Even within your own country, as @Lamb Chopped has said, there is no automatic equation between who a church lets do which sorts of ministry and misogyny, oppression or worse.
If you believe it's a coincidence that the churches that don't ordain women are the exact same churches that vigorously campaign against women's political and personal rights, I've got a beautiful bridge to sell you.
Since you singled out Lamb Chopped as a commentator on American religious life and its interference in politics, I'll note that the denomination her family belongs to maintains a DC-based lobbying/advocacy organization working against abortion, divorce, and LGBTQ+ rights. All of which are issues vital to women's safety, as the spousal murder rates will tell you.
What do you may be a first order issue of praxis which would unequivocally preclude you from joining one rather than another might well be a second, third or even fourth order issue to somebody else with different priorities and in another part of the world.
As Ruth said, the health and safety of 52 percent of the population shouldn't be a second-order issue anywhere.
'I understand but do not full accept the accusation that belonging to a church that does not ordain women to the priesthood means I have no right to deplore attempts to restrict women's voting and other rights here or anywhere else in the world.
You do literally have the right, living in a country with a certain degree of free speech. But it makes you a hypocrite. When you go to church, you are voting with your feet against women's equality. And sure, no one is consistent, everyone has contradictions, we all find ourselves engaged in hypocrisy. But hypocrisies come in various shapes and sizes. This one is big and dangerous.
Nor do I accept the 'guilt by association' links with the likes of Wilson, Hegseth or Islamist theocratic.
You don't have to accept this for it to be true. You should think longer and harder about the power of ideas, how they work and how they spread.
Neither do I accept that churches which don't ordain women to the priesthood are denting women's full humanity.
This is just stupid. You can't theorize that someone's humanity is so fundamentally even ontologically different that they can't be ordained without saying they are less than fully human. There is no separate but equal humanity.
I fully accept that there are clear and present dangers of right-wing politicians and dictators trying to co-opt traditional and more conservatively theological forms of Christianity for their own ends. See Farage and Lowe. See Putin.
That is something that those of us in such churches should resist.'
I'd extend the Nazi bar metaphor here. (The Nazi bar metaphor, if people aren't all familiar with it, says if you tolerate one Nazi at your bar, you're running a Nazi bar, because if you tolerate one you'll get more.) If Nazis feel comfortable showing up at your bar, you need to have a good look around and figure out what makes them feel at home and get rid of it.
Neither do I accept that churches which don't ordain women to the priesthood are denting women's full humanity.
I think I would agree. Because I don't think that eg. prohibiting 8-year olds from drinking, voting, or signing contracts is denying their full humanity.
BUT...
Prohibiting them from doing those things IS denying their full equality. Would you also agree that barring women from the clergy is denying THEIR full equality?
Because I don't think that eg. prohibiting 8-year olds from drinking, voting, or signing contracts is denying their full humanity.
Bad comparison, because children's inability to do these things legally is temporary, not inherent to who they are. They grow up, and then they can do these things. And it's a legal prohibition, while Catholic and Orthodox churches don't merely prohibit women's ordination, they say it is not possible. Women are inherently unordain-able. Children can drink; they just shouldn't.
Everybody breathe. The Church is just a construct. Not a single contemporary Christian can know they have it (Christianity) right/correct. That ship sailed a long, long time ago. Every single claimant is hoping he/she is close enough on enough core tenets to succeed, and it will ever be thus. Some are more pious about that than others, but no one actually knows, so take heart.
Since you singled out Lamb Chopped as a commentator on American religious life and its interference in politics, I'll note that the denomination her family belongs to maintains a DC-based lobbying/advocacy organization working against abortion, divorce, and LGBTQ+ rights. All of which are issues vital to women's safety, as the spousal murder rates will tell you.
The organization you mention is neither an auxiliary nor a recognized service organization of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod--a status which is not difficult to obtain. The church does not fund it and has no control over it, any more than you do. I myself disagree with most of what I hear them to be doing.
Everybody breathe. The Church is just a construct. Not a single contemporary Christian can know they have it (Christianity) right/correct. That ship sailed a long, long time ago. Every single claimant is hoping he/she is close enough on enough core tenets to succeed, and it will ever be thus. Some are more pious about that than others, but no one actually knows, so take heart.
For me, the argument is not about basic tenants, the argument is more about practice.
Not knowing everything does not mean we know nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean we can't evaluate practices, structure or patterns of harm in the present.
Since you singled out Lamb Chopped as a commentator on American religious life and its interference in politics, I'll note that the denomination her family belongs to maintains a DC-based lobbying/advocacy organization working against abortion, divorce, and LGBTQ+ rights. All of which are issues vital to women's safety, as the spousal murder rates will tell you.
The organization you mention is neither an auxiliary nor a recognized service organization of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod--a status which is not difficult to obtain. The church does not fund it and has no control over it, any more than you do. I myself disagree with most of what I hear them to be doing.
Okay, I retract the word "maintains" and substitute "established the organization, and promotes it under 'Synodwide Efforts & Initiatives' on their denominational website."
Since you singled out Lamb Chopped as a commentator on American religious life and its interference in politics, I'll note that the denomination her family belongs to maintains a DC-based lobbying/advocacy organization working against abortion, divorce, and LGBTQ+ rights. All of which are issues vital to women's safety, as the spousal murder rates will tell you.
The organization you mention is neither an auxiliary nor a recognized service organization of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod--a status which is not difficult to obtain. The church does not fund it and has no control over it, any more than you do. I myself disagree with most of what I hear them to be doing.
From the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty, in its about link states:
The Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty (LCRL) is a religious liberty organization in Washington D.C. that serves as a voice for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and its partners in the public square.
But, for that matter, the ELCA also has a Social Advocacy office in DC which is its federal public policy office, responsible for representing ELCA social teaching to Congress, the White House, and federal agencies. We just don't have a snazzy name for it.
Okay. I'm grateful for you drawing my attention to what appears to me as a very weird arrangement. Generally and historically speaking, the LCMS draws a very clear line between what it does officially, what its auxiliaries and recognized service organizations (RSOs) do, and what random people claiming some degree of relationship do.
In my experience (which goes back roughly 30 years) this is a very odd arrangement, and I rather suspect someone has been over-stating the truth, or bending the rules. (Till they break, possibly.)
I happen to work for an organization which is very well regarded and which holds an official status with the LCMS. Not going to go further into that or which status, as it would instantly out me.
We do not in any way run our funding--donations or otherwise--through the LCMS. We do not IMPLY that we do so. We keep our affairs firmly separate from that of the church body. And we are EXPECTED to do so.
And so that web page--the one from the synod, I mean, not the one from the LCRL--appears very odd indeed, particularly in the case of a group that does not even possess RSO status.
I can only assume that someone has friends, if you know what I mean. And/or that the publicity team at the church body has deliberately or accidentally fudged the truth of the actual relationship.
In either case I can see the motivation. Because it would be a huge temptation to certain people to make it appear that the LCMS was doing exactly what we've done our best NOT to do (based on our distinctive theology! I mean, this is two-kingdoms theory, and that is not a small thing in our circles) for basically our whole history, to the best of my knowledge. We have usually been blamed for staying OUT of politics. But of course, the temptation to money and to power exists, and church staff and even leaders, God knows, can fall to it.
So now I'm wondering what the hell is going on here. I may or may not get a chance to ask someone who might know. But if I do, it won't be for weeks, more likely months. I am at the bottom of the org chart in my work.
The Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty was offically formed in 2017 with Dr Gregory Seltz as the director. He was the former speaker of The Lutheran Hour. It was approved by the LCMS Boad of Directors under President Matthew Harisson. It was established through the LCMS Office of National Mission. But it has never been formally approved by an LCMS national convention.
Everybody breathe. The Church is just a construct. Not a single contemporary Christian can know they have it (Christianity) right/correct. That ship sailed a long, long time ago. Every single claimant is hoping he/she is close enough on enough core tenets to succeed, and it will ever be thus. Some are more pious about that than others, but no one actually knows, so take heart.
This is a specious argument given that it involves half the population being denied particular careers simply for being women. Money is a construct, that doesn't mean that the lack of money has no material effect on your life. We do know that workplace discrimination against women (which is effectively what this is) is wrong within or without the church.
We do not in any way run our funding--donations or otherwise--through the LCMS.
As an aside, from their donate page it does look like some of their donations are handled via the LCMS (not sure if this is in the same sense as your sentence):
In either case I can see the motivation. Because it would be a huge temptation to certain people to make it appear that the LCMS was doing exactly what we've done our best NOT to do (based on our distinctive theology! I mean, this is two-kingdoms theory, and that is not a small thing in our circles) for basically our whole history, to the best of my knowledge. We have usually been blamed for staying OUT of politics. But of course, the temptation to money and to power exists, and church staff and even leaders, God knows, can fall to it.
While Luther developed the two kingdoms theology, with the kingdom on the right being all things related to the church like preaching of the Gospel and administering word and sacrament while the kingdom of the left is ruled be God through law and civil authority, it does not mean we are of one kingdom or the other. Christians are members of both kingdoms. Thus, it is not all that unusual for the church to interact with the government.
It is my understanding the LCRL was in reaction to the rise of Christian nationalism. The LRCL warns against secularizing political movements, confusing patriotism with discipleship and treating political victories as spiritual victories.
That said, the LCMS has long had ties to the government especially in supplying chaplains to the military and working with the government to get needed aid to impoverished areas. Did you know shortly after WWII, Lutheran World Relief which the LCMS participates in, would gather relief kits but would depend on the US government to transship them to war torn areas. The LCMS has also worked with the government for Education and Accreditation. Students going through the Concordia system have long depended on federal student loans. It has filed amicus briefs in many court cases. LCMS leaders regularly testify before Congress on many issues affecting women (not necessarily pro women positions BTW) and it worked with the US government to protect the conscientious objector status of seminarians during the draft
As has been hinted at differently countries behave differently. None Americans need to understand that things are different in the US and Americans need to understand that the other countries are different.
Here in Great Britain there seems not to be the connection about violence to women that Ruth is calling out. We are a different society. Church attendance and membership is low. Violence against women (and men) is not judged the same.
What do you mean by "violence against women (and men) is not judged the same"?
I was referring to violence as a thing in itself. Because of the low support for churches in this country violence against any person is not seen in the same way over here. Violence against people of any kind. Women, gay men, any other group that has had violent acts committed against it. Our more atheistic society has a different view from what we see from the USA and is being talked about here. I was including others not saying anything else
As has been hinted at differently countries behave differently. None Americans need to understand that things are different in the US and Americans need to understand that the other countries are different.
Here in Great Britain there seems not to be the connection about violence to women that Ruth is calling out. We are a different society. Church attendance and membership is low. Violence against women (and men) is not judged the same.
What do you mean by "violence against women (and men) is not judged the same"?
I was referring to violence as a thing in itself. Because of the low support for churches in this country violence against any person is not seen in the same way over here. Violence against people of any kind. Women, gay men, any other group that has had violent acts committed against it. Our more atheistic society has a different view from what we see from the USA and is being talked about here. I was including others not saying anything else
In what way does the perception of violence differ between the UK and the USA, and how is this difference connected to levels of support for churches?
I have no idea what @Hugal is getting at here nor why a more secular or atheist society would have a different view of violence to one where religion was more prominent in the public sphere.
Unless it was some kind of totalitarian society.
I'm not aware of any substantial difference between attitudes towards violence between the US and the UK or between Australia and Canada or between ...
We all have sanctions against violence in some form or other.
There might be different approaches and judicial systems and I don't think any of us have 'cracked it.'
The Churches that now accept women priests have done so as a whole in my lifetime. I certainly remember the vote in the Church in Wales. Women and men who believed women should be priests worked hard within the structure to achieve this goal. If there were no women in those Denominations standing up for this and others backing them it would not have changed. The subject of women priests has never been a black and white issue and had not been an equality issue as on women’s suffrage. There has been more that just equality. The foundations of denominations, the question can a women act as Christ in a service, and other issues have been discussed. I am happy to have a women on the team at my church which part of a multi church area that has group of priests working across all of them. Several of my friends from London are women and priests or leaders in other denominations. I do however recognise that it is not straight forward. The church is not world.
I have no idea what @Hugal is getting at here nor why a more secular or atheist society would have a different view of violence to one where religion was more prominent in the public sphere.
Unless it was some kind of totalitarian society.
I'm not aware of any substantial difference between attitudes towards violence between the US and the UK or between Australia and Canada or between ...
We all have sanctions against violence in some form or other.
There might be different approaches and judicial systems and I don't think any of us have 'cracked it.'
I am obviously not making my self clear. I obviously cannot make myself understood. As I said my dyslexia means I can be confusing to others it makes sense to me but maybe not to others.
@stetson in response to your earlier question about whether not having female priests implies a lack of full equality.
My answer, which won't satisfy anyone here I don’t imagine is that it depends on how we define the priestly role in sacramental terms. It's seen as an 'iconic' role within Orthodoxy and some would understand it in the sense of as the Incarnate Christ was male so priests have to be male in order to 'represent' that.
The counter argument to that of course is that the Incarnate Christ's humanity 'applies' to all human beings irrespective of gender. And that's a strong argument. 'In Christ there is neither... male nor female ...'
Some would argue that because Orthodoxy takes a 'familial' approach the priest performs a 'fatherly role' within the parish - but then that assumes traditional gender roles which might be challenged.
However it's understood it doesn't - or isn't meant - to convey the idea that women are incapable of fulfilling the role or unworthy of it in some way. Equally it's not meant to be a 'job' as such or a status thing.
That's not to say I don’t struggle with these things. Neither is it to say that I disparage women priests or ministers in other Christian traditions. There are many very excellent female pastors, teachers evangelists etc etc etc etc ...
Some of them are here on these boards.
For those of us who aren't priests or formally ordained or given some kind of title or funny hat, we all have a 'priestly' role to fulfil in whatever we do in life.
That's not going to be a satisfactory answer I know but seeing things in a 'non-secular' way for want of a better term means, I would suggest, that is possible to hold this kind of view without wishing to withdraw the franchise from women or restrict their civil liberties and rights.
It'd be similar in that respect to the approach @ChastMastr describes and from which he has now moved.
Not necessarily — I’m not sure my reasons before necessarily map onto those (but I don’t know the details) nor that my reasons after are ones in which I’ve moved from the approach Orthodoxy takes. But that likely need to be its own thread, and I’m not even sure a thread about the various positions regarding women’s ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy has a place on the current Ship at all. I miss Dead Horses.
@ChastMastr - I speculated that your sacramental views were 'similar' to Orthodoxy's not that they were identical necessarily. As a Christian with a sacramental approach you'd be closer to the Orthodox position in that respect than, say, someone from a Christian tradition which didn't have a 'high' view of the sacraments.
I would agree with this, and I would then say that I have not at all moved from this position. :-) The issue in my mind regarding women’s ordination had to do with whether or not they could be ordained, and in accepting that they can, did not move in any way towards rejecting apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in communion, and so on.
@ChastMastr when you disagreed with women's ordination (and I do recognise and appreciate that you changed your mind), did you think that there was any role within the Church that should be only for women?
Nuns, I suppose?
I should point out—though I don’t think it affects certain things the way some people may think it does (I don’t think that concluding things one way or the other is some kind of moral virtue or vice)—that my position before was that I was not convinced of the validity of women’s ordination to the priesthood or episcopate—not that I was convinced they could not be so ordained. Those are very different things.
Some people argued, not that it would be unwise to ordain a woman as a priest or bishop, but that whatever ritual was done, that she would still not be a priest or bishop, which is a very different position—not able to consecrate the Eucharist, nor in the case of a bishop, to genuinely ordain priests. This would make various sacraments in doubt (and in fact make the ordination of various clergy more and more in doubt as time went on, if the validity of the Holy Orders of the clergy down the line was lacking).
I came to the conclusion that yes, women can be ordained as priests and bishops. (And I’ve met and read about various good and bad ones, with good and bad theology, just as with men.) Again, I don’t think this was some kind of moral enlightenment. Someone can think otherwise, and I don’t think it makes them less or more moral a person.
Speaking generally here (ie not specifically to ChastMastr), I don't think that women's ordination is something for men to opine on. It's just not any of your business if God calls a woman to ordination. I don't see what there is for a man to wrestle with here, it doesn't affect you. Women who disagree with women's ordination (I have known many!) should be an intra-community topic of discussion and not for men to stick their oar in.
I find this baffling. So saying that men shouldn’t have, and presumably never should have had an opinion on it, when those churches had only male priests and bishops… so, what, the women would have all decided on their own that they should be priests, but get ordained without male involvement… how, exactly? Or say, “Hi, your view of this is irrelevant, just do the ritual regardless?”
I find the notion that churches and other religions should legally be required by the state to ordain people, whether or not their theology or doctrine allows this, or frankly forcing them to change their doctrines in general, to be simply wrong to the point of being evil. I’m sorry, but no. (There are all-female Wiccan covens, too, and it is also their right to decide how to sort out what they do, whether I’d be allowed to join or not.)
Again, for some churches, this would be forcing them to go through the motions to pretend to ordain people when they don’t really believe that they can. It would be forcing them to lie. This is wrong. This is not just a job. This is a sacrament, for various churches. This is about a mystical transformative event. To force someone to pretend to do it is sacrilege.
Haven’t we seen the problems for literally centuries and centuries with the government forcing religious groups to change their beliefs or practice? (I don’t mean stuff like human sacrifice, or not letting people leave the group if they choose to.)
Everybody breathe. The Church is just a construct. Not a single contemporary Christian can know they have it (Christianity) right/correct. That ship sailed a long, long time ago. Every single claimant is hoping he/she is close enough on enough core tenets to succeed, and it will ever be thus. Some are more pious about that than others, but no one actually knows, so take heart.
For me, the argument is not about basic tenants, the argument is more about practice.
Not knowing everything does not mean we know nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean we can't evaluate practices, structure or patterns of harm in the present.
Well, make it about practices, then. That's fine. Not a single contemporary Christian can know they're doing it (Christianity/Church) right. That doesn't mean anyone is necessarily doing it wrong. It just means no one can really know. That shouldn't be offensive or controversial.
Everybody breathe. The Church is just a construct. Not a single contemporary Christian can know they have it (Christianity) right/correct. That ship sailed a long, long time ago. Every single claimant is hoping he/she is close enough on enough core tenets to succeed, and it will ever be thus. Some are more pious about that than others, but no one actually knows, so take heart.
This is a specious argument given that it involves half the population being denied particular careers simply for being women. Money is a construct, that doesn't mean that the lack of money has no material effect on your life. We do know that workplace discrimination against women (which is effectively what this is) is wrong within or without the church.
Half the population being denied particular careers simply for being women is only a thing in specific aspects of Christendom -- not all of it. Life is full of constructs, and the utility of one doesn't necessarily compare to of inform another.
Workplace discrimination against women is wrong. I'm all-in re: that.
Sure, but belief or not in it being a construct doesn't bring much to bear on whether or not it is one.
Agreed. I’m just responding to your claim that it is only a construct. You may believe it is; others may believe otherwise.
For many (if not all) of us who believe it is more than that, we don’t believe we can mess around with the liturgy however we like, change words however we like, ordain whomever we like, etc. To make changes in various areas requires a lot of time and thought to make sure we’re doing the right thing. It’s like Chesterton’s fence. A lot of people right now (in the last century or so) have been eager to make lots of changes to lots of things very quickly. I’ve personally concluded that the ordination of female priests and bishops is, in and of itself, valid. But I’m not going to assume that people who have not concluded otherwise (in and of itself—some of them, often the loudest ones, are genuinely misogynistic or nasty in other ways) are bad people, or sinning by not having reached that conclusion, and certainly not that they’re bad or hypocritical for belonging to churches that don’t ordain female clergy.
As a side thought that has been on my mind here, what would someone be expected to do if they believed that the one true church, or that the only church options that, for example, had valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments, etc., also had flaws? I.e., that it was their only option for receiving the Eucharist, and also that they were commanded to receive the Eucharist? In their worldview they can’t just go to a church that lacks those flaws, because they won’t (again, in their view) be receiving the real thing? What options do they have? If they thought it was the only valid stream, doesn’t that mean they’re basically screwed?
Sure, but belief or not in it being a construct doesn't bring much to bear on whether or not it is one.
Agreed. I’m just responding to your claim that it is only a construct. You may believe it is; others may believe otherwise.
For many (if not all) of us who believe it is more than that, we don’t believe we can mess around with the liturgy however we like, change words however we like, ordain whomever we like, etc. To make changes in various areas requires a lot of time and thought to make sure we’re doing the right thing. It’s like Chesterton’s fence. A lot of people right now (in the last century or so) have been eager to make lots of changes to lots of things very quickly. I’ve personally concluded that the ordination of female priests and bishops is, in and of itself, valid. But I’m not going to assume that people who have not concluded otherwise (in and of itself—some of them, often the loudest ones, are genuinely misogynistic or nasty in other ways) are bad people, or sinning by not having reached that conclusion, and certainly not that they’re bad or hypocritical for belonging to churches that don’t ordain female clergy.
LOL, @ChastMastr. I mean, we can start from 'the church isn't a building, it's the people" if we have to. Believe what you can, by all means.
For many (if not all) of us who believe it is more than that, we don’t believe we can mess around with the liturgy however we like, change words however we like, ordain whomever we like, etc.
I think the “if not all” there is a hefty overstatement. Many Christians who would say the church is more than a construct are in non-liturgical traditions, do not believe in apostolic succession (at least as understood by RCs, Orthodox or Anglicans), and do not believe that ordination confers any special status or is necessary for valid sacraments.
Sure, but belief or not in it being a construct doesn't bring much to bear on whether or not it is one.
Agreed. I’m just responding to your claim that it is only a construct. You may believe it is; others may believe otherwise.
For many (if not all) of us who believe it is more than that, we don’t believe we can mess around with the liturgy however we like, change words however we like, ordain whomever we like, etc. To make changes in various areas requires a lot of time and thought to make sure we’re doing the right thing. It’s like Chesterton’s fence. A lot of people right now (in the last century or so) have been eager to make lots of changes to lots of things very quickly. I’ve personally concluded that the ordination of female priests and bishops is, in and of itself, valid. But I’m not going to assume that people who have not concluded otherwise (in and of itself—some of them, often the loudest ones, are genuinely misogynistic or nasty in other ways) are bad people, or sinning by not having reached that conclusion, and certainly not that they’re bad or hypocritical for belonging to churches that don’t ordain female clergy.
LOL, @ChastMastr. I mean, we can start from 'the church isn't a building, it's the people" if we have to. Believe what you can, by all means.
Oh, the church not being the building but the people, yes, absolutely.
@ChastMastr, I don't care at all about your scruples about liturgy, the apostolic succession, or anything else, because you think your personal preference for the exclusive language of old hymns takes precedence over women's humanity.
I've come across attempts at more 'gender-neutral' terms in some English translations of Orthodox liturgies but generally speaking English translations retain terms like 'mankind'.
Masculine pronouns are used for God though.
I help edit an ecumenical publication which has a policy of not using gender specific pronouns to refer to God and that doesn't cause a great deal of difficulty in the editing process. Sometimes we have to jiggle the wording of some contributors' submissions to conform to the house-style but it's not an onerous task.
I didn't agree with all the points @ChastMastr made on the inclusive/exclusive language thread but if my memory serves his preference for traditional language and forms was more of an aesthetic consideration than anything else.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
I'd prefer the terms 'humanity' or 'people' to 'men' or 'mankind'. It would be easy enough to say, 'For us and for our salvation,' rather than 'for us men and for our salvation,' even though everyone is aware that 'men' in that context refers to humanity as a whole rather than to males in particular.
Nobody thinks the Creed refers to males and not humanity in general.
I don’t know whether this is an issue in other languages, particularly those which use gender-specific terms in relation to inanimate objects. Is it a specifically English problem?
But those are issues we explored on the other thread.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
Is the main criticism here, that of hypocrisy? Thus, if I go to Mass, I am supporting a misogynistic organisation, whether or not I declare I am not that. I'm not sure about this, aren't we all hypocrites in various ways?
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
All organisations are deeply flawed, but good folk within them do what good they can. I think it would be a good idea if we could all (a) take the beams out of our own eye and (b) stop judging others. Help, Lord!
As to the Shakespeare play, I trust it isn't 'The Taming of the Shrew'. If it is, boy are you in trouble!
By sheer mathematics men had to have say in accepting women priests in various denominations. The number of people able to vote was men heavy because of the situation they were in. My church voted for women priests, that is a positive thing. Like it or not that was the situation at the time.
Men and women should both have a say in any issues that arise.
In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport. It is just not a factor they care about. That is different for different societies.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
As well as a difference between being part of an audience watching a play and being part of a congregation actively participating in worship, in which the words like “who for us men” are placed in everyone’s mouths?
I'd prefer the terms 'humanity' or 'people' to 'men' or 'mankind'. It would be easy enough to say, 'For us and for our salvation,' rather than 'for us men and for our salvation,' even though everyone is aware that 'men' in that context refers to humanity as a whole rather than to males in particular.
Nobody thinks the Creed refers to males and not humanity in general.
Are you really in a position to say that “nobody” thinks that? Is it just possible that a man isn’t in the best position to say how women hear and think about generic-male language?
In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport.
Is it possible that one reason they don’t find Christianity relevant is because they see it as stuck in a misogyny that has been rejected, or is being rejected, in the workplace, politics and sport?
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
As well as a difference between being part of an audience watching a play and being part of a congregation actively participating in worship, in which the words like “who for us men” are placed in everyone’s mouths?
I'd prefer the terms 'humanity' or 'people' to 'men' or 'mankind'. It would be easy enough to say, 'For us and for our salvation,' rather than 'for us men and for our salvation,' even though everyone is aware that 'men' in that context refers to humanity as a whole rather than to males in particular.
Nobody thinks the Creed refers to males and not humanity in general.
Are you really in a position to say that “nobody” thinks that? Is it just possible that a man isn’t in the best position to say how women hear and think about generic-male language?
In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport.
Is it possible that one reason they don’t find Christianity relevant is because they see it as stuck in a misogyny that has been rejected, or is being rejected, in the workplace, politics and sport?
Possible but I don’t think it occurs to many as a problem.
Neither do I accept that churches which don't ordain women to the priesthood are denting women's full humanity.
I think I would agree. Because I don't think that eg. prohibiting 8-year olds from drinking, voting, or signing contracts is denying their full humanity.
BUT...
Prohibiting them from doing those things IS denying their full equality. Would you also agree that barring women from the clergy is denying THEIR full equality?
This is not the killer argument you think it is. Firstly, because the bedrock of the argument against women's ordination - once you get past 'We've always done it this way' - does in fact deny women's humanity. 'Jesus was a man, therefore only men can be priests.'
Secondly, do you have any idea how offensive the (centuries-old) comparison of women with children is? I very nearly stopped reading your post at that point. As the suffragettes repeatedly pointed out during their campaign for voting rights, adult women were treated like children incapable of making decisions. Incarcerated (male) prisoners had more political rights than they did. Anti-abortionists believe that pregnant women should have fewer rights than a corpse. These are not abstract problems or thought experiments. Over here in the UK there is a scandal brewing over medical misogyny (see https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/204316/medical-misogyny-is-leaving-women-in-unnecessary-pain-and-undiagnosed-for-years/
if you're interested in reading the government report). Women are being murdered by violent exes, even after repeatedly reporting them to the police and asking for protection. These are ongoing, systemic problems that affect our everyday lives.
Finally, a number of posters have complained about Ruth's 'abrasive' posts on this topic. As this is Hell, I confess that it does occasionally irritate me as well. However, she is under no obligation to be 'nice' to people who are denying her humanity, however polite they may think they are being about it. The suffragettes tried being nice too, to begin with. Nobody listened until they started blowing up postboxes and breaking shop windows.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
As well as a difference between being part of an audience watching a play and being part of a congregation actively participating in worship, in which the words like “who for us men” are placed in everyone’s mouths?
I'd prefer the terms 'humanity' or 'people' to 'men' or 'mankind'. It would be easy enough to say, 'For us and for our salvation,' rather than 'for us men and for our salvation,' even though everyone is aware that 'men' in that context refers to humanity as a whole rather than to males in particular.
Nobody thinks the Creed refers to males and not humanity in general.
Are you really in a position to say that “nobody” thinks that? Is it just possible that a man isn’t in the best position to say how women hear and think about generic-male language?
In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport.
Is it possible that one reason they don’t find Christianity relevant is because they see it as stuck in a misogyny that has been rejected, or is being rejected, in the workplace, politics and sport?
I, female, only really understood about sexist language properly when, many years ago, in seminary in Chicago, in a class on the non-Pauline epistles, the professor read to us a translation of 1 Peter he had made which didn’t just use inclusive language, but had replaced all masculine terms with feminine. He had even replaced the word ‘Jesus’ with ‘Deborah’, as in ‘Deborah Christ.’ At first I found it incredibly jarring, being used to the more traditional language, but as he read on I began to understand how I was always translating scripture in my head as I read, so that I could apply it to myself. It was AMAZING having that veil removed. And it was good for the male students too, who found it very uncomfortable.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
As well as a difference between being part of an audience watching a play and being part of a congregation actively participating in worship, in which the words like “who for us men” are placed in everyone’s mouths?
I'd prefer the terms 'humanity' or 'people' to 'men' or 'mankind'. It would be easy enough to say, 'For us and for our salvation,' rather than 'for us men and for our salvation,' even though everyone is aware that 'men' in that context refers to humanity as a whole rather than to males in particular.
Nobody thinks the Creed refers to males and not humanity in general.
Are you really in a position to say that “nobody” thinks that? Is it just possible that a man isn’t in the best position to say how women hear and think about generic-male language?
In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport.
Is it possible that one reason they don’t find Christianity relevant is because they see it as stuck in a misogyny that has been rejected, or is being rejected, in the workplace, politics and sport?
Possible but I don’t think it occurs to many as a problem.
It did to me and to a lot of women I know. And I sat on a certain committee for my church body and argued vigorously that we ought to drop the word "men" if they were not prepared to replace it with "people." The rest of the committee (all men) listened, but in the end it went down in flames for another generation.
I'm not sure why. I suspect it was the fear of being noticed and becoming the center of a major controversy, because looking backward from this position, I am certain that's what would have happened. And the controversy would not have stayed with the mere wording of the creed but immediately involved a whole host of issues they didn't have the courage to confront. I am perhaps unfair to my fellow committee members.
I was young and did not yet realize what a media storm could cost people. Since then I've seen similar storms (on different topics!) cost people their jobs and reputations. If I'm right about the motive, we still should have done it anyway.
It's from this man about his friend who was at a conservative evangelical seminary. There may we other appropriate qualifiers and nuance that I do not fully appreciate.
Anyway, it seems like the important points are as follows:
1. A man enters the seminary as a believer because he believes
2. For reasons of sexuality, he is expelled from the seminary
3. The man is recognised as a very decent and loving person by the person making the video, who is an atheist
4. The man exhibits a lot of grace and maturity in accepting the decision, forgiving the harshness of some of his classmates and pledging to continue in the faith.
It's worth watching.
The question I'm left with is about why someone would choose to want to continue associating themselves with an organisation that treats them in this way. It clearly is not because he is himself a bigot, or unkind, or childish, or an unbeliever.
I think the answer is complex but is something about the sociology of belief and belonging.
This debate is not mine. I have no priests, the point is entirely moot. And yet I can see without much difficulty how it is possible to be part of an organisation and thought-process that includes corporate beliefs that contradict personal habitual points of principle. It's nearly impossible to avoid this contradiction.
Generally speaking I find that it is best policy in life to judge a person by the best and worst of what they say rather than the worst aspects of the group they belong to.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
As well as a difference between being part of an audience watching a play and being part of a congregation actively participating in worship, in which the words like “who for us men” are placed in everyone’s mouths?
I'd prefer the terms 'humanity' or 'people' to 'men' or 'mankind'. It would be easy enough to say, 'For us and for our salvation,' rather than 'for us men and for our salvation,' even though everyone is aware that 'men' in that context refers to humanity as a whole rather than to males in particular.
Nobody thinks the Creed refers to males and not humanity in general.
Are you really in a position to say that “nobody” thinks that? Is it just possible that a man isn’t in the best position to say how women hear and think about generic-male language?
In the end most people in Britain who are not in a “Religion” don’t find Christianity relevant. Any arguments about the place of men and women in a particular denomination barely registers on their radar. It is for “religious” people to sort out. They tend to care more about misogyny in the work place , politics or maybe sport.
Is it possible that one reason they don’t find Christianity relevant is because they see it as stuck in a misogyny that has been rejected, or is being rejected, in the workplace, politics and sport?
Possible but I don’t think it occurs to many as a problem.
It did to me and to a lot of women I know. And I sat on a certain committee for my church body and argued vigorously that we ought to drop the word "men" if they were not prepared to replace it with "people." The rest of the committee (all men) listened, but in the end it went down in flames for another generation.
I'm not sure why. I suspect it was the fear of being noticed and becoming the center of a major controversy, because looking backward from this position, I am certain that's what would have happened. And the controversy would not have stayed with the mere wording of the creed but immediately involved a whole host of issues they didn't have the courage to confront. I am perhaps unfair to my fellow committee members.
I was young and did not yet realize what a media storm could cost people. Since then I've seen similar storms (on different topics!) cost people their jobs and reputations. If I'm right about the motive, we still should have done it anyway.
I see what you are talking about and yes I understand. The difference is I was talking about those not in the church not those in it like you. My argument is that Christianity is so irrelevant to them that the status of men and women in the church is barely in their radar. They as I said see it as a problem for the religious people to sort out. You are or were a member of the Church so it is important to you and others who are members. It is an issue that has caused a lot of debate and arguments in the church. It is not so important to those in the majority who are not in the Church. It just doesn’t occur to them to think about it.
Generally speaking I find that it is best policy in life to judge a person by the best and worst of what they say rather than the worst aspects of the group they belong to.
Taking you to mean what they and what they do - part of what they do is in the organisations they chose to belong. I think your best moral argument, if you stay in an organisation some of whose actions you disagree with - is that you are actively trying to change it, but then the question is at what point if any do you leave if you are unsuccessful.
To which I would to say, @Gamma Gamaliel , given your views professed on this thread - what are you doing in your church to further cause of women’s ordination ?
Speaking generally here (ie not specifically to ChastMastr), I don't think that women's ordination is something for men to opine on. It's just not any of your business if God calls a woman to ordination. I don't see what there is for a man to wrestle with here, it doesn't affect you. Women who disagree with women's ordination (I have known many!) should be an intra-community topic of discussion and not for men to stick their oar in.
I find this baffling. So saying that men shouldn’t have, and presumably never should have had an opinion on it, when those churches had only male priests and bishops… so, what, the women would have all decided on their own that they should be priests, but get ordained without male involvement… how, exactly? Or say, “Hi, your view of this is irrelevant, just do the ritual regardless?”
I find the notion that churches and other religions should legally be required by the state to ordain people, whether or not their theology or doctrine allows this, or frankly forcing them to change their doctrines in general, to be simply wrong to the point of being evil. I’m sorry, but no. (There are all-female Wiccan covens, too, and it is also their right to decide how to sort out what they do, whether I’d be allowed to join or not.)
Again, for some churches, this would be forcing them to go through the motions to pretend to ordain people when they don’t really believe that they can. It would be forcing them to lie. This is wrong. This is not just a job. This is a sacrament, for various churches. This is about a mystical transformative event. To force someone to pretend to do it is sacrilege.
Haven’t we seen the problems for literally centuries and centuries with the government forcing religious groups to change their beliefs or practice? (I don’t mean stuff like human sacrifice, or not letting people leave the group if they choose to.)
I think calling someone evil because they don't believe that churches should be able to opt out of workplace discrimination laws says a whole lot more about you than it does about me, even if you do now think that women can become priests and bishops. It's the misogynist's version of being a dry drunk. Yes, priesthood and the episcopate are vocations but they are also jobs. Even if the role was purely voluntary, volunteer work is still work. Being a member of a coven is not a job, so not sure of the relevance of that - covens are made up of laypeople (also as an aside, many witches are not Wiccan - Wicca is a specific Neopagan religion).
Nobody is forced to be a priest or bishop, so nobody would be forced to ordain anyone. It is even more misogynistic to believe that women are ontologically incapable of becoming a priest or bishop than it is to believe that women are just bad at being one. The law should not reward institutions for their misogyny by granting them exemptions.
Where have religious groups been made to change their beliefs or practices by governments? They may have been persecuted by governments - but not for not discriminating against others! - but nobody here is suggesting that eg Orthodox patriarchs should be jailed. People who believe in an all-male priesthood would be free to believe so. They wouldn't be free to discriminate against others because of that belief. Why is that unreasonable?
Also wrt all-female roles in the church, nuns and sisters are clearly equivalent to monks and brothers in terms of role. Being part of a religious order isn't unique to one gender.
Edited as requested to remove incorrectly placed text. Dafyd Hell Host
I didn't agree with all the points @ChastMastr made on the inclusive/exclusive language thread but if my memory serves his preference for traditional language and forms was more of an aesthetic consideration than anything else.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity.
That is the problem. That's the problem right there. The words of men who've been dead over 1500 years matter more than the life experiences of living women.
I'm an Episcopalian. I too want my worship to be traditional, dignified, and beautiful. If you find that the occasional gender-neutral pronoun, or changing one or two words of a 2000-year-old hymn, disturbs your sense of tradition so much that you start a lengthy thread about it on the internet, you are valuing aesthetics more than people.
Generally speaking I find that it is best policy in life to judge a person by the best and worst of what they say rather than the worst aspects of the group they belong to.
Taking you to mean what they and what they do - part of what they do is in the organisations they chose to belong. I think your best moral argument, if you stay in an organisation some of whose actions you disagree with - is that you are actively trying to change it, but then the question is at what point if any do you leave if you are unsuccessful.
To which I would to say, @Gamma Gamaliel , given your views professed on this thread - what are you doing in your church to further cause of women’s ordination ?
I know that women in Islam and more conservative forms of Judaism have limited roles due to their gender, however it seems to me that only those within those groups are really in a position to comment on what others should or should not do about it.
For one thing, it seems like women in some religious groups have carved themselves roles of particular influence and power which cannot be seen from the outside. It would seem bizarre to ask them what they are doing about the imbalance from the outside.
For another thing, I think one often has to acknowledge that people are capable of having more than one contradictory idea at the same time - so accepting differential gender roles at the mosque whilst working hard to emancipate women in the secular world. I don't think we should judge to be honest.
Comments
If you believe it's a coincidence that the churches that don't ordain women are the exact same churches that vigorously campaign against women's political and personal rights, I've got a beautiful bridge to sell you.
Since you singled out Lamb Chopped as a commentator on American religious life and its interference in politics, I'll note that the denomination her family belongs to maintains a DC-based lobbying/advocacy organization working against abortion, divorce, and LGBTQ+ rights. All of which are issues vital to women's safety, as the spousal murder rates will tell you.
As Ruth said, the health and safety of 52 percent of the population shouldn't be a second-order issue anywhere.
You do literally have the right, living in a country with a certain degree of free speech. But it makes you a hypocrite. When you go to church, you are voting with your feet against women's equality. And sure, no one is consistent, everyone has contradictions, we all find ourselves engaged in hypocrisy. But hypocrisies come in various shapes and sizes. This one is big and dangerous.
You don't have to accept this for it to be true. You should think longer and harder about the power of ideas, how they work and how they spread.
This is just stupid. You can't theorize that someone's humanity is so fundamentally even ontologically different that they can't be ordained without saying they are less than fully human. There is no separate but equal humanity.
I'd extend the Nazi bar metaphor here. (The Nazi bar metaphor, if people aren't all familiar with it, says if you tolerate one Nazi at your bar, you're running a Nazi bar, because if you tolerate one you'll get more.) If Nazis feel comfortable showing up at your bar, you need to have a good look around and figure out what makes them feel at home and get rid of it.
I think I would agree. Because I don't think that eg. prohibiting 8-year olds from drinking, voting, or signing contracts is denying their full humanity.
BUT...
Prohibiting them from doing those things IS denying their full equality. Would you also agree that barring women from the clergy is denying THEIR full equality?
Bad comparison, because children's inability to do these things legally is temporary, not inherent to who they are. They grow up, and then they can do these things. And it's a legal prohibition, while Catholic and Orthodox churches don't merely prohibit women's ordination, they say it is not possible. Women are inherently unordain-able. Children can drink; they just shouldn't.
The organization you mention is neither an auxiliary nor a recognized service organization of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod--a status which is not difficult to obtain. The church does not fund it and has no control over it, any more than you do. I myself disagree with most of what I hear them to be doing.
For me, the argument is not about basic tenants, the argument is more about practice.
Not knowing everything does not mean we know nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean we can't evaluate practices, structure or patterns of harm in the present.
Okay, I retract the word "maintains" and substitute "established the organization, and promotes it under 'Synodwide Efforts & Initiatives' on their denominational website."
From the Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty, in its about link states:
But, for that matter, the ELCA also has a Social Advocacy office in DC which is its federal public policy office, responsible for representing ELCA social teaching to Congress, the White House, and federal agencies. We just don't have a snazzy name for it.
In my experience (which goes back roughly 30 years) this is a very odd arrangement, and I rather suspect someone has been over-stating the truth, or bending the rules. (Till they break, possibly.)
I happen to work for an organization which is very well regarded and which holds an official status with the LCMS. Not going to go further into that or which status, as it would instantly out me.
We do not in any way run our funding--donations or otherwise--through the LCMS. We do not IMPLY that we do so. We keep our affairs firmly separate from that of the church body. And we are EXPECTED to do so.
And so that web page--the one from the synod, I mean, not the one from the LCRL--appears very odd indeed, particularly in the case of a group that does not even possess RSO status.
I can only assume that someone has friends, if you know what I mean. And/or that the publicity team at the church body has deliberately or accidentally fudged the truth of the actual relationship.
In either case I can see the motivation. Because it would be a huge temptation to certain people to make it appear that the LCMS was doing exactly what we've done our best NOT to do (based on our distinctive theology! I mean, this is two-kingdoms theory, and that is not a small thing in our circles) for basically our whole history, to the best of my knowledge. We have usually been blamed for staying OUT of politics. But of course, the temptation to money and to power exists, and church staff and even leaders, God knows, can fall to it.
So now I'm wondering what the hell is going on here. I may or may not get a chance to ask someone who might know. But if I do, it won't be for weeks, more likely months. I am at the bottom of the org chart in my work.
This is a specious argument given that it involves half the population being denied particular careers simply for being women. Money is a construct, that doesn't mean that the lack of money has no material effect on your life. We do know that workplace discrimination against women (which is effectively what this is) is wrong within or without the church.
As an aside, from their donate page it does look like some of their donations are handled via the LCMS (not sure if this is in the same sense as your sentence):
https://www.lcrlfreedom.org/donate
A look at their podcast would seem to indicate a fairly partisan approach to political support.
While Luther developed the two kingdoms theology, with the kingdom on the right being all things related to the church like preaching of the Gospel and administering word and sacrament while the kingdom of the left is ruled be God through law and civil authority, it does not mean we are of one kingdom or the other. Christians are members of both kingdoms. Thus, it is not all that unusual for the church to interact with the government.
It is my understanding the LCRL was in reaction to the rise of Christian nationalism. The LRCL warns against secularizing political movements, confusing patriotism with discipleship and treating political victories as spiritual victories.
That said, the LCMS has long had ties to the government especially in supplying chaplains to the military and working with the government to get needed aid to impoverished areas. Did you know shortly after WWII, Lutheran World Relief which the LCMS participates in, would gather relief kits but would depend on the US government to transship them to war torn areas. The LCMS has also worked with the government for Education and Accreditation. Students going through the Concordia system have long depended on federal student loans. It has filed amicus briefs in many court cases. LCMS leaders regularly testify before Congress on many issues affecting women (not necessarily pro women positions BTW) and it worked with the US government to protect the conscientious objector status of seminarians during the draft
I was referring to violence as a thing in itself. Because of the low support for churches in this country violence against any person is not seen in the same way over here. Violence against people of any kind. Women, gay men, any other group that has had violent acts committed against it. Our more atheistic society has a different view from what we see from the USA and is being talked about here. I was including others not saying anything else
In what way does the perception of violence differ between the UK and the USA, and how is this difference connected to levels of support for churches?
Unless it was some kind of totalitarian society.
I'm not aware of any substantial difference between attitudes towards violence between the US and the UK or between Australia and Canada or between ...
We all have sanctions against violence in some form or other.
There might be different approaches and judicial systems and I don't think any of us have 'cracked it.'
I am obviously not making my self clear. I obviously cannot make myself understood. As I said my dyslexia means I can be confusing to others it makes sense to me but maybe not to others.
My answer, which won't satisfy anyone here I don’t imagine is that it depends on how we define the priestly role in sacramental terms. It's seen as an 'iconic' role within Orthodoxy and some would understand it in the sense of as the Incarnate Christ was male so priests have to be male in order to 'represent' that.
The counter argument to that of course is that the Incarnate Christ's humanity 'applies' to all human beings irrespective of gender. And that's a strong argument. 'In Christ there is neither... male nor female ...'
Some would argue that because Orthodoxy takes a 'familial' approach the priest performs a 'fatherly role' within the parish - but then that assumes traditional gender roles which might be challenged.
However it's understood it doesn't - or isn't meant - to convey the idea that women are incapable of fulfilling the role or unworthy of it in some way. Equally it's not meant to be a 'job' as such or a status thing.
That's not to say I don’t struggle with these things. Neither is it to say that I disparage women priests or ministers in other Christian traditions. There are many very excellent female pastors, teachers evangelists etc etc etc etc ...
Some of them are here on these boards.
For those of us who aren't priests or formally ordained or given some kind of title or funny hat, we all have a 'priestly' role to fulfil in whatever we do in life.
That's not going to be a satisfactory answer I know but seeing things in a 'non-secular' way for want of a better term means, I would suggest, that is possible to hold this kind of view without wishing to withdraw the franchise from women or restrict their civil liberties and rights.
@Gamma Gamaliel said
I would agree with this, and I would then say that I have not at all moved from this position. :-) The issue in my mind regarding women’s ordination had to do with whether or not they could be ordained, and in accepting that they can, did not move in any way towards rejecting apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in communion, and so on.
Nuns, I suppose?
I should point out—though I don’t think it affects certain things the way some people may think it does (I don’t think that concluding things one way or the other is some kind of moral virtue or vice)—that my position before was that I was not convinced of the validity of women’s ordination to the priesthood or episcopate—not that I was convinced they could not be so ordained. Those are very different things.
Some people argued, not that it would be unwise to ordain a woman as a priest or bishop, but that whatever ritual was done, that she would still not be a priest or bishop, which is a very different position—not able to consecrate the Eucharist, nor in the case of a bishop, to genuinely ordain priests. This would make various sacraments in doubt (and in fact make the ordination of various clergy more and more in doubt as time went on, if the validity of the Holy Orders of the clergy down the line was lacking).
I came to the conclusion that yes, women can be ordained as priests and bishops. (And I’ve met and read about various good and bad ones, with good and bad theology, just as with men.) Again, I don’t think this was some kind of moral enlightenment. Someone can think otherwise, and I don’t think it makes them less or more moral a person.
I find this baffling. So saying that men shouldn’t have, and presumably never should have had an opinion on it, when those churches had only male priests and bishops… so, what, the women would have all decided on their own that they should be priests, but get ordained without male involvement… how, exactly? Or say, “Hi, your view of this is irrelevant, just do the ritual regardless?”
I find the notion that churches and other religions should legally be required by the state to ordain people, whether or not their theology or doctrine allows this, or frankly forcing them to change their doctrines in general, to be simply wrong to the point of being evil. I’m sorry, but no. (There are all-female Wiccan covens, too, and it is also their right to decide how to sort out what they do, whether I’d be allowed to join or not.)
Again, for some churches, this would be forcing them to go through the motions to pretend to ordain people when they don’t really believe that they can. It would be forcing them to lie. This is wrong. This is not just a job. This is a sacrament, for various churches. This is about a mystical transformative event. To force someone to pretend to do it is sacrilege.
Haven’t we seen the problems for literally centuries and centuries with the government forcing religious groups to change their beliefs or practice? (I don’t mean stuff like human sacrifice, or not letting people leave the group if they choose to.)
Well, make it about practices, then. That's fine. Not a single contemporary Christian can know they're doing it (Christianity/Church) right. That doesn't mean anyone is necessarily doing it wrong. It just means no one can really know. That shouldn't be offensive or controversial.
Half the population being denied particular careers simply for being women is only a thing in specific aspects of Christendom -- not all of it. Life is full of constructs, and the utility of one doesn't necessarily compare to of inform another.
Workplace discrimination against women is wrong. I'm all-in re: that.
Agreed. I’m just responding to your claim that it is only a construct. You may believe it is; others may believe otherwise.
For many (if not all) of us who believe it is more than that, we don’t believe we can mess around with the liturgy however we like, change words however we like, ordain whomever we like, etc. To make changes in various areas requires a lot of time and thought to make sure we’re doing the right thing. It’s like Chesterton’s fence. A lot of people right now (in the last century or so) have been eager to make lots of changes to lots of things very quickly. I’ve personally concluded that the ordination of female priests and bishops is, in and of itself, valid. But I’m not going to assume that people who have not concluded otherwise (in and of itself—some of them, often the loudest ones, are genuinely misogynistic or nasty in other ways) are bad people, or sinning by not having reached that conclusion, and certainly not that they’re bad or hypocritical for belonging to churches that don’t ordain female clergy.
LOL, @ChastMastr. I mean, we can start from 'the church isn't a building, it's the people" if we have to. Believe what you can, by all means.
Oh, the church not being the building but the people, yes, absolutely.
Masculine pronouns are used for God though.
I help edit an ecumenical publication which has a policy of not using gender specific pronouns to refer to God and that doesn't cause a great deal of difficulty in the editing process. Sometimes we have to jiggle the wording of some contributors' submissions to conform to the house-style but it's not an onerous task.
I didn't agree with all the points @ChastMastr made on the inclusive/exclusive language thread but if my memory serves his preference for traditional language and forms was more of an aesthetic consideration than anything else.
Shoot me down in flames but I didn't see it as a denial of female humanity. I'm performing in an amateur production of a Shakespeare play. If the cast use exclusive language from the script are they setting aesthetic considerations above women's humanity?
I'd prefer the terms 'humanity' or 'people' to 'men' or 'mankind'. It would be easy enough to say, 'For us and for our salvation,' rather than 'for us men and for our salvation,' even though everyone is aware that 'men' in that context refers to humanity as a whole rather than to males in particular.
Nobody thinks the Creed refers to males and not humanity in general.
I don’t know whether this is an issue in other languages, particularly those which use gender-specific terms in relation to inanimate objects. Is it a specifically English problem?
But those are issues we explored on the other thread.
Might there be a teensy bit of difference between performing a play known to be of its time and place and the worship of Almighty God whom we believe to be in all times and places?
As to the Shakespeare play, I trust it isn't 'The Taming of the Shrew'. If it is, boy are you in trouble!
Men and women should both have a say in any issues that arise.
Are you really in a position to say that “nobody” thinks that? Is it just possible that a man isn’t in the best position to say how women hear and think about generic-male language?
Is it possible that one reason they don’t find Christianity relevant is because they see it as stuck in a misogyny that has been rejected, or is being rejected, in the workplace, politics and sport?
Possible but I don’t think it occurs to many as a problem.
This is not the killer argument you think it is. Firstly, because the bedrock of the argument against women's ordination - once you get past 'We've always done it this way' - does in fact deny women's humanity. 'Jesus was a man, therefore only men can be priests.'
Secondly, do you have any idea how offensive the (centuries-old) comparison of women with children is? I very nearly stopped reading your post at that point. As the suffragettes repeatedly pointed out during their campaign for voting rights, adult women were treated like children incapable of making decisions. Incarcerated (male) prisoners had more political rights than they did. Anti-abortionists believe that pregnant women should have fewer rights than a corpse. These are not abstract problems or thought experiments. Over here in the UK there is a scandal brewing over medical misogyny (see https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/204316/medical-misogyny-is-leaving-women-in-unnecessary-pain-and-undiagnosed-for-years/
if you're interested in reading the government report). Women are being murdered by violent exes, even after repeatedly reporting them to the police and asking for protection. These are ongoing, systemic problems that affect our everyday lives.
Finally, a number of posters have complained about Ruth's 'abrasive' posts on this topic. As this is Hell, I confess that it does occasionally irritate me as well. However, she is under no obligation to be 'nice' to people who are denying her humanity, however polite they may think they are being about it. The suffragettes tried being nice too, to begin with. Nobody listened until they started blowing up postboxes and breaking shop windows.
I, female, only really understood about sexist language properly when, many years ago, in seminary in Chicago, in a class on the non-Pauline epistles, the professor read to us a translation of 1 Peter he had made which didn’t just use inclusive language, but had replaced all masculine terms with feminine. He had even replaced the word ‘Jesus’ with ‘Deborah’, as in ‘Deborah Christ.’ At first I found it incredibly jarring, being used to the more traditional language, but as he read on I began to understand how I was always translating scripture in my head as I read, so that I could apply it to myself. It was AMAZING having that veil removed. And it was good for the male students too, who found it very uncomfortable.
It did to me and to a lot of women I know. And I sat on a certain committee for my church body and argued vigorously that we ought to drop the word "men" if they were not prepared to replace it with "people." The rest of the committee (all men) listened, but in the end it went down in flames for another generation.
I'm not sure why. I suspect it was the fear of being noticed and becoming the center of a major controversy, because looking backward from this position, I am certain that's what would have happened. And the controversy would not have stayed with the mere wording of the creed but immediately involved a whole host of issues they didn't have the courage to confront. I am perhaps unfair to my fellow committee members.
I was young and did not yet realize what a media storm could cost people. Since then I've seen similar storms (on different topics!) cost people their jobs and reputations. If I'm right about the motive, we still should have done it anyway.
https://youtu.be/TGQuvEO5PTI?is=dnnNCOXmBrMWyVBn
It's from this man about his friend who was at a conservative evangelical seminary. There may we other appropriate qualifiers and nuance that I do not fully appreciate.
Anyway, it seems like the important points are as follows:
1. A man enters the seminary as a believer because he believes
2. For reasons of sexuality, he is expelled from the seminary
3. The man is recognised as a very decent and loving person by the person making the video, who is an atheist
4. The man exhibits a lot of grace and maturity in accepting the decision, forgiving the harshness of some of his classmates and pledging to continue in the faith.
It's worth watching.
The question I'm left with is about why someone would choose to want to continue associating themselves with an organisation that treats them in this way. It clearly is not because he is himself a bigot, or unkind, or childish, or an unbeliever.
I think the answer is complex but is something about the sociology of belief and belonging.
This debate is not mine. I have no priests, the point is entirely moot. And yet I can see without much difficulty how it is possible to be part of an organisation and thought-process that includes corporate beliefs that contradict personal habitual points of principle. It's nearly impossible to avoid this contradiction.
Generally speaking I find that it is best policy in life to judge a person by the best and worst of what they say rather than the worst aspects of the group they belong to.
I see what you are talking about and yes I understand. The difference is I was talking about those not in the church not those in it like you. My argument is that Christianity is so irrelevant to them that the status of men and women in the church is barely in their radar. They as I said see it as a problem for the religious people to sort out. You are or were a member of the Church so it is important to you and others who are members. It is an issue that has caused a lot of debate and arguments in the church. It is not so important to those in the majority who are not in the Church. It just doesn’t occur to them to think about it.
Taking you to mean what they and what they do - part of what they do is in the organisations they chose to belong. I think your best moral argument, if you stay in an organisation some of whose actions you disagree with - is that you are actively trying to change it, but then the question is at what point if any do you leave if you are unsuccessful.
To which I would to say, @Gamma Gamaliel , given your views professed on this thread - what are you doing in your church to further cause of women’s ordination ?
I think calling someone evil because they don't believe that churches should be able to opt out of workplace discrimination laws says a whole lot more about you than it does about me, even if you do now think that women can become priests and bishops. It's the misogynist's version of being a dry drunk. Yes, priesthood and the episcopate are vocations but they are also jobs. Even if the role was purely voluntary, volunteer work is still work. Being a member of a coven is not a job, so not sure of the relevance of that - covens are made up of laypeople (also as an aside, many witches are not Wiccan - Wicca is a specific Neopagan religion).
Nobody is forced to be a priest or bishop, so nobody would be forced to ordain anyone. It is even more misogynistic to believe that women are ontologically incapable of becoming a priest or bishop than it is to believe that women are just bad at being one. The law should not reward institutions for their misogyny by granting them exemptions.
Where have religious groups been made to change their beliefs or practices by governments? They may have been persecuted by governments - but not for not discriminating against others! - but nobody here is suggesting that eg Orthodox patriarchs should be jailed. People who believe in an all-male priesthood would be free to believe so. They wouldn't be free to discriminate against others because of that belief. Why is that unreasonable?
Also wrt all-female roles in the church, nuns and sisters are clearly equivalent to monks and brothers in terms of role. Being part of a religious order isn't unique to one gender.
Edited as requested to remove incorrectly placed text. Dafyd Hell Host
That is the problem. That's the problem right there. The words of men who've been dead over 1500 years matter more than the life experiences of living women.
I'm an Episcopalian. I too want my worship to be traditional, dignified, and beautiful. If you find that the occasional gender-neutral pronoun, or changing one or two words of a 2000-year-old hymn, disturbs your sense of tradition so much that you start a lengthy thread about it on the internet, you are valuing aesthetics more than people.
I know that women in Islam and more conservative forms of Judaism have limited roles due to their gender, however it seems to me that only those within those groups are really in a position to comment on what others should or should not do about it.
For one thing, it seems like women in some religious groups have carved themselves roles of particular influence and power which cannot be seen from the outside. It would seem bizarre to ask them what they are doing about the imbalance from the outside.
For another thing, I think one often has to acknowledge that people are capable of having more than one contradictory idea at the same time - so accepting differential gender roles at the mosque whilst working hard to emancipate women in the secular world. I don't think we should judge to be honest.