to you.
LikeLike
Is it an actual word? I figured it’s just slang, if it’s slang, it can mean different things to different people, so I wanted to know what you meant by it.
I think it’s important to the overall piece and your bias based on the facts that your present. I think if you feel that simple opinions from men who try to explain them which differ from your own is mansplaining then wouldn’t that some level of misandrism?
LikeLike
We waste our time, friend.
LikeLike
It is, and your distance from contemporary culture is, if this is the first time you have come across the word, literally awesome.
LikeLike
And the sociologists wonder what went wrong: why so many divorces and young people who do not even attempt marriage? Why are men buying into this new disordered view of the sexes? Men are being relegated to become effete snowflakes and to change the Biblical idea of the two becoming one into Adam vs. Eve. A sick society has its adherents and supporters and you will live in the disorder you seem to cherish. Enjoy your new revolution which frees you from femininity and despises masculinity.
LikeLike
No, sociologists will include, among other indicators, a capitalism which demands both sexes work in order to afford a lifestyle which in former times could be afforded on a man’s wage.
I bow to your experience of men becoming effeminate, none of my male acquaintances seem to fit that bill.
Quite why you think a woman who is a homemaker is freed from femininity because she expresses opinions common enough outside your own tiny world, only you can know. I am sorry I disturbed your 1950s solipsism. I shan’t again.
LikeLike
Gibberish and a foolish flight of fancy. But please continue to exhibit your know-it-all approach. It is only further proof of what I said before.
LikeLike