Is Women's Ordination a Slippery Slope?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- I understand this is a sensitive subject and I tried to be generous, but no doubt, in places I failed. Hopefully we can all work these issues out with charity and love together.
Young Anglican is just a hobby for a theology nerd. I do all of this in my spare time and don't have any relevant degrees in theology or philosophy, but hope that nonetheless my thoughts and knowledge still have a kind of value.
If you want to support the channel, you can subscribe to my locals, and get early access to some of my videos:
younganglican....
I appreciate this response, and I agree with most of what you said. I would just request that we all be more specific when making arguments about this, rather than throwing out pithy accusations.
Egalitarians claiming the Church was wrong for 2,000 years *does* obliterate all safeguards against saying the Church was also wrong on LGBT issues. But it does nothing with regard to Biblical exegesis. I still contend that it is sinful to treat egalitarians as if they are immediately equivalent to pro-LGBT Progressives, when the passages on those topics have fundamentally different tones. There are Biblical arguments that are much stronger than just claiming the Church was wrong for 2,000 years.
And the most frustrating form of the argument for me is when people point to examples of churches that have just continued to follow the secular culture, as if women's ordination was the start or cause of that. Women's ordination was the *result* of those groups being lukewarm, not the cause. There are plenty of churches that have still not budged on LGBT issues despite ordaining women. (IMO in those cases the fact that they ordain women is a result of a faulty understanding of what ordination actually is, and distorted church polity). Not to mention, Romanists will blame Protestants, Easterners will blame the West, and Jews will blame Christians. You can't defend yourself against their claims if you want to use the same arguments against other Protestants.
Thanks for the comment, I am glad to see the distinctions you make and agree with your assessments of the motivations and trends involved
You need to beef up pn church history. Much was dismissed. Now being uncovered... Pope Gallelius outlawed women priests who were already in existentence. Read widely...
Personally I would contend that the slippery slope CAN be shown exegetically via typology, although that's a little much to get into here, so I'll just throw a quote out from CS Lewis that illustrates the gist of it:
"Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic love of a fundamental polarity that divides all created beings."
Getting into the slippery slope thing though, I don't think it has to be either or. The presence of gasoline might not have caused a fire, but that doesn't mean pouring gasoline onto the fire will have no effect.
I loved your reasons especially when you said that if we concede to a practice then we are also conceding to the logic of that practice.
Your opponents might think they have smug answers to your arguments. But what they also have to argue that even through every single time women ordination is introduced total clown world follows for that denomination, with dozens of examples, that _this time_ it will be different. Just let us do it this one time and we'll finally see God's plan for his Church truly realized. You gotta believe me bro it will be different this time just one more female ordination and we'll stem the tide it de-Christianization once and for all just do it man please.
The burden of proof of showing not only is it not definitely forbidden by scripture tradition and reason, but also that it will be a net benefit to the church if introduced lies completely upon the WO folks. And they have to prove both to a high level before even considering the possibility. IMHO, this can't be done EVEN of you could bamboozle me archaeological arguments (eg hair as testecles) so that I was 70/30 in favour of WO from scripture, the second question (what are the costs/benefits in practice) makes it impossible and impossible for all time.
It obviously is. A quick look at history will tell you where it leads. The church needs both mothers and fathers. The roles are not interchangeable and are distinct.
Yes
The logic of egalitarianism definitely does entail the logic of acceptance of homosexuality. The egalitarian position suggests that the equal dignity of men and women necessarily implies equal capacity of men and women to fill any given role. If that is the case, then we run up againts these biblical commands which say, for example, men shall not dress like women and shall not lie with each other as with a woman. If there is no fundamental difference between feminine and masculine roles in the created order (or, at least, both men and women can interchangeably fulfill these roles), then these commandments are arbitrary at best and nonsensical at worst. One can repond to this in three ways:
1. Cognitive dissonance. Implicitly accept that God's commands are arbitrary rather than grounded, and continue believing in egalitarianism while affirming biblical sexual ethics.
2. Keep following the logic and explain away the commands in order to justify acceptance of homosexuality.
3. Keep following the logic and explain away God who gave the commands; deconstruct.
We see option 3 all around us in the popular exvangelical cultural moment. We see option 2 in the liberal churches (which often approach option 3 given enough time). We see option 1 in moderately conservative churches like some parts of the ACNA. In my opinion, option 1 exists because of the way in which so many modern western Christians read Scripture, which is a whole other can of worms this comment can't afford to get into.
This is a very helpful video. I am somewhat a newcomer to Anglicanism and am still sorting things out. My instincts are very conservative on this issue, and at the same time knowing many women to be gifted as teachers, scholars of the Bible, etc. It seems like a waste not to let them be used where they are most effective. I guess there is something in particular about the sacramental understanding of the role of the clergy in Anglicanism that would preclude their inclusion that isn't there in less sacramental denominations with which I am more familiar.
Broadly speaking it feels like we are reaching the end of the swing of some kind of pendulum when it comes to egalitarianism where more and more people are starting to notice that it hasn't delivered on it's promises. Though it may address certain acute problems (abuse, unfairness), it also has subtler (though less and less subtle) and more diffuse problems of it's own (erosion of family bonds, subversion of masculinity and the disappearance of distinctively male spaces). All of this has lead to a society that is less and less functional; it seems to me that a return to tradition is likely the only thing that can address the upheaval that our society is in.
The distinction between the feminism of "wanting men to treat women better" vs. the feminism of "making women interchangeable with men" -I found this to be very helpful.
We’re already entering an age where polyamory is becoming normalized. Wouldn’t be surprising if polygamy is (re)legalized in our lifetime.
What’s a lot more worrying is what’s the next domino to fall after this one.
Aside from deaconess, For just under 2000 years women were not ordained. If we cant Honor the traditional faith, what are we standing on? When we start to make changes based on culture we put a fracture in our foundation. The real issue is the lack of qualified Men stepping into these leadership roles. To be a Holy man is very rare in todays climate.
Its hard to tell of this is result of cultured women movement or lack of qualified men?
And deaconesses weren't even a liturgical role, so they weren't ordained. They were women who helped with the baptism of other women because it was performed in the nude. Once we stopped doing that, there was no need of them.
Unless you learn greek and realise deacon was neither a male or female term, that is why in Timothy we have rules for deacons and women deacons, often translated wives of deacons (wives and women are the same Greek word). No such term as deaconess, they were simply all called deacons, yet encouraged to remain male and female. Women deacons were not to be mini men, but to keep their femininity by covering heads etc.
God help the ACNA to repent of their sins regarding this issue.
Whenever I hear people make the argument "Well, Jesus was just influenced by the establishment of his time" or "Oh, he couldn't do [insert modern progressive talking point here] because it would have rocked the boat," my immediate gut response is: Have you read the Gospels? That is literally the opposite of the story they tell.
Liberals, man. Smh.
Priestesses is like smoking for your denomination-- Whilst not every female priest is a gay rights heretic, so also not does every smoker get sick. Some smokers live into their 90s and some priestesses are othodox on biblical morality. Yet the connection between priestesses and heresy is clearly linked.
Does correlation not equal causation? Who knows! But I say be safe rather than sorry
It’s pretty self evident in scripture why only men are allowed to be ordained ministers:
Titus 1, 2
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
1 Timothy 2:11-15 ESV
“the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ESV
“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”
1 Corinthians 11:4-12 ESV
Women are equal in their human dignity to men. They have a different role, though not a lesser one, than men. But they do not bear the natural resemblance to the man, Christ, that would enable them to act sacramentally in his “person.” And Christ did not include women among the select group of the Twelve to whom he gave the sacramental powers, which included ordination.
Really enjoyed listening to this. Personally I reject the slippery slope logic. To me the Ordination of women is very different to rejecting Gods Holiness and accepting same sex marriages and blessings. It is also a great insult to the brave Anglican women clergy globally who have (and still continue) made a stand against same sex marriage and blessings. Currently in the Church of England we are seeing this, with bishop Jill Duff being the obvious example. As I look around the empty churches and see a lack of men in general, I am reminded of Deborah and Barak. If men will not step up and defend the faith, then the honour shall naturally pass to women. Men and women are different yet united in Christ. These differences complement each other, together both can lead and serve, surely the harvest is big enough. Thank you for sharing this video, blessings in Christ.
This question was instrumental to my coming to support an episcopal ecclesiology. My previous non-denom church didn’t support women’s ordination but in that context the reasons WHY they didn’t just made no sense to me. So much of the way the church is structured had already been thrown out but they were choosing to maintain this one rule only? And with really only one relevant position (head pastor) there wasn’t anything for a woman to do.
I think you are correct to consider deaconesses as permissible, though I don’t think that that role should be sacramental.
This is a good video; I've moved around and back again over the years on 'women preachers' or 'women clergy' (neither of which, I now see, are specific or nuanced enough terms to have a fruitful discussion); but I've always been clear that whatever the church does should be based on Scripture and tradition, not on whatever the latest movement in the culture is. Those things are unstable in any case. For example, early forms of feminism sought to have equal treatment for women under civil law (pertaining to things like property ownership or voting rights) but then came more radical forms of later 20th Century feminism, which now themselves seem to be completely collapsing under pressures from the LGBTQPIAN+++ ideologies (J K Rowling notwithstanding). I do think this increasing instability and uncertainty in the secular culture creates an opening for some to re-examining a Biblical and traditional view of gender and sex, who would not have been open to it 20 years ago.
It's heresy period.
The beard 👍
Thank you for this thoughtful lecture on difficult subject.
Personally, I’m open to woman’s orientation. I find some of N.T. Wright thoughts on this subject quite convincing; like the woman pouring oil on Jesus does seem to me like a priestly act. However I do agree with you about the slippery slope. Basically I believe unless women orientation can based on our christian faith and the Bible it should not be attempted. Not because the world says we’re unjust if don’t.
Also we should think about how that role would look different for a woman, for indeed it would be transformed into a motherly office instead of Fatherly. For if Eden was like temple and Adam a image of God and had the role of a priest and Eve to was a image barer as helper what was her role to be.
Sorry this last part was merely speculative.
Also, i beg your pardon advance as I’m sure most people will disagree with me and probably for good reasons .
Post script: Then again if it is a Road which leads to reducing the Christian faith to a mere fairytale, or destroys difference, or leads also accepting abortion. Well then, no thank you .
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate your distinctions
Let's put it this way: I do not know at the moment if women's ordination is permitted by the new testament or not, however I can clearly see that every congregation who allowed it turned progressive.
Not every congregation. Not the Mar Thoma church... 2000 urs old
Ordaining women is the bottom of the slope. It means you no longer have any pretext of caring about holy scripture or sacred tradition. And of course if you compromise and give up your faith then you don’t have a church, but a completely apostate ape of a church.
this is the problem when your religion is founded by henry viii