Let me add my personal Whoo hoo! to your's Joy. The church has suffered for too long without the Leadership Gifts that God has given to our sisters in Christ. I am sorry that it will be 2014 before a woman can be consecrated a bishop in the Church of England, but whoo hoo anyhow. Thank you for your prayers, patience, and work to help this blessed day come!

Posted by: Donald Spachman | July 8, 2008 4:45 PM

The right move. I'm not sure it was done for the right reasons.

Ngchen,
Acts 19 references Priscilla and Aquilla teaching Apollos the scripture. Romans 16 also mentions prominent women in ministry. Paul also gives guidelines for how women should pray and prophecy in public meetings.

The key to this is Genesis where we see God creates Eve as a "helpmeet" for Adam. This word is actually a word that means partner and is us mostly referring to God helping us. This gets fouled up in the fall. In redemption we push against the limits of the fall to see God's will fulfilled. Also Acts 2 gives us a new basis for ministry. Our ministry is based on being full of the Spirit, not gender or family or even age.

I'm traveling, so I will have to see responses in the archives.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | July 8, 2008 6:45 PM

Jeff: good answer to Ngchen's question.

to take it in another direction for Ngchen... there is the theological stance that Paul was speaking in a specific time, place, and context. our time, place, and context is different from his and we must therefore meet our culture in a different manner than Paul and his contemporaries. this is thinking of biblical principles on a trajectory rather than as static. the trajectory is constantly moving forward and upward as our theology, knowledge, and spirituality develop. we know things now about the sexes that Paul had no knowledge of and we must use this knowledge to form the way we treat each other. so, not discounting or doing away with Paul, but understanding the context which it was written and focusing on the overarching themes of the biblical narrative allow us to not participate in the same practices of our church fathers (and mothers). we do not say they were wrong, but their ideas would not be right in our context.

all that being said... i think Donald got it right when he said:
"The church has suffered for too long without the Leadership Gifts that God has given to our sisters in Christ. "

however, it is hard for me to tell some one who does not agree with my view (arrived at through study and the "tug" of my conscience) that their view (probably arrived at in a similar way) is wrong and they must submit to my point of view or leave. are some of those who oppose the ordination of women simply sexist? probably. but there are many who firmly believe in the "rightness" of their view. they believe that it goes against the perfect design God has for His Church, His people (collectively), and His people (as individuals). there are some whose hearts break because they fear women's ordination actually hurts women because it keeps them from fulfilling their purpose by putting them in positions which help men fulfill their purpose. these complimentarians believe they hold the liberating view. while i disagree with them, i must do it humbly and that is why it is hard for me that the Anglican church DOES NOT have any "safeguards" so that those who hold a different view (as a matter of conscience) are not forced to choose between remaining in the Church or further dividing it.

wow, that was a long comment! i would echo the "woo-hoo" also as i am thankful i live in a time where the pastorate and priesthood can finally have its full effect drawing from the beauties and gifts of both sexes.

Posted by: dave | July 8, 2008 7:32 PM

Congrats Joy!

I have several fine people that would disagree with you but I see that there is a need for women in ministry. I don't know if I personally am ready for a woman in the pulpit at my church - but that is more of a preference to me rather than a conviction. I have many extreamly strong women in my family and even they differ on wheather a woman should be the Sr. or Lead Pastor of a congregation. It is interesting to hear them talk about it when we are together.

I believe that if God does not want women in the pulpit in the Sr. postion - He will make it so that we will know what His desires are.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 8, 2008 8:01 PM

So happy to see our brothers and sisters in the Church of England are finally allowing women a prominent role in ministry. Growing up in my UM church, I had a woman senior pastor, a woman associate pastor, and a woman children's director. Until I was seven, I didn't realize men could be pastors - in fact, I refused to go to the Children's Moment at my grandparent's church because of the "scary" man. I thought that since he was a man, he couldn't be a pastor. Growing up in a tradition of women in ministry, and as a woman headed into the ministry, I am filled with joy about this news.

Posted by: Jesi | July 8, 2008 9:17 PM

For a slightly different take on things, here's Andrew Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/14071/

Enjoy.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | July 8, 2008 9:34 PM

Wolverine,

Just a note of correction. Andrew Carey is a journalist who happens to be the son of former Archbishop George Carey.

Posted by: Joy Carroll Wallis | July 8, 2008 9:56 PM

Bob,
I don't think it is as clear as you think. Paul does give examples of women teaching men (Priscilla teaching Apollos). The NIV gives a poor interpretation of "have authority" the KJV and others use the word "usurp" or its equivalent. A key portion of scripture is Galatians 3:23-29. I believe 1 Timothy 2:12 is a localized policy of Paul whereas Galatians 3 is universal.

As a conservative this is not always a popular position for me to take (though the denomination I serve has always ordained women). I wonder (actually I believe) that other conservative groups may be leaning to heavily on their own traditions and not so much on the Word.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | July 8, 2008 10:42 PM

Correction: I was referring to Dave's comments, not Canucklhead... I have no position on Jim submitting to the clergy...

Posted by: Brian | July 8, 2008 10:50 PM

Also, I'm not a theologian, but Galatians 3:23-29 seems to reference salvation, not church leadership. The laws to which Paul seems to be referring are the Jewish cultural laws. Again, I'm not a theologian, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch to make that verse fit this topic.

Posted by: Brian | July 8, 2008 11:13 PM

kevin s.

there was such a time and much of biblical scholarship of the day was used to support the idea of subjugating and entire race of people. there is ample scripture which supports slavery and those who sought to oppress africans in america used those scriptures to their fullest extent. as the culture shifted, the scholarship shifted. of course there were those who tried to hold on to the "old ways" and said that "if you just read the bible you will see that God is okay with slavery" but the interpretations were changing as more and more people in society changed their views on slavery.

the argument you present actually goes to support my point. biblical interpretation is ALWAYS done within the context of the particular society in which it exists. you cannot separate society from biblical interpretation and application.

another example:
for the first 400 years of Christianity it was forbidden for a believer to participate in any form of violence. they could not join the military, and if they were already a soldier they would not be fully admitted to the church until their term of service ended. in fact, it was an excommunicable offense to join the military as a follower of Jesus. furthermore, it was forbidden for a Christian to take up arms for any reason... including in defense of self or others. they took the charge of "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" extremely literally. after all, if you just honestly read Jesus' teachings how can you ever take up a weapon since He says, "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword?"

jump to the early 4th century. Constantine has defeated his rival at the battle of milvian bridge (312 c.e.) and he credits the sign of the cross he sees in the sky. he legitimizes Christianity and eventual gives it the place of favor within the empire. he even begins to participate in the governing of the church by calling the council of nicaea in 325 c.e. is it any wonder that it is at this time Christianity gets a theologian who comes up with a theological argument justifying a believer's participation in war? Augustine's just war theory is adopted after the church and the state join together. it MUST be developed based on the times. how could the official church of an empire be totally against violence even to the point of sacrificing one's self? the empire would be overrun by non-believers.

so, we see that beliefs and interpretations are always born out of the times. slavery is a great example... so is just war.

-dave

Posted by: dave | July 9, 2008 12:36 AM

I actually agree with Kevin for once. context is important but without any real understanding of said context the argument for women in leadership becomes weak. Paul's letter is very specific. There were very specific charges that Paul addresses that he never placed anywhere else in any of his letters.

That's why he told Timothy that women should not teach. But the truth is Paul taught with women. Anyone ever hear of Thekla? She was a contemporary of Paul's and followed him. Her cult nearly rivaled Mary's (the mother of Jesus.)

The truth is there has always been a long history of women doing everything within the church. The first evangelist was a woman (think the woman at the well.) The disciple that revealed the risen Lord to the 12 was a woman (Mary Magdalene.) I could go on and on and it's high time that women teach. They have been doing it since the church began.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 9, 2008 9:35 AM

I heartily applaud the words Dave wrote in his first comment here. I don't know what infection he has caught that allows him to see the other side's point of view and present it accurately while still ultimately disagreeing with it. Again, I don't know what it is, but may it spread to the rest of us quickly!

Like some others here, I'm ambivalent about women being ordained as bishops in the Anglican Church. I don't have a problem with it in theory. As my Anglican rector likes to say, the problem isn't women's ordination, the problem is the unorthodox theology to which so many of the women who go into ministry adhere.

Wolverine is right that this will, unfortunately, only widen a rift between groups within the Anglican Communion. While the Western portions of the Communion continue to shrink, the non-Western portions continue to grow. This latest decision will not strengthen the Western Anglican Church. While faithfulness to God and Christ are more important than a growing church, I don't think the lack of ordained women or female bishops falls in the catagory of unfaithfullness. I think it's more in the catagory of "best practices". Is creating better practices worth splitting a church? hmmmmm....

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 9:42 AM

Eric,

Both men and women have both orthodox and unorthodox theology. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Jesus didn't seem particularly concerned with orthodoxy. Orthodox vs. unorthodox is not the same as right vs. wrong.

With all that said, any theology that presumes to make God into what we want is bad theology.

What do I mean by that? Take as an example the very unorthodox theology that God is She instead of He. I don't mind that train of thought so much if it helps us to see characteristics of God that we often ascribe to women, such as creativity and nurturing. If another perspective brings us closer to the real God who created us, great.

But I think we could agree there would be a mighty fine line between that and saying God is a woman because we want it to be that way. Any of us is in grave danger when we teater on the brink of thinking God is our creation.

Anyway, back to the original thought... I've seen at least as many men as women screw up theology.

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 10:50 AM

Joy Carroll Wallis,

A double Woo Hoo!

We must always approach the letters of Paul of Tarsus in their appropriate context. We are baptized in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, not in the name of Paul of Tarsus.

Posted by: Quetzal | July 9, 2008 10:59 AM

The consecration of Gene Robinson, an active homosexual, as Bishop of New Hampshire didn't help matters, but Robinson by himself is not the main cause of the conflict

Since Wolverine put this in parenthesis, I'll try to be brief in commenting on this somewhat off-topic subject.

I would agree with Wolverine that Robinson by himself wasn't the cause of the current conflict, nor was it his homosexuality per se. The cause was the in-your-face way that the leaders of the Episcopal Church USA carried out the election and consecration of Robinson, showing little regard for their brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion at large.

Robinson himself is responsible only to the extent that he allowed himself to be so used by those who were pressing their agenda. In my view, if Robinson wanted to show concern for his fellow Anglicans, he would have declined the nomination.

And so, yes, the Anglican rift grows wider as we speak.

FWIW,

Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 11:26 AM

James said:
"The problem really arises out of the perceived inerrancy of scripture. People who do not want to openly come out against the inerrancy of scripture then have to do a song and a dance to show why they are still respecting scripture while at the same time contraditing what it clearly says."

the problem is throughout the history of the church there have been different definitions of "inerrancy." the tradition which Christianity grows out of (Judaism) has a very different definition of what inerrancy means in regards to scripture than a southern baptist does.

if some one means that every single word, idea, historical and scientific statement, etc. is absolute fact and without error then it is obvious that this definition cannot hold up to scrutiny. we know there are historical errors as well as scientific if the words are taken 100% literally.

however, if some one defines inerrancy as the bible being completely accurate in its overall themes about God, His character, humankind and their relationship to God and each other then it is harder to discredit inerrancy and it opens up specific theological ideas to discussion within the church.

the strict literal reading of scripture is a more recent concept. the early fathers understood scripture as having different levels to it. the literal only being one of those and the least important.

that is how i can read the literal words on the page but am able to extract a seemingly contradictory concept. it is the thematic reading of scripture. also, the holistic reading will allow for different interpretations. when we limit ourselves to the meaning of a single verse or a small set of verses then we deny the bible's true purpose of being the playing field rather than the rule book.

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 12:56 PM

I am saddened by the number of posts arguing for an outdated patriarchal spiritual power structure based largely upon the thinking of the reformed Pharisee, Paul of Tarsus.

Paul of Tarsus also wrote a letter to the Corinthian church requiring women there to cover their heads while praying. Using the same logic, we must only conclude that all women must wear hats or veils during all forms of prayer at all times.

But if we broaden our spiritual horizons and look to Christ first (not Paul), then we are led to entirely different conclusions....

Joy Carroll Wallis--another Whoo Hoo from me!

Posted by: Quetzal | July 9, 2008 1:16 PM

Rest assured, N.M. Rod, placing women into church leadership positions is not a slippery slope to sexual immorality. The real danger is in preventing women from using their God-given gifts and answering His call.

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 2:07 PM

I see some referrence to people leaving over this decision, but I wonder how many more people will be attracted to a church that gives them an equal place to stand before God. The second-class citizenship for women in the church has gone on too long, depriving the church of so many gifts and graces.

I add my whoo hoo. The rallying song: "WISE UP, O Men of God."

Posted by: Georgiana Willaims | July 9, 2008 3:08 PM

The point is not the faux idea that women in leadership is a slippery slope to practicing homosexual clergy.

However, sometimes you can be right for all the wrong reasons and then those wrong reasons instead of leading consistently to truth in practice, will allow you to make all kinds of other false analogies to justify whatever lusts you wish to indulge.

King Henry, the Anglican founder, was nothing if not a man of insatiable and spiritually uncontrolled appetite, who bent the church to the state's purposes - his own unrepentant will.

There are other Christian congregations who have female spiritual leadership and are still opposed to sexual immorality, including the sin of placing those indulging unapologetically in sexual sin in leadership positions, where they will cause others to be tempted as well as themselves.

Sexual immorality shouldn't try to justify itself by hiding behind the collar of legitimate female ministry.

Posted by: N.M. ROD | July 9, 2008 3:13 PM

Eric: "I definitely agree that both men and women "screw up" theology. It's been my experience, and that of the rector I quoted, that more women who go into ministry screw up theology than men who go into ministry."

Can you give some examples, please, Eric? I'm heading off to seminary soon and I want to know what to look out for. :-) Seriously, though, on what are you basing that extraordinary statement? You and your rector are hardly a statistical sample. Do you have any names or book titles?

Here's a poser: I have been called by God to the priesthood. I have spent 3 years prayerfully focusing on discerning the true nature of my calling along with members of my parish, clergy, the Diocesan discernment committee, and the bishop. We are all agreed and confident that I have a true call from God to the clergy. Why would God make something so clear to so many people if he didn't want it to be so? And I am only one woman out of thousands who have received similar calls. The God I love and worship wouldn't call someone to a ministry he was then going to disapprove of her accepting.

Posted by: JEM | July 9, 2008 5:43 PM

Kevin: "You also failed to address my example of a cultural that has come to agree that black people ought not be able to speak in church. Following your argument, the scholarship would follow, and we would be obligated to follow the scholarship on this issue."

Is this what they call a straw man? Where in the Bible does it say we shouldn't allow black people to speak in church? Why would someone come up with that interpretation? This example doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by: JEM | July 9, 2008 6:04 PM

As I commented on the BBC web site before the vote, "As a male Episcopalian living in Nevada, it was a privilege to have Katherine as our Diocesan Bishop, and it is an honor to have her as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA."

I also added another comment, which the BBC ignored: "I prayed to God about the UK ordaining women bishops, and SHE said to take care of the important things like feeding the hungry, taking care of the poor, etc."

PS: My wife, Sherryl, will be ordained an Episcopal Priest in September. Personally, I think she'd make a great Bishop!

Posted by: Serwind Netzler, Sparks, Nevada | July 9, 2008 7:14 PM

kevin,
i actually did address your question of "what if... black people...etc." i put it in the context of american slavery where african slaves, despite ascribing to the same faith as their masters, were not permitted to speak in the white churches and biblical interpretation was used to support this idea.

also, the example of slavery is extremely useful in this debate for the exact reason that you think it is not. you are interpreting the biblical passages on slavery based on your 21st century view of american slavery and biblical interpretation while many clergy and biblical scholars from the 16th - 19th centuries had a very different interpretation of the american slavery system as well as the biblical passages allowing for slavery. that is the point. walter brueggemann says that it is impossible to separate experience, culture, and ideology from biblical interpretation. what is "biblical" shifts with the times and experiences of the people doing the interpretation. that is why slavery is very much an applicable example in this situation.

you say "biblical scholarship is not infallible, but the bible is." i would ask you who's interpretation of the bible is infallible? is it yours? is it mine? is the catholic church right when they say it is only the magisterium's interpretation that can be considered infallible? you cannot just make the statement that the bible is infallible without considering that there is no single interpretation of the bible.

for some, inerrancy requires that the bible be literally correct. that is why there are young earth creationist organizations like answers in genesis. that is why there is still a very small segment that still believes the sun revolves around the earth (it is true... there are those who believe this because the book of joshua has the sun standing still in the sky). i agree that there is no scriptural basis for this understanding, but i would go further and say there is no scriptural basis for any single method of interpretation.

there are levels of understanding scripture. the literal level is just one and is the beginning one (as we mature we move beyond it). the allegorical reading is another as is the metaphorical. there is also a level of mystical reading of the scripture. jewish mystics believed this was the deepest meaning (they called it "SOD"). many early church fathers talk about these methods. the literal reading is always the least valued until the fundamentalist movement arose.

as i said before, the bible is ALWAYS interpreted based on societal values. it is not "blasphemy" to admit it but honesty. again, just look at the development of just war doctrine (based on a shift in the relationship between Christians and society).

i don't think my logic says that the scholarship always follows society. sometimes society follows scholarship. slavery can again be used. while southern biblical scholarship (as well as that of george whitefield who was himself a slave owner) supported the american slavery system through their biblical interpretation while northern scholars used the scripture to support abolition. the abolitionists and their interpretation eventually wins out and serves to transform a society. that is very much what has happened in regards to women's ordination. society has long been patriarchal and oppressive to women. it has been progressive Christian scholarship that has pushed for a more egalitarian society. the first feminists and their supporters were Christians. of course there has always been that segment of Christianity which uses the same bible to support the "submission" of women to men. one seeks to keep society from changing (the latter) and the other seeks to change it (the former).

i am not saying that biblical scholarship simply results from societal norms. i am saying that it is always impacted by societal norms. sometimes those norms push scholarship in such a way that it calls for radical transformation of society. sometimes those norms push scholarship to reconsider a previously held view. the point is to stress the impossibility of separating our own context from the way we interpret the scripture and to point out that there is not such thing as and all-encompassing concept of "biblical." by using the term "biblical," the true meaning is "my interpretation of what the bible says."

Posted by: dave | July 9, 2008 10:10 PM

Dave,

You have written an excellent explanation of your views on the Bible and how to interpret it. Don't expect your views to be accepted. It seems that some individuals would like to pick and choose what THEY believe is right and wrong and to characterize others as blasphemers. When the discussion gets to that level, they really don't merit further response or discussion.

Posted by: JamesM | July 10, 2008 6:51 AM

Does anyone know about a report I vaguely remember re the finding of an inscription from early Rome which suggests that there were 6 or 7 women bishops in the group meeting in that area?

I feel that history may have been written by the victors. Many denominations have been started by women, with the males taking over once they became respectible.

Cheers
JohnH

Posted by: | July 10, 2008 10:36 AM

YESSSSSSSS!!! There is a God! The only God! It's just that people consulted with God over this matter and the outcome is indeed good news!!!
I NEEDED good news today!
Sincerely and joyously,
George M Melby, Pastor

Posted by: George M Melby | July 10, 2008 3:01 PM

As long as a church is going to have hierarchy, women have every right to be part of it. I have submitted to hierarchy as an aspect of being "ordained". But I wonder about having hierarchy at all. When the women's ordination question was at the heart of controversy in churches in the US of A, I came across a TIME magazine review of Hans Kung's book WHY PRIESTS? And I thought to myself, the question is not whether or not women should be ordained, but "why ordination" as it is practised in the modern church?

Kuruvilla Chandy

Posted by: Pastor Kuruvilla Chandy | July 10, 2008 3:58 PM

Archbishop Rowan Williams said once that “Matters of sexuality should not have the priority or centrality” that his critics gave them. Indeed, I believe that the obsession with sexuality has made it more difficult to raise other issues. I want to make a case for thinking more seriously about a distinctive Christian lifestyle, and particularly about attitudes to money and to community.

What difference does it make, being a Christian? I’m a layman, 87, and live in England. I had a confused Christian upbringing, with Baptist parents, a school which was a Methodist foundation, and a Christian Scientist stepmother. After leaving College (where I married in Chapel) in 1942, I stopped going to church. In 1955, I went to work in Uganda.

It soon became clear that my colleagues in the university there fell into two groups. Some of them actually said: “We will teach conscientiously, but what the students do out of lecture hours is of no concern to us.” In their own time off, they held ‘sundowners’, and in the vacations they went ‘on safari’, or to the Kenya coastal resorts. The other group seemed to be aware of cultural differences, and wanted to communicate with their students as people, to understand the culture from which they came, and indeed to relate to the African and Asian communities which surrounded the college. There were some ‘humanists’ in this group, but it seemed that all the active Christians belonged to it! Why was I on the same side as the Christians? Within a year, I joined them, and asked for more instruction in the faith.

Are Christians distinctive here, now? If I try to put myself in the place of a well-intentioned non-Christian, looking at Christians here, what is the difference? An English cleric said: “Our western culture is obsessed with itself ……. and the Church belongs to its context.”

I would like a debate about money. I find quite a lot of support in Scripture for the idea that it’s OK to have enough. If I have more than enough (whatever that is!), I should help to finance the needs of those less fortunate. (This might include the homeless in UK towns, as well as “the rest of the world …. dying for want of food, compassion and justice”. Indeed, I want charity to involve more personal contact and less junk mail!) Yet all the pressures are for self-indulgence. A bank which prides itself on an ‘ethical policy’ sends me junk mail, urging me to borrow money, and, by getting into debt, to buy a new car, add a conservatory to my house, re-equip my kitchen, go on a cruise, etc., etc. TV runs programmes nearly every day about ‘makeovers’ of houses, or moving to Spain. What about that tenth Commandment which says: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s 4x4, or his time-share, or any thing that is his”?

The economists don’t help. Being a shopaholic increases the Gross National Product, and they want the GNP to increase by 2% to 3% a year. They don’t mention that, if we keep up this increase for a century, we would be producing between 9 and 17 times the amount of goods and services that we are now, which is absurd (unless we give it away to the poorer countries?), and would probably use up all kinds of unrenewable raw materials. The probability of economic chaos introduces an ‘eschatological’ element! (Is it visible now?) The ‘Day of the Lord’ will be terrible as well as potentially glorious. Our faith is that God can make good out of evil.

I find it very difficult to raise the money question. I think it’s because ‘the Church belongs too much to its context’. In the (quite recent) past, some Anglican clergy have been particularly reluctant to draw boundaries between the Church and the context. How do we build up a Church community which takes a Christian lifestyle seriously? If we were more distinctive, we might attract more fringers and outsiders into an active membership. (Why is it easier for a chaplain to build a distinctive group in a college or even a prison, than for a priest in a parish?)

This question, about finding a distinctive Christian community, has been complicated in recent years by a weakening of the idea of community in our wider Western culture. There’s so much to say about this that it may need to be analysed separately. There’s the smaller size of families; the mobility of people; and the breakdown of influence of one generation on the next – possibly (or probably, I think) aggravated by changes in education. When things go wrong, “THEY should do something about it”: we pass the responsibility to our rulers. Yet centralisation, doing things on a large scale, by top-down control, with legislation and statistical analysis, isn’t working very well. Those of us who live in UK villages, where some sense of community remains, need to realise how much worse things are in towns, and to seek ways of fostering community in the village and in Church. What about USA?

Let’s try and get people thinking and talking and doing something about lifestyle and community-building, instead of banging on about sex and gender. Any constructive suggestions?

Posted by: Arthur French | July 10, 2008 4:46 PM

It's with great sadness that I see and encounter this news. Of particular note is how the promises made to provide space and accommodations for those whose theological convictions would not allow for ordination and sacramental ministry of women were sorely dashed and broken at their feet. Those who with integrity hold to the traditional view are now left to wonder where their place is and whether or not the Church of England, let alone the Anglican Communion, is a place that will tolerate and exclude those with Catholic convictions. The damage this does within the CofE, as well as to its ecumenical relations to Rome and the Orthodox churches, and the manner which which it was carried out, only serves to diminish, and not strengthen, the Christian witness for which we are all responsible.

Posted by: Shawn Shafer | July 10, 2008 5:17 PM

I was in UK in 1992 when the Synod of the Anglican church chose to ordain women as priests. I felt then that even Bishops should have been open to them. But the church is renouned for being behind the spiritual outlook of the current generations. Even now I feel that it has not attained those of my generation (I am 65). I never understood the problems about hiring servants to the body of Christ. The people are the essential contact of the church and the world.

Posted by: john coogans | July 10, 2008 5:34 PM

I suppose I'm inclined to agree that merely being homosexual shouldn't disqualify one from the priesthood. The sexual preferences of priests isn’t my concern. It’s their behavior. Those pursuing homosexual relationships certainly are sinners merely in virtue of that. Of course, this doesn’t mean we have to put the spotlight on homosexuality as though it were privileged in every respect. I suppose in many respects it is like many other sins (Oh, and the respect in which homosexuality and abuse are similar is that they are both sins, and that is all I meant. Of course abuse is worse than homosexuality. If you’re offended by my comparison, pick whatever other sin you please, add “unrepentant pursuit” to it, and it should go through all the same).

My reasoning on this issue is that we shouldn’t ordain people who actively pursue sin as priests. Homosexual behavior is a sin. So, we shouldn’t ordain people who actively pursue homosexual behavior. The argument is valid, so to reject the conclusion you’ll have to reject the truth of one of the premises.

--Susan

Posted by: Susan | July 10, 2008 6:02 PM

Wow! Joy, you certainly got the juices flowing for a lot of people. Hooray for you, and for the Church of England! I'm a UCC minister married to a Presbyterian minister for almost 30 years, and I'm wondering if some of the comments as well as the inertia of gender discrimination in many denominations, has more to do with male fear of female leadership than with sound theology and serious Bible study. For the life of me, I fail to understand what man fear about female leadership. To me, it clearly has nothing to do with serious Bible study and/or Biblical authority.
Harold

Posted by: Harold Rucker | July 10, 2008 6:11 PM

I thought Brian's comment (July 8, 2008 10:43 PM) was really thoughtful, and summed up some of my own thoughts, particularly:

"In the end, I guess my primary point is that I worry, in the progressive church movement, that too many arguments are made with a priori assumptions that we try to fit into Scripture, where a simple honest reading of Scripture would yield a different result."

Posted by: Adam | July 10, 2008 7:53 PM

A wonderful article honoring a great moment. Well done, Joy.

Chloe Breyer+

Posted by: Chloe Breyer | July 10, 2008 10:07 PM

Susan,

How much did Peter repent for nearly chopping off someone's head? I bring that up to illustrate a point. Repentance is not turning from sin. Repentance at least from the bible is throwing yourself at the mercy of God. You can see a clear example of true repentance with the unjust steward that owed the king. That's what repentance is.

None of our actions are enough to save us from ourselves. It's God's grace and trusting him above all us. Once we do that then our actions can bring a much larger form of salvation (see Zacheus and Levi.)

The reason why people focus on sex so much is because there is way too much sexual repression that and to scapegoat the LGBTQ community and ignore their own sin. If only the church did more to focus on their issues instead of scapegoating the LGBTQ community. At least then they would no longer be hypocrites.

Let me conclude with this. Susan by pointing out how homosexual sex is sin you do damage to your gay brothers and sisters. It's not loving in the American context. I don't think Jesus would want that. They already know what they do is sin but because of poor Christians witnesses they know nothing else.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 11, 2008 2:52 AM

first,
thank you james for your comment and compliment.

second,
susan, the other reason that the comparison of same sex relations is that in every context it is mentioned in scripture it is spoken of in light of either pagan worship or rape. this is why there are many within Christianity that distinguish between promiscuous, uncommitted same sex relations and those that occur within committed, monogamous relationships. to say that it is simply a sin is simply your interpretation of the bible which is not shared by everyone within Christianity. that is why your argument isn't a great one is that your beginning assumption is not shared by all. further, the idea of denying ordainment to practicing sinners was put down during the donatist controversy. God can even work through the worst of sinners to distribute grace and truth to His people. the tool, by no means must be perfect/holy/repentant/etc.

third,
the comments about the gender of God, especially the one that says God is neither "he" nor "she" are accurate. there is the use of father imagery as the majority in the bible but there is mother imagery (Isaiah 66 has God nursing Israel at his/her breast, there is also the image of God as a mother hen elsewhere). i tend to use the term "He" because it is comfortable for me, not having a great relationship with my earthly father makes me desire for that role to be fulfilled in my life, and it is just easier (which is a poor reason i know).

fourth,
i still have a problem with the quote, "where a simple honest reading of Scripture would yield a different result." there is no such thing as this. we all approach scripture with personal baggage and bias. there is no simple, honest reading.

fifth, (and final)
shawn shafer makes a great point in that this seems to have been done with no provision for those who honestly (and with integrity) disagree with this. if those who push for egalitarianism in the ministry use tolerance and acceptance (as well as sound historical and biblical scholarship... not that the other side does not use those as well), then it is hypocritical to not extend tolerance and acceptance to those who differ in opinion. that is my only "beef" with this. i totally agree with the ordination, it just seems the means are a bit divisive.

Posted by: dave | July 11, 2008 8:05 AM

bren,

You are absolutely right that God is neither male nor female in the sense that we think of the terms. Sorry for leaving that very important point out of what I wrote. For God to be male in the same sense that I am a male, creation would have required another separate divine being - a "goddess" of the same heavenly "species"(???) which would be our "Mother in Heaven." Obviously this train of thought is seriously sinking into the deep end. Even Mary doesn't qualify for that job description. ;-)

No, we understand that there is one true God in whose image we are created. That is, all people of all genders, races and abilities are created in the one true God's image. All goodness on earth and within us comes only from God. Therefore, all of the good things that we see in earthly manhood is a small reflection of some characteristic of God. Likewise, every good thing that we see in earthly womanhood ALSO is a small reflection of some characteristic of God.

Those things that make me a good man, father and husband, Christian witness and minister to my brothers and sisters in Christ are things of God which God shared with me. Exactly the same is true of my wife's gifts and calling as a woman, mother, wife, Christian witness and minister to her brothers and sisters in Christ.

So what I was saying is that recognizing both the true masculine and true feminine characteristics of God can help us become closer to the real God who created us. But I also believe there is a fine line between that and getting caught in a trap of making God into what we want God to be. It's the fine line that defines who is the creator: God or us. And it's a line that's easy to step over.

Thanks for pointing out the gap in my thought process.

Posted by: Paul | July 11, 2008 10:44 AM

Several comments early in this thread dealt with the question of whether some New Testament pronouncements (especially of Paul) were culturally bound or absolute/inerrant endorsements by God. Susan's post also refers to one of Paul's positions in Timothy that bishops should be the husband of one wife.

This is a fascinating example of Paul incorporating the cultural context of the time to make an absolute pronouncement which we today tend to accept as absolute due to our lack of a perspective for assessment, even though it was actually a departure from traditional Jewish custom. (And we read of many instances in which God explicitly approved of polygamous marriages in the Old Testament.)

A historical review of polygamy in Wikipedia shows that the situation is much more complex. It turns out that polygamy was still an accepted practice in Judaism until ca. 1100 AD. The early Christians emphasized monogamy, as exemplified by Paul, but even Augustine several centuries later refused to rule out polygamy, though he noted that monogamy was preferable, in part because it was a Roman custom.

Thus, Paul's position on monogamy of bishops appears to have been both a departure from the accepted cultural context of Israel and an incorporation of Roman customs, no doubt in part because Paul was a Roman citizen and well-acculturated in Roman culture. Because Paul said it, we tend to assume that God meant things to be this way. But are Paul's pronouncements therefore an expression of God's will or of Paul's acculturation in Roman culture?

Given the prevalent patriarchal dominance model in that whole region of the world through the millenia, is it any surprise that Paul emphasized the importance of male domination? (Note that the latter term comes from the Latin term for "Lord" or master, which was by definition of masculine gender.)

The decision to consecrate female bishops in the Anglican church will be both disruptive and an opening up of new opportunities. Where it ends up will depend on prayerful discernment and introspection of people of good will on all sides.

Let's hope that those who have ears will hear - each other!

Blessings,

Jim

Posted by: Jim | July 11, 2008 12:04 PM

Ben: "One of man's roles is to rule over women"

Ben, please cite your source for this.

Posted by: JEM | July 11, 2008 12:11 PM

Susan: "the truth on an issue abundantly clear in the Scripture"

Where? Please cite chapter and verse.

Posted by: JEM | July 11, 2008 12:26 PM

Right on the money, Dave. One time my sister an I were having an arguement (for several days running!) about another aspect of theology. Each of us was pretty sure the other was dead wrong. Ultimately, we came to see some of the truth in each other's arguement though we never actually agreed on the nuts and bolts of the big question we were debating.

But there was one thing we agreed on wholeheartedly: We could thank God for His ability to surprise us all.

Posted by: Paul | July 11, 2008 3:06 PM

JEM,

If you're looking for a verse where the Bible condemns homosexuality, I would point to Ro 1:26-27 as an example. 1 Cor 6:9 is another.

--Susan

Posted by: Susan | July 11, 2008 4:19 PM

Susan,

FYI, there is a website on religious tolerance that makes some very reasoned arguments on the Corinthians passage. The URL is www dot religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1 dot htm. If you don't believe that every word in every translation of the bible is to be taken literally, there are a lot of interpretations on these passages. If you do believe that the bible is to be taken completely literally, there there is no reason to have this discussion.

To my thinking, the only things Jesus condemned (and I'm saying this in a convoluted double-negative sort of way--sorry) were not loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and not loving your neighbor as yourself. Those great commandments cover a LOT of ground, but I don't believe a committed and loving homosexual relationship breaks either of them.

Posted by: JEM | July 11, 2008 4:50 PM

There is not a single relationship on the planet that is not sinful in God's eyes. Not one, and yet God blesses all of them in some way shape or form. Heck look at Abraham, Sara and Hagar. God still blessed and favored Hagar despite the fact that God promised Sara a son.

The idea that God will not or can't bless homosexual loving relationships is found nowhere in scripture. If he can and did bless Hagar and Abraham, David and Bathsheba... then he bless anyone he wants to.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 11, 2008 4:52 PM

Susan,

I seems to me that you are not interested in an open discussion, so I'm at a loss as to why you keep posting. I think "insane," "irrational," "plainly false," and "an offense to reason" are all conversation closers. And I think they're very unloving things to say, thereby contravening the second Great Commandment. However, just as God has made gay people, he has made people who disagree and there is room on this earth for all of God's beloved children. God bless you!

Payshun, God bless you, too. You said it better than I could so I'm going to swipe your words for the future.

Posted by: JEM | July 11, 2008 5:02 PM

As an ELCA Lutheran, I must congratulate the Anglicans (Episcopals) for finally doing the right thing and getting this accomplished. I personally worshiped under a woman priest in the Episcopal rite when I lived in a part of the USA with less Lutherans and I must say that as someone who has been lucky enough to already have woman pastors and bishops in my own denomination for some time now, it just feels like the way it should be! Amen and Amen!

Posted by: JP Berka | July 11, 2008 5:26 PM

Across the front of each church door, no matter the denomination, ought to read:
(Galatians 3:26-28)"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
(27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
And particularly this verse! (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
These just is no way to emphasize this verse TOO strongly!
Evidently, the Ancient of Days doesn't see us as different, why should we?

Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 6:39 PM

Thank you Jem feel free to steal them.

p

Posted by: Payshun | July 11, 2008 11:39 PM

susan,
you have proven my point. i never said anything must be infallible, you simply presented your own assertions as having some sort of infallibility attached to them and i challenged you on that. it seems you agree with me that it is "insane" to put anything forth as infallible.

to answer your question, i do look to the bible as the word of God, but i do it with the knowledge that i cannot (with my limited human brain) comprehend His word fully. and the things i do think i comprehend i must always be open to being wrong about. it is the folks that don't approach the bible this way that worry me. their faith is based on words on a page rather than the author of those words.

to all the rest,
thanks for the great discussion. to those who are vehemently against women's ordination, i only hope you do it because of well reasoned and heavily prayed about convictions. if you are wrong, you might be judged guilty of impeding people from serving God in the capacity He called them to. for those of us who support women's ordination, i would hope it is for the same reasons and not out of a desire to compromise or pander.

hope you all have a great weekend.

Posted by: dave | July 12, 2008 1:20 PM

One more "Whoo-hoo!" for Joy and allowing the Spirit to have free reign!!!

Posted by: | July 12, 2008 4:33 PM

Dave,

I would challenge any competent reader to review my posts in search for the slightest hint that I believe my views on homosexuality and the Bible are infallible. You will not find it. What you will find, however, is a high degree of confidence that my views are correct and most reasonable. To some this comes off as arrogant, as though I thought my views on this issue were infallible. I would suggests that those that have understood me to regard my view on this issue as infallible are mistaken and have been given no good reason in my writing to think I would hold such a foolish belief.

--Susan

Posted by: Susan | July 12, 2008 10:57 PM

susan,
i guess you wouldn't find me a "competent" reader by your standards. that's fine. i am confident in my own competence and don't really need your approval. the tone of your statements revealed an arrogance and "sureness" held by you. if it was misread, i do apologize but i would suggest you trying to soften your language so it doesn't happen again.

t.l.c.,
hey, just because i can acknowledge the attractiveness of another man doesn't mean i am not a heterosexual (and to quote seinfeld... "not that there's anything wrong with that."). i mean... how can some one watch any of the new bond movies and not want to hang out with daniel craig! my wife and i both agree on that one! lol

Posted by: dave | July 13, 2008 5:06 PM