Tag Archives: women priests

Mortal sin?

23 Wednesday Sep 2020

Posted by in Anglicanism, Bible, Faith

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

,

“If men can represent the church and the Bride (of Christ), why cannot women represent Christ as Bridegroom?” [+Kallistos Ware]

Commenting on yesterday’s post by Scoop, I asked whether he really was drawing a parallel between abortion and the ordination of women; could he really imagine that both were mortal sins? His answer was clear – they were.

Scripture is pretty clear about the tendency of Pharisees to add burdens to the people, and equally clear about what God thinks of that. The great Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, drew a distinction which is critical for the consideration of the issue between “things accessory, not things necessary”.  He makes this comment concerning “matters of government” in the Church.  There is a “difference between things of external regiment in the Church, and things necessary unto salvation.” Matters of doctrine fall into the first category, and one of the many reasons that the Anglican Church has taken the view it has on doctrine and dogma is the recognition that the Pharisee tendency – adding burdens – had gone too far in the medieval church. In essentials there must be unity, and by essentials we mean the dogma and doctrines decided upon by the undivided church.

Is it really essential for salvation that only men can represent Christ in ministering the sacraments? Do we go to hell otherwise? The emphasis in Christianity on the terrors of hell may have been a good means of social control, but it is a bad representation of God’s love for us, and one of the reasons so many have a profound hatred of our faith. What would be our attitude to a human ruler who, deciding that women should not teach and should remain silent outside the home, decreed that anyone contravening it should be tormented for the rest of their life? I suspect we’d all agree that such a man was a monster. Yet some think that a God who does this should be worshipped? If, as we believe, God is omniscient, and if we believe St John that God is love, we are asked to believe that one whose thoughts and ways are so much higher than ours, behaves in a way that in us would be condemned? That sounds awfully like making a God in our image – us in this case being a vengeful control freak. Sorry, but that is not the God I know and love. That would be a being to be feared, to be sure, but sincere worship?

That’s not to say we cannot condemn ourselves to hell – it is clear enough we can. We are free to reject God’s love. But the idea that it is necessary for salvation to believe in an all-male priesthood on the basis that Jesus only chose men, is as sensible as believing that because he only chose Jews, all priests should be Jews.

We are all, we are told, part of a royal priesthood – no gender specified. Whatever one’s view on the issue, to suppose that one goes to hell for believing that women have a vocation as priests, is assume that the only Just Judge resembles the Ayatollah Khomeini. Worship him? No, I’ll stay with the God who loves me and whom I love because of that. I know some think we speak too much of love, I think we can’t do that – if God is love, then we can’t speak of it too often or in a lukewarm manner. I am excited by God’s love, it warms my heart.

What each Church decides is essential is up to it and its members, but it would be hard to demonstrate that the view that mortal sin includes women priests is in Scripture – though fallen mankind, having put it there, can of course claim to have found it.

Aquinas himself admitted that: “It would seem that the female sex is no impediment to receiving Orders” before explaining that it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order. That may well have been so in his day, but it is not so now. If we wish to rest our objections on outmoded prejudice, so be it, but to say that only a man can represent Christ would be to admit that men cannot represent the Bride of Christ – that is the Church. Are we really using representational language that literally to exclude women but not men? There is an awfully good piece here, which sets these things out in some detail.

It must be because it is so easy to do it that it is so often done, that is to represent Anglican aguments in favour of ordaining women as nothing more than outworkings of modern feminism, but as I hope my series of pieces here have shown, there is far more to it than that. There is a detailed study of what Acts tells us, and of what we see in Scripture, where the Lord Jesus sets an example which many have not followed.

We all know, of course, about the great occasion in Scripture when Jesus is declared to be the Christ. When I used to teach Sunday school the hands shot up – “Peter, Miss, it was Peter.” And so it was. I then used to ask who else, before the Resurrection knew Jesus was the Christ. No hands went up. The answer of course, is that it was Martha who said: “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” [John 11:27]. I am glad that my Church, after so long, has recognised the full ministry of women. I have found it a blessing, as have so many. A mortal sin? Well I suppose for those intent on adding to the yoke Jesus declares is light, anything can be added – but why?

Women priests, Tradition and politics

05 Wednesday Aug 2020

Posted by in Anglicanism, Blogging, Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 79 Comments

Tags

women discover an empty tomb

Sometimes social media can produce posts which prompt serious throught rather than a hurling of arguments past each other. One of my favourites, flying under the name “laudable practice” recently posted a High Church reflection on why he supported the ordination of women in the Anglican Church. In turn, this prompted the following interesting and incisive comment from a Catholic whom I do not follow, but probably ought to:

it astonishes me as an RC how a priest who celebrates Mass ad orientem with Missa de Angelis, etc, can hold such liberal political/social views. Just doesn’t happen here. Progressive views + serious liturgy seem to fit together better in Anglicanism than they do in the RC Chuch. I understand + respect your points but (speaking again from an RC perspective) when I look at supporters of female ordination, it’s hard not to see it as a Trojan Horse for demythologising, desacralising liberalism – flat, dull + stale.

Quite apart from the welcome tone of the dialogue, the other things which struck me was how it managed to combine this with a very firm exchange of views which remained courteous; would that such could become the norm!

The Anglican Church has spent longer addressing this issue seriously than any global Church. During the 1990s, as it became increasingly clear that things were going to move in favour of the ordination of women, some Anglicans, like myself, came, many of us reluctantly, to the view that in moving away from the common tradition of Christianity, it was deviating so decisively from ecumenical dialogue that it was leaving us behind. A few, like me, remained because, well because we did. In my case it was because I could not see the case being made could be justified by the historical and doctrinal record. The arguments used seem excessively secular in nature. Of course, I found myself saying to the wind, no one would want to argue that women cannot hold any job they like, but being a priest is not a “job” it is being in the person of Christ at the Eucharist, and a woman cannot be in that person.

Reading and rereading my history, and following Newman’s scheme for the discerning of the development of doctrine, I could not in good conscience, accept what my Church had done; but I loved it, and I could not leave it. It was only when I felt it had left me, and then only when, like Newman studying the Arian controversy, I discerned in the mirror that I was not orthodox in adopting the new Anglican position, that I moved.

What I can say is that politics played no part in it. I regard myself as conservative, and in the past I have worked for two Conservative MPs whose views and character I greatly respect, as Election Agent – successfully. I had no problem as an Anglican in being Conservative or that with a small “c”. In the Catholic Church, not so much so, as it seemed to me that political sympathies were to the left of my own. I paid it no mind, but it kept paying me mind in so far as the importation of American culture wars into the UK context did seem to predicate a binary divide in which those on the left were “Vatican II” sort of Catholics, and those not on the left were traditionalists. It seemed, and still seems to me, artificial in an English context; I am not qualified to speak of the Irish or Scottish ones.

But it is undoutedly true in the English Anglican context, that there are connections between High Church Anglicanism and social concern. It comes in part from the notable and the noble role played (and still played) by Anglican clergy in the poorer parts of London and elsewhere. This led some of them to embrace the economic nostrums of socialism, even if only in as far as they remained critical of capitalism. It seemed to many of them, as it seems to me, entirely natural that a Christian should be sceptical of political/economic systems, and my main disagreement with them in my own time was that I thought they were insufficiently critical of left-wing nostrums and over-critical of capitalism, neglecting the defects of the former and over-selling the defects of the latter.

What did strike me was Fr Richard’s comment that: “Many perhaps most of the women priests I know are deeply faithful to Tradition. And yes, I thought, that needed saying. I essayed a rare comment of my own:

Interesting as the arguments in the piece are, it is the work of women priests in the Anglican communion which is the most convincing sign of the work of the Spirit. I know, and accept, all the doctrine of my own Church, but the witness of the women is there for all to see.

This is not to enter into the argument in my own Church, whose views I accept absolutely, but it was, and is, to invite myself and others to reflect on what the experience of women priests within Anglicanism has brought to that Church and to move us away from the not uncommon view in my Church that advocacy of women’s ordination is a “Trojan Horse for demythologising, desacralising liberalism – flat, dull + stale.” The existence of women priests who are far from demytholgising or desacralising the faith, might escape the culture warriors, and the women concerned might throw up their hands in horror or shrug their shoulders. They don’t need validating by a man, and this, I hasten to add, is not that. It is a simple recognition of their ministry and the gifts they bring.

I’ll finish with a few recommendations which, if followed, may bless you as I have been blessed. For those who pray the Rosary, I cannot speak too highly of the Rev Cally Hammond’s series which can be found here. For a fascinating account of “Holiness and Desire” I’d recommend the Rev Jessica Martin’s book, here. Everything I have read by the Rev Angela Tilby has been a blessing, including her most recent piece onJ.I. Packer. One of the blessings of social media is that there are many examples there of women clergy who simply and effectively witness to their vocation.

What, you might ask, do I make of it? I take a delight in the blessings, and in the wonderful way that real life makes a mess of our desire to put things in boxes.

 

Junia: a puzzle

02 Thursday Jul 2020

Posted by in Anglicanism, Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 61 Comments

Tags

,

 

junia

My thanks to the many who replied positively to yesterday’s post, and in the spirit of that, and as an homage to Jessica, I want to begin the next eight years with a topic which risks taking us back to polemical times, but in a way which invites, I hope, a more considered response. I would add that this is not me advocating any change in my own church, whose position seems clear except to those who don’t like that position. Here goes.

Toward the end of St Paul’s letter to the Romans (and yes, I know that there are those who think it wasn’t by St Paul, but the Church, and Tradition do, and that does it for me) is this salutation:

7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

At least that’s what the Douay-Rheims translation says, as does the American Standard version and the New Life version. The assumption is that this is a male name, athough scholars have been unable to provide any other examples of the name “Junias;” there are numerous examples of the female name, “Junia.” In his homily on Romans, Ambrosiaster, who was writing in the second half of the fourth century wrote:

“Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia might have been that she should be worthy to be called an Apostle!”

Professor Moo, in his great commentary on Romans offers a typically balanced view:

“Paul’s mention of nine women in this list reminds us (if we needed the reminder) that women played an important role in the early church … Ministry in the early church was never confined to men; these greetings and other similar passages show that women engaged in ministries that were as important as those of men. We have created many problems for ourselves by confining ‘ministry’ to what certain full-time Christian workers do. But it is important that we do not overinterpret this evidence either, for nothing Paul says … conflicts with limitations on some kinds of women’s ministry with respect to men such as I think are suggested by 1 Tim. 2:8-15 and other texts.” (Douglas J Moo, New International Commentary (1996)).

The idea that the name “Junias” was to be preferred to the reading “Junia” was a twentieth century phenomenon, based on the assumption that since an “apostle” had to be male, “Junias” had to be the correct reading. The probability that the name is “Junia” and therefore a woman, has, naturally enough, led some modern scholars to argue that this supports the idea of women as priests. That may be as much a case of reading into the text what one wants to read, as the older idea that “Junia” was not a possible reading because a woman could not have been an apostle.

If we assume that “Apostle” is always a position of authoritative leadership, then the case for a female priesthood is certaily strengthened; but must it be read that way? Often Paul uses the word to denote a messenger or emissary (1 Cor. 15:5,7; 1 Cor. 9:5-6; Gal 2:9), and that may be the case here. Just because scholars in the last century went out of their way to insist the name was male because a woman could not be an “apostle’, that is no reason we should do the same the other way – understandable as that temptation might be. (Chapter 9 of Epp, Junia).

One of the problems, or so it seems to me, is that this issue gets swallowed up in an agenda-driven way. On the one hand a swift resort to a version of what Professor Moo has written, which emphasises the other possibilities, minimising the possibility of Junia being an Apostle in the strongest sense of that word. On the other, a ready resort to the claim that it can only be read in this sense seems unwise.

At this point the argument can get taken up with either explaining away or emphasising 1. Tim 2 11-15, 1 Cor 11: 2-16, 1 Cor 14:34-35, and in the literature it is easy to discern why one choice or the other is made. It is important here to emphasise that such discussions take us into the wider realm of how we read Scripture, and how tradition should weigh in the balance. What cannot be in doubt is that for much of the history of Christianity women have not had a sacramental ministry, whatever may, or may not have been the case with the “Apostle” Junia.

If Junia and other women were “Apostles” in the stronger sense of the word  then would it make a difference? Well, it would tend against the argument that Jesus chose only men, not least because we know there were many women followers and He appeared first to a woman, but I really don’t want to go down that route here, not least because the chance of it not provoking people is zero. But it is worth reflecting on the experience of the one big communion which has had women priests and bishops, the Anglicans. There, I think many who were against the idea for the usual reasons would say they have found the contribution of their new colleagues invaluable and that women have added a dimension to ministry which, perhaps, Junia would have recognised. Certainly, in my own dealings with women priests, I have been nothing but impressed by what they bring to their vocation, and without their contribution things would be poorer. At that point, I shall stop and await comment.

Women elders?

18 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by in Bible, Faith

≈ 44 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

art5bm

Catching up on the posts here, I noticed that Jessica recently referred to ‘churchianity’. It’s an interesting concept – and a useful one. One difficulty faced by anyone who values tradition is the question of how old that tradition is? The other question to ask is whether that tradition is more important to a person than the plain words of Scripture? These are hard questions to ask, and even harder to answer.

So, Jessica told us yesterday about the history of women deacons in the early Church, and entirely as she predicted, the comments were all about women priests. Here’s the puzzle to me – why the tremendous effort to either avoid dealing with her evidence, or to address its implications now? I say this knowing that I belong to a congregation which does not have female elders and has no intention of having them. But then we do not take a sacramental view of the role of the elder and base ourselves firmly on Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. 

None of this is to deny women important roles in our church, but it is to say that the Bible imposes two restrictions on the ministry of women: they are not to teach Christian doctrine to men and they are not to exercise authority directly over men in the church. These restrictions are permanent, authoritative for the church in all times and places and circumstances as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve. If we look at 1 Timothy 2:11-12 we can see what Paul was getting at in terms of restrictions. He is all in favour of women learning, but not in favour of them teaching men or having authority over them. There is no restriction on women doing other things in the church, or even in leading Bible studies classes for the children, but we hold that the exercise of the authority of an elder is reserved to men.

We can, and many do, take the view that in such matters the Bible is culturally conditioned, but where does that end? It is precisely that argument which has been effective in overthrowing, for some, the clear Biblical prohibition of homosexual practice. If we want the church to be conformed to the world, then this is the way to go – though this is the opposite of what Paul says in Romans 12:2. Of course, it is more comfortable to ignore Paul – but he who wants comfort should not embrace the way of the Cross.

To conclude, no one is saying that women cannot teach men per se. To say that would be to make a nonsense of the many times we read of women giving men information they needed. So, it was not wrong for Rhoda to tell everyone that Peter was at the door (Acts 12:14). It was not wrong for women to relay commands to men (Matthew 28:10). It was not wrong for women to tell the apostles that the Lord had risen (Mark 16:9).  It was not wrong for the Samaritan woman to tell people what Jesus had done (John 4:29). It was not wrong for Priscilla and Aquila to work together to teach Apollos (Acts 18:26). It was not wrong for Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:8-9) to tell their inspired messages to men. It was not wrong for a woman to teach her husband by example (1 Peter 3:1-2). Women were allowed certain sorts of teaching from women – but not that they should have the authority of an elder. The functions of authoritative teaching, rebuking and leadership of an elder were confined to men. That leaves much room for women, and I can see no reason why they cannot serve as deacons.

Women and Ministry

16 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Anglicanism, Faith

≈ 73 Comments

Tags

, ,

servant-leadership

As regulars know, I have not been a supporter of women’s ordination, but I have to say that the more the discussion has continued, the less secure have I become in this view. The view in favour has been presented many times, and there are some reasons here from a Catholic point of view, and some here from a more Protestant angle. They will not convince all, any more than they do me; but they are there, and in my own church they have long convinced a majority; now the C of E has taken the logical step of ordaining women as bishops. At issue in the last few times this has been discussed was not the principle – once you concede the case for women priests it is nonsense to say they can’t be bishops, best adopt the Catholic position and have neither; no, at issue has been the question of how to provide for those of us who do not agree. At the Synod before this, too many proponents paid too little regard to our feelings, and when they got over their fit of pique, and thanks to Archbishop Justin’s efforts, they agreed to make proper safeguards for us. The question of whether those of us who see ourselves as Anglo-Catholics will leave the Church is, once more, in the air.

Asked by a close friend recently, my answer was, and remains, no. You should only leave your Church if you are convinced that another Church is the right place for you. I am very far from that place. It isn’t just that listening to Pope Francis and the spin-machine which comes into place almost every time he opens his mouth, I can see that there would be an element of risk involved, it is that the Church of England is my church. It is the Church in which I have grown up and come to know Christ; it has been my mother, and has nurtured me. I am part of it and always have been. I know so many good and holy people who are part of it, and it allows me to worship God as my ancestors did; it is part of who I am; I can no more eschew it than I can pretend to be another person.

I have no idea whether the Holy Ghost is leading women to ministry, all I do know is that some of the women priests with whom I have worked are doing the work of spreading the Good News of Jesus. That, for me, is what matter – evangelism. Jesus spent zero hours worrying about women priests. He appointed only men as Apostles, and he appointed only Jews; there was a point at which the early church seriously argued over whether Gentiles should be circumcised, and had the vote gone the other way, I wonder how many men would have been willing to follow Jesus today? It is still arguing over women and ministry and will for a long time. Those churches which wish to preserve the Apostolical model can do so, and those who don’t can do so. It is the unique genius of the Church of England to do both. Those who like things cut and dried will cry fudge; those of us looking to discern how best we carry out the Great Commission and live as Christians where we are, are glad of it though. If, as many here believe, I am wrong to be an Anglican and possibly bound for hell as a result, it probably isn’t going to make any difference whether I receive Communion from a man they don’t think is a priest, or a woman they say isn’t either!