Indifferent, not Egalitarian

     Recent discussions on this site on the ordination of women have led me to believe that we are bedeviled by an Enlightenment definition of equality, one that reduces to indifference or to mathematical identity.  Suppose I write the equation 1 = sin x sin x + cos x cos x.  Despite the apparent complications, all I am saying is that the two items I have written are not two but one.  I merely happen to have written it in alternative ways, perhaps to reveal a truth about the sine and the cosine.  But, practical purposes aside, the expressions are interchangeable.

     But human beings are not interchangeable.  Tom is not the same as Harry.  In fact, it is precisely here that our dignity as human beings (and not sticks or stones) subsists.  If two persons are of equal dignity, that equality cannot reside merely in what the two share.  It's a subtle philosophical point, and maybe I'll take my lumps for it, but when I say that Tom is "equal" to Harry, if that expression goes beyond asserting a formal identity, I must be asserting not simply that both Tom and Harry are men, but also that this individual, Tom, is possessed in his individuality, in his personhood, of an equal dignity with that individual person named Harry.  In other words, if the claim "Tom is equal to Harry" means anything really rich, it must assert the equality of the two persons not despite their differences, nor with those differences set aside, but in and through those differences.  To apply the point to differences in role, if I say that "Corporal Smith is as good a soldier as Sergeant Jones," I am not saying that Smith ought to be sergeant, or that there ought not to be corporals and sergeants.  I am saying rather that Smith, precisely in his office as corporal, is a soldier equal in dignity to Jones, in his office as sergeant.  Indeed, Smith would express his soldierly equality by obeying the commands of Jones.

     Now the wrongly named egalitarians assert that for all temporal purposes, including those in the Church, maleness and femaleness are of no importance.  In other words, sex reduces to an accidental feature, like being lefthanded, or having blond hair, or having a scar over one's nose.  A red numeral 3 is the same as a blue numeral 3, because in mathematics the color of a numeral is a matter of indifference.  But as soon as we assert that indifference, we efface the terms whose equality we wish to assert.  We say not that men and women are equal, but that "men" and "women" are accidental groupings of human beings, except perhaps for the single purpose of reproduction, and even that exception should not prove insuperable.  (There are a few who insist that we need women pastors precisely because they are different; but these few suddenly find themselves face-to-face with Saint Paul, without any longer any way to accuse him of unfairness.)

     Here I can only glance at the theological quicksands that await, once this indifferentism is raised to the level of theological truth.  (It does warrant notice that Scripture rules it out: we are not told that the unity of the human race was effected by the creation of left-handers and right-handers, or of blondes and brunettes, but by the creation of male and female, without which the singular-collective "man" would not exist.)  We will be led to assert the indifference of the sex of the Savior; the culturally-conditioned language expressing the fatherhood of God; the crypto-Gnostic separability of the person from the sex that the person happens to possess; the indifference of various sexual combinations, subject only to the vague stricture that the combiners "love" one another, a love defined in Gnostic fashion by inner enlightenment rather than by acts delimited by the nature of maleness and femaleness.  And, of course, we will be led to overturn the clear commandments of Saints Paul and Peter; the divinely revealed analogy between the church and the family; the natural law that sees the father or a father-figure as the head of the family; and we will have women pastors.  That is not, by a long shot, the final stage of ecclesial suffocation in the sand, but it is a sign that the ground beneath is very bad.  Only two fates await a man in the quicksand, and neither of them is determined by his own energy or determination or good intentions.  In fact, the more energy he shows, the quicker he sinks.  To this last law of demonic hydraulics many a denomination and religious order will testify.

Comments

[Beth]

Amen, Tony. Well said.

[Patrick]

Well said indeed. And worthy of more consideration. Though I'm not sure indifference is quite what I feel. I know women are different. For instance I think women are pretty but men rather not so. Women can have babies. Men can't but still have their own specific role in that. Most women can't lift as much as a man. There's a whole list of obvious, natural traits, which aren't really up for debate.

So the question is not indifference to me, but what are the differences. Can a woman be a leader? Well yes. So did God give her that gift? Can a woman be a good speaker. Yes? So did God give her that gift?

It's not a matter of deciding that if women can be pastors then women and men are exactly alike in all ways. It's saying that we may have, throughout history drawn lines differently than God may be drawing now.

Indeed, there's this little Galatians verse as well that keeps popping into my head, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female ; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Is God indifferent?

Or does he mean something new for us in the Church we haven't seen in the world? How long did it take to realize national or racial barriers shouldn't be a limitation in leadership? Maybe the last couple hundred years. Or have you not read how priests and pastors refused natives the ability to become priests themselves in many situations, including here in California... for the natives were ignorant savages and not gifted to such a role. How long did it take to realize slavery is not a good thing and that to be neither slave nor free meant there could be no slavery? In the 1860s slavery ended, with the real ending of this coming not really until the Civil Rights era of the last fifty years.

What is next on that list in Galatians? Is it so difficult to believe that what is next on the list is not a pernicious evil or divinely mandated indifference but instead a work of the Spirit leading humanity increasingly towards a more full understanding of God, and a more full understanding of what was meant all along?

I'm still left with these questions.

And more... but it's late now. Thanks everyone for this stimulating discussion. It is very helpful to me.

[GL]

Can a woman be a leader? Well yes. So did God give her that gift? Can a woman be a good speaker. Yes? So did God give her that gift?

It is not merely a matter of grammar that causes me to drill my children on the difference between "can" and "may"; it is a distinction which is often blurred in practice as well. Can a married man commit adultery? Yes. May he? No.

Can a woman be a pastor? Yes. May a woman be a pastor? That is the question being debated. The question is not whether God is the source of a gift. It is, rather, how He intended that gift to be used.

[Fr Joseph Huneycutt]

Galatians 4:28, cited above, is not concerned with equal rights. Though it is often used by groups with some sort of agenda, in its context it speaks of Baptism. For under the Old Covenant, men (only) were circumcised. Under the New Covenant, all who are baptised into Christ have put on Christ -- becoming "sons of God" and also Abraham's offspring and "heirs according to promise."

[Clark Coleman]

The abuse of Galatians 3 is really tiresome. The context is the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers because they share the same Lord, the same baptism, the same salvation. The Judaizers were the target audience. The context is salvation, not the holding of a position of authority in the church.

The abusers of this passage generally take one of two approaches. The first is to ignore the context and make no mention at all of the salvation nature of it. The second is to acknowledge the context but try to infer that, if God saves men and women equally, then surely he will not treat them unequally when they are within the church.

Notice that the Galatians 3:27 list includes slave and free. While God loves, and saves, slave and free without distinction, the qualifications for an elder/pastor/bishop require that he demonstrate proper raising of children and management of a household and all its responsibilities. There is no reasonable way to infer that slaves would be considered qualified, as they were not in that position of authority over the household. Nor were women. You can be loved equally by God and not be qualified for a certain church office.

Similarly, an 18 year old is loved and saved equally by God, but cannot be an "elder," by definition. Q.E.D.

[Fr Joseph Huneycutt]

Oops, typo: That's Galatians 3:28. :)

But, 4:28 and following is a worthy read.

[Patrick]

We interpret passages, and condemn other interpretations, according to our accepted views. It is not an abuse. As we develop our theology we make sure Scripture goes with us. The verse "plainly" says there are not differences. The interpretation, putting into the context and the broader argument, leads many to say this isn't relevant. But that's an exegetical decision, not a plain reading of the verses.

My point is there are Scriptural arguments which make things more complex and a person can take in many directions according to influences beyond plain reading.

[Christopher Hathaway]

How long did it take to realize national or racial barriers shouldn't be a limitation in leadership? Maybe the last couple hundred years.

Patrick, I think this reveals a lenz through which you are viewing the Church's interpretation of Scripture. But I think the lenz is in fact a distortion.

It was a departure from ancient practice to discriminate against other races. The eraly Church was remarkably cross cultural and egalitarian, and it was Christendom that put an end to slavery, until Christian Europe were taught by Arab slavers to treat other huamn beings as property.

If the early church, that lived in the glow of the Apostles, didn't understand what the Apostles wrote, what hope is there that we could confidently know that we have got it? If I can't trust the early Church I must trust my own reason, and that way lies chaos and madness.

[Matthias]

Yep. The innovation of limiting people's participation in church because of their race or color was an example of the church caving into the popular mores of the surrounding culture, and inventing rationalizations based on twisted interpretations of scripture. There is a strong analogy to current controversies, just not the one Patrick thinks.

[Janet]

I recommend dusting off the little CS Lewis essay: "Priestesses in the Church?". He wrote it quickly, and there are a few errors (I think), but it's refreshing because it's Lewis, but also because he wrote it when the idea of ordaining women was quite new. His thinking takes one back to that time. It also addresses, I think some of the doubts people have expressed on this thread.
file:///c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Janet%20Szczuka/My%20Documents/Priestesses%20in%20the%20Church.htm

[David R]

If the early church, that lived in the glow of the Apostles, didn't understand what the Apostles wrote, what hope is there that we could confidently know that we have got it? If I can't trust the early Church I must trust my own reason, and that way lies chaos and madness.

It's quite obvious that the early church didn't 'get' all of what Paul and the other apostles taught, as they kept screwing up, hence the constant flow of letters! I think there is an unhealthy tendancy to idealize the early church. A church is made up of people and as such none are perfect, not even the early church.

[Patrick]

"If I can't trust the early Church I must trust my own reason, and that way lies chaos and madness."

I don't get this. Over and over again the Scriptures say the Spirit will teach us. There may be danger, I admit that and heed the cautions, but to say there is only chaos and madness is to say the Spirit is chaos and madness.

[Bobby Winters]

http://www.ldolphin.org/priestesses.html

Here is another URL to the essay Janet referred to.

[Stuart Koehl]

Patrick writes:

>>>I don't get this. Over and over again the Scriptures say the Spirit will teach us. There may be danger, I admit that and heed the cautions, but to say there is only chaos and madness is to say the Spirit is chaos and madness.<<<

The Spirit does not reside just in the individual, but also in the collective membership of the Church--which is to say, in the Assembly of the Saints, both living and dead. We are surrounded by clouds of witnesses, and that lies behind the very concept of Tradition--that it is the living faith of the dead.

The individual is fallible. Whether he is a layman, a clergyman, a bishop, or even the Pope of Rome, all individuals are prone to error due to the limitations of human reason and even our finite physical bodies. The Church, however, as the collective wisdom of all its members, is infallible. That which has been received as true by the Body of Christ over the centuries carries with it the unbroken Tradition handed down from the Apostles. While modes of expression may change, while there may be variations in how Tradition is lived, the content of Tradition, being a manifestation of God's Word, cannot and does not change.

The Spirit moves through the Church, and animates its members. But there are many spirits, and our ability to discern the true voice of the Spirit may be obscured by these other spirits, as well as by the desires of our own disordered passions. There is a constant clamor of voices around us that prevent us from perceiving the difference between the Spirit, other spirits, and the voice of our own longings. This is why the hesychasts of the Orthodox Tradition attempted to attain that inner stillness that allows them to perceive the uncreated Light of Mount Tabor.

Bishop Kallistos likes to quote a skit from the old Goon Show, in which a telephone rings and a man picks it up. "Hello, hello!" the man says, "Who is speaking, please?" The voice on the other end says, "It is you who are speaking". "Oh", the man responds, "I thought I recognized the voice", and he hangs up. We're usually too busy speaking to hear what the voice on the other end has to say. And we are very prone to thinking that our own voice is the voice of God. Hence the need for "stillness".

For those of us who have not yeat achieved that stillness, Tradition provides a safeguard against false voices by giving us a foundation in faith, of beliefs that are universally true because they have been received as truth by the entire Body of Christ and reaffirmed over time. In areas where Tradition is unclear or has not spoken, we should try to prayerfully discern the voice of the Spirit, and act in accordance with conscience. But, given that 2000 years has passed since the birth of the Messiah, there are relatively few things that have not been settled (an original heresy is about as rare as an original sin).

[smh]

Patrick's remarks bring back memories of my days at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where we, too, after the experience of three or four years of enlightenment by the faculty, were deemed able to "develop our theology," to the extent of producing personal statements of faith for our placement files. (That pretty much says it all right there, but I shall enlarge a bit.)

I tried. You would have thought I could do it without too much difficulty, since I was regarded as one of the most able students of theology. But the more I tried, the more the vanity and indeed, the stupidity, of attempting this pressed down upon me. What did it matter to the Church, which I was addressing in this exercise, what my personal beliefs were, except to correct them? The task of the theologian was to discover what the Church believed and seek conformance with it, first his own, and then then that of others. What the Church believed had already been set forth plainly in the Creed--which we Evangelicals did not repeat in our church services because it sounded too Catholic. I knew enough history to perceive this faith [fides quem] had been confirmed in the Vincentian canon, and to suspect that the root of all unrighteousness in such matters was the conviction that in the face of the Church one's personal beliefs counted for anything at all.

I returned to the Placement Director and said that I had no personal statement to put in my file other than the Nicene Creed. This would not do, he told me. I think he suspected me of trying to get out of work, but it was clear that he had no real holding place in his mind for the explanation I gave him as to why I couldn't produce what was required. I can't recall just what I did after that, but the reader may rest assured that I was never placed from Trinity.

Patrick, you are certainly correct when you say, "We interpret passages, and condemn other interpretations, according to our accepted views." But as we "develop our theology" sometimes we come to the conviction that all views are not equal, that there is an Authority to which we, if we rightly call ourselve Christians, are not free not to submit, and that accordingly one must judge between views that exclude each other, choose what is right, reject what is wrong, or suspend judgment until we have more light. Our salvation depends on this: the domain of Truth is not a theological seminary where one can temporize indefinitely. You stand at the threshhold of making those decisions now. Make the right ones.

I am not going to add a lot of disgusting piety about praying earnestly that you come to see things my way, or a bunch of pap about the Holy Spirit. Gird up your loins, be a man, and decide whether you will "develop" or seek first to obey, for there are two completely different minds involved here, and once again, you must choose between them. We are dealing with a LORD here, who does not say, "If you love me, mean well, and develop your theology."

Be prepared to pay heavily in the short run for making the right decision. The wrong decision looks liberating, but it is in fact an imprisonment; the right one looks constricting, but is the way of freedom. I am speaking here of the broad way, which in our time bears attractive names like "inclusivity" and "diversity", and the narrow one, upon which less complimentary names have been fixed.

[Luthien]

"and it was Christendom that put an end to slavery, until Christian Europe were taught by Arab slavers to treat other huamn beings as property."

Yeah, because serfdom was soooo great and freeing.

[Matthias]

Compared to chattel slavery yes, serfdom was a pretty good deal.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Compared to chattel slavery yes, serfdom was a pretty good deal.<<<

Yes and no. Be careful about making broad generalizations on historical topics. Slavery in the classical world could be very hard, degrading, and ultimately deadly--especially, e.g., for field slaves on the latifundia, or those condemned to the mines, or for the many women who ended up in brothels. For house slaves, life could be a lot easier. Many were trusted members of the household, granted a stipendia with which they could actually buy their freedom. Then there were those men of talent but low socio-economic standing who sold themselves into slavery, or who found themselves enslaved through the exigencies of war, who in the service of their masters not only gained their freedom but also wealth and power. Thus, e.g., Cicero's amenuensis Tiro, the various freedmen of the imperial household (especially under Claudius), and many others. Slavery in the Roman world actually provided a path of social mobility for those in the right place with the right skills.

On the other hand, serfdom was almost uniformly harsh, because, though "free" serfs were bound to the land, land that belonged to their lords, and thus represented the bulk of the lord's wealth. Serfs thus became the principal object of medieval warfare, for killing the serfs or running them off their lands, was the best way of defeating an aristocratic enemy. And though law and custom extended many protections and privileges to the serf, how well these were observed depended on the lords themselves, unless there was a strong monarchy with judicial power to serve as a counterweight. Moreover, the general standard of living in the middle ages was lower than in the late classical period, and most serfs eaked out a subsistence living, only one bad harvest away from starvation. Life in the countryside did not really improve until the 14th century, when the Black Death increased the economic value of the individual serf (because there were a lot fewer of them after the plague), and when new agricultural techniques and crops began to increase yields to provide a buffer against famine.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Stuart, isn't it a logical fallacy to compare the best of one group with the worst of another? Serfdom overall should be compared to classical slavery overall. I think in that comparison serfdom comes out as at least an improvement upon slavery.

Yet even if we grant serfdom as slavery in another form, it was an invention that came after the disappearance of slavery in the Christian Roman empire, so I don't understand Luthien's sarcasm. Failure to reach the more perfect concepts of modern political freedom does not vitiate the good of ending one evil. One might as well sneer at Lincoln's desire to end slavery because he favored racial segregation.

[Patrick]

Dr. Hutchens, know that I have committed my whole life to girding up my loins and being a man. That is indeed why I am here, and why I listen, even as I discuss with all of you who are in traditions outside my own. If I am contrary in some bits it is because I know the seriousness, not because I have missed it. My present worry is to explore the reality that Christ never condemned anyone for coming to him, the more the better. He did condemn for anyone who made it more difficult to come to him, and he condemned those who judged how they chose to come to him.

I take this teaching, and take the teaching of the last centuries, and the teachings of the last millenia, and in that I seek to see what God is really getting at.

There is only one Tradition. That is the Spirit among us. Tradition is defined only by that which the Spirit is leading us to do. For the Tradition goes much farther back than Ignatius, or any of the Father. The Tradition goes even farther back than Moses.

It is that Tradition which I seek, and which I thank all of you here for speaking about, and all of you here for genuinely seeking, even as we have some disagreements with what this means in the present.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, isn't it a logical fallacy to compare the best of one group with the worst of another? Serfdom overall should be compared to classical slavery overall. I think in that comparison serfdom comes out as at least an improvement upon slavery.<<<

You are correct, but it is difficult to do because ancient slavery was so polyvariant in its terms and conditions. Being a slave to an enlightened Roman or Greek aristocrat might have seemed pretty good as compared to freeholding in the Middle Ages. Being a state slave in the Athenian silvers mines, not so much. Serfdom was a bit more uniform, but even then, the condition of a serf depended on time, place, climate, lordship, epidemics and war. That's why the superiority of serfdom over slavery is not that clear cut.

To take but one example: in times of famine or economic depression, people in the ancient world often sold themselves into slavery. Masters had an obligation to feed, clothe and house their slaves, so a slave had a certain amount of security. On the other hand, a serf, while offered protection from banditry and military aggression (in theory), was pretty much on his own when it came to the fundamentals of survival. Which state was superior, particularly in a time when "political" rights as we know them did not exist? It depends entirely on individual circumstances.

[Tony Esolen]

Patrick,

In our created reality there are some things that only seem good for us at the time, or that might actually result in good for a few, while hurting us or others down the road. Consider again Paul's insistence that bishops be chosen from among men (yet another text that assumes, as a matter of uncontroversial fact, that women will not be heads of local churches, even though the assemblies might meet in their own homes!) who have been responsible heads of their families and their households. The principle that rules in a good household is order: not the order of a tyrant, but the order of a loving head, who has the good of all in mind.

This idea of order is a rich one, yet one that we democrats instinctively suspect, because it puts limits on our license to act as it seems good in our own eyes. Let's suppose that I am a very fine public speaker. Let's suppose also that I am a pretty good expositor and exegete of the Bible, and that I am solidly orthodox. Should I, on my own initiative, elbow the priest (I am Roman Catholic) or the ordained minister from his pulpit? The justification for it is easy to find: I can preach the word, and maybe deliver a sermon such as the people in the pews will not have heard for many years. And what will happen? I will have undermined the minister's position. I will have established a precedent of disorder; now anybody who is "moved by the Spirit" will have an example to follow me, with perhaps not the same commitment to orthodoxy. That's the BEST we might expect from my action. The worst is much, much worse: my pride alone might lead me into heterodoxy, and all my talents (and people almost always in such cases greatly overestimate their talents and underestimate the talents of those they are supplanting) would go towards securing the perdition of souls.

No good is to be gained from disobedience, and God is gracious enough to us to provide clear instructions in some matters (the ordination of women is one of those) and a clear line of authority in others (hence an embodied Church for embodied beings such as ourselves).

[Stuart Koehl]

Tony hits on the critical point:

>>>This idea of order is a rich one, yet one that we democrats instinctively suspect, because it puts limits on our license to act as it seems good in our own eyes. Let's suppose that I am a very fine public speaker. Let's suppose also that I am a pretty good expositor and exegete of the Bible, and that I am solidly orthodox. Should I, on my own initiative, elbow the priest (I am Roman Catholic) or the ordained minister from his pulpit? <<<

Throughout his ministry, Paul is constantly trying to balance the two nexes of authority within the Churches he founded. On the one hand, there are the charismatic leaders, the prophets, preachers, teachers, confessors, ascetics, and myriad others. These have no mandate other than that which the Spirit has bestowed upon them, and their ability to lead and wield authority is due solely to the recognition that they speak with the voice of the Spirit. However, the voice of the Spirit is often discordant and at odds with other voices. And occasionally it is at odds with those men duely ordained to minister over the congregation and preside at the liturgy. Thus, Paul's emphasis on good order, which is, in my opinion (that of Ben Witherington, too--I suppose he's a "modernist" in some minds?) is at the heart of his injunction about women having authority over men in Church. First, consider that the Church already appealed disproportionately to women, and that some of the women converts were rather wealthy and influential, able to fund or even host house churches of their own. Second, consider that women were numbered among the "prophets" and those who could speak in tongues, as well as among the gifted teachers and preachers of the early Church. Thus, Paul has to deal not only with one of these people standing up in the middle of the liturgy to gainsay the bishop or presbyter, but also with the additional scandal that this creates in a patricarchical social order. Hence, the injunction against women speaking out in church--which is to say, in the context of liturgical celebration (that from the beginning included both readings and homilies, inherited from the synagogue service).

On the other hand, the evidence for women serving as preachers, teachers, prophets, deaconesses, etc. is just too voluminous to be dismissed as abberrational or as a violation of Paul's command--particularly as Paul was on good terms with some of these female leaders of the Church. Hence, the issue is much narrower than many would have it ("Superordination" of men? Please!), and can only be understood within the framework of a hierarchical, liturgical and sacramental Church.

>>>No good is to be gained from disobedience, and God is gracious enough to us to provide clear instructions in some matters (the ordination of women is one of those) and a clear line of authority in others (hence an embodied Church for embodied beings such as ourselves).<<<

As we have not been able to establish a good definition of "ordination", this part of the discussion gets wrapped around the axle. What most Protestants do cannot in any way be called "ordination" as the early Church would have understood it, since what most Protestants call "pastoral ministry" doesn't fit into the definition of sacerdotal ministry as the early Church understood it. At most, the duties exercised by most Protestant ministers can be exercised by a deacon, and as we have seen, the early Church did in fact ordain women to the diaconate. What the Church never did was ordain women to the presbyterate and episcopate, for only these ministries presided over the Eucharist at the Holy Table. Hence the prohibition on the ordination of women applies only to those two offices, and is wrapped up, somehow, in the celebration of the Eucharist. If you don't have that--in the sense that the early Church understood the Eucharist--then the prohibition of women in the pulpit has to find some other rationale. And that is where Protestants get into difficulties, for they can find no "Traditional" basis for the exclusion, and must instead resort to a particular interpretation of Scripture, and a selective one at that (for Paul deals far more equitably on the relationship between men and women than is presupposed by this one passage).

With regard to disobedience, it entirely depends on who is disobeying whom and why, doesn't it? Was Maximos the Confessor--an unordained layman--wrong to oppose all the bishops in his Church with regard to monophysitism? What about the many monks and lay people who disobeyed both the imperial command and the authority of the various Patriarchs to oppose iconoclasm? Was Athanasius wrong to disobey his synod regarding the proper interpretatio of Nicene theology?

More currently, is it wrong for an Anglican to disobey a church that ordains not only women, but overt homosexuals, divorced men (and women) and violates various other aspects of its own prescribed rules?

Generally, the Christian East recognizes three different classes of issues. First, there are those which are effectively "settled"--certain teachings, practices and beliefs have been received by the Church and incorporated into its collective consciousness, and thus have become part of Tradition. Then there are those areas which are of secondary and teritary importance, where a great deal of personal speculation is permitted, provided it does not contradict Tradition. Finally, there are the gray areas which may or may not be part of Tradition, or which Tradition does not address because the issue never came up before. In such areas, Eastern moral theology directs that we should first listen to the directions and teaching of our appointed leaders, the bishops (whose charism is to teach true doctrine), but if we find that this runs against the convictio of our conscience, then we must make our objections known. And if, having done so, we do not receive an answer that convinces us or relieves our conscience, then we must act, even if it is against the authorities of the Church.

Two caveats apply here. First, there is the presumption that the bishops will make a good faith effort to teach in accordance with Tradition. Second, it is incumbent upon us, if we dissent, to do so only after a prayerful discernment and examination of conscience, being most careful to ensure that the voice of our conscience is not merely the voice of our own desires.

My Church's nice little monograph on this subject "With the Voice of the Spirit--An introduction to Eastern Christian moral thought" says that if having listened to the Church authorities, and fully and prayerfully examined our conscience, we still dissent from what the Church teaches, we have an obligation to act. It says we my err, and might even commit a transgression, but we shall not sin if we have acted according to the strictures I have outlined above.

[Randy Estes]

Patrick,

Read Flannery O'Conner's short story "Parker Back" and let us know who you think is the heretic in that story.

[Juli]

Stuart Koehl interjected

"Superordination" of men? Please!

Amen. This is the sort of honest skepticism I was just lamenting the absence of in another thread. As someone who entered the Orthodox church from the Episcopal church, I have understood the male priesthood in the terms Stuart uses above, as something that "can only be understood within the framework of a hierarchical, liturgical and sacramental Church." I know Orthodox priests who do defend the male priesthood but consider that the issue of (for example) altar servers is muddied and confused. For that matter, they will admit that the issue of the male priesthood itself is muddied and confused by some of the arguments advanced on its behalf, which (in their view) totally miss the point.

The question of preaching and teaching is quite separate. I'll mention this on the thread that inquired about women preaching in Orthodox churches, but I'll just note here that I've known women (and laymen) to preach in Orthodox churches, though it is by far the norm for the preacher to be ordained. Women also teach in Orthodox churches, and their students may include priests as well as laymen. On the parish level, a laywoman may lead a bible study or other adult class, and I remember seeing that Mother Gabriela, an Orthodox nun, was leading a retreat for an entire OCA deanery; she was (rightly) regarded as someone with the authority to teach not just men generally but seminary-educated and pastorally experienced clergy in particular.

[Tony Esolen]

Stuart,

You and I will have to settle on friendly disagreement, I'm afraid. Everything you say about Paul's sociological situation may be true. It sounds plausible enough, and I've heard it before. But it is beside the point, because when Paul himself outlines the rules for preaching in the assembly, he does not refer to the practical situation, or to his own troubles. He refers to Genesis, and actually does this quite consistently. That scriptural witness to truths about men and women may go a long way to explain the disorder that in his particular situation he was pressed to clear up. But the truths do not change.

Here I must turn to the Thomistic dictum that grace perfects nature. I cannot accept as reasonable the complete severance of the male priesthood from the question of fatherhood in general, and, what's more, Saint Paul does not do so either. I've read the arguments that say that Protestants, because they do not have a sacramental priesthood, are unjust in limiting ordination to men. I'm not buying; they have the same need for fatherhood that we have. Surely God does not want them to commit suicide, as the liberal denominations are doing. And if female headship over a church is a neutral thing, why does it seem inevitably to be both a symptom and an accelerator of decline?

Touchstone has published numerous articles on the troubles suffered by women who try to raise their children in the church, but whose husbands do not believe, or are absent entirely. It is not hopeful, not for either sex. That need for fatherhood will not go away. It isn't a matter of an extraordinary woman leading a retreat for men who already belong to a male priesthood, and who already believe. They have fathers already; they indeed are fathers....

I agree with you about disobedience, so long as we specify that it is only justified when one's superior is being flagrantly disobedient himself, and when one has exhausted all avenues of redress, and when one is but obeying another authority, and it had better not be the authority of private interpretation.

[Diane Fitzsimmons]

I come from a different branch of the Christian faith (evangelical) but would still like to comment. To me, it seems as if the ordination of women becomes important only when one believes that this form of service is more important than other calls from God. I believe that is not the case and also that women have a calling from God that no man can fulfill.

[Tony Esolen]

Stuart,

I've just read your post more carefully; I'm supposing that you do not mean that "conscience" is the same thing as private interpretation. Also I think there's a difference between disobeying by declining to act (because one believes that one would be committing sacrilege, for instance) and disobeying by action (for which the bar must be a great deal higher). I wonder whether your monograph is in accord with Newman's subtle analysis of obedience to the conscience -- easily misunderstood these days as obedience to some vague inner prompting.

[Jendi]

Clark wrote: "the qualifications for an elder/pastor/bishop require that he demonstrate proper raising of children and management of a household and all its responsibilities. There is no reasonable way to infer that slaves would be considered qualified, as they were not in that position of authority over the household. Nor were women." This is circular. If women, like slaves, could not be effective leaders simply because the secular culture of that time denied them that role, why should this form of inequality be frozen for all time in the church when the secular culture has moved on? Why is the early church allowed to conform to its culture and we aren't?

Also, in response to the original posting, I don't think the only options are patriarchy and indifferentism. It is plausible to acknowledge that men and women are different, in a more fundamental way than blondes and brunettes, yet to disagree about which traits and roles are affected by that difference. I'm also wary of an essentialism that ignores the very real variations of personality and talent within each gender, or dismisses all but a small fraction as deviant. Some women will be great wives and mothers; some will be great engineers and CEOs; some will not be great at anything :) The alternative to seeing gender as irrelevant should not be seeing gender as overriding everything else that makes Tomasina different from Harriet. Especially as I often get the impression from this blog that men are meant to be fathers in addition to their public careers, while women are meant to be mothers instead of their public careers. What's that about?

[Stuart Koehl]

Tony wrote:

>>>Stuart,

I've just read your post more carefully; I'm supposing that you do not mean that "conscience" is the same thing as private interpretation. Also I think there's a difference between disobeying by declining to act (because one believes that one would be committing sacrilege, for instance) and disobeying by action (for which the bar must be a great deal higher). I wonder whether your monograph is in accord with Newman's subtle analysis of obedience to the conscience -- easily misunderstood these days as obedience to some vague inner prompting.<<<

You are quite right; I do not believe that conscience is the same thing as private interpretaiton. Conscience is, or should be, the voice of the indwelling Spirit, which gift is given to us at baptism and chrismation. I will expand on this later when there is a bit more time to write.

I agree that there is a difference between defiance through omission and defiance by comission, and that acts of commission require a far greater burden of proof. Sometimes, however, not choosing, or not acting is in itself a choice and an act. Ask Thomas More.

[Stuart Koehl]

Jendi wrote:

>>>Especially as I often get the impression from this blog that men are meant to be fathers in addition to their public careers, while women are meant to be mothers instead of their public careers. What's that about?<<<

I think it may be a little more complicated than that. If we go back to the teleological perspective of the Fathers (who got it from Aristotle), a being is happy when it is fulfilling its true purpose (telos). Man (i.e., human beings) are made first and foremost to worship and love God--and when we do this, we are fulfilled and achieve true happiness. Happiness is thus conforming ourselves to the divine will.

Beyond that, however, we are also made in the image and likeness of God, and thus as "true images" of God, we embody God's traits and manifest them in our lives. Thus, man made in the image of a creator God is happy when engaged in acts of creation (the difference being that God is a primary creator, while we are at best secondary or sub-creators working with those things God himself has made).

God embodies both male and female, and the complementarity of the human sexes is a way in which God manifests those of his attributes in us and at the same time provides a sign of the inner communion of the Trinity as well as Christ and the Church. It isn't that Fatherhood reflects God's "maleness", but rather that human maleness is meant to reflect God's Fatherhood. Men are happy and fulfilled when acting out the role of father--either biological or spiritual. At the same time, true womanhood reflects the "mothering" aspects of the divine nature, and women are happiest when they can fulfill their telos as mothers--either biological or spiritual.

Typically, then (and here, biology is destiny), man's fatherhood manifests itself outside of the household, either as hunter/gatherer, or warrior, or farmer, or sailor, or whatever. "Man will go forth to his labor, and work until eventide" (Ps. 103). Man's role in the family is one of headship, of provider, of protector. This is fatherhood, and when men exercise it properly, they find it immensely fulfilling. But at its root, it means that man puts his talents to work outside the household to provide for his family (thus, the workaholic male who neglects his family in favor of his job or career is perverting the nature of fatherhood).

Women, typically, have worked in and around the home and have had charge of domestic matters. Their role in the family is one of nurturing, healing and advising. The need of children for their mother is all-consuming (quality time is a myth--children want quantity time, unlimited quantity time, infinite quantity time), hence as long as there are children around the house women will find it difficult to balance the demands of motherhood with the demands of an external career. This is something that many women have already discovered or are in the process of discovering: YOU CANNOT HAVE IT ALL. If you want a career, your family will suffer. Either women put off having children in order to start a career, and then find themselves unable to conceive without great difficulty; or they try to have both a career and children and find themselves shortchanging one or the other or both. Either way, women end up unhappy and dissatisfied.

There are, of course, some women who eschew family for their careers, and these women not only proper professionally, but statisticaly do as well or marginally better than men of equal qualifications. Bur until recently, the numbers of such women have been small, and one wonders whether in the long run they will find true happiness.

There are also many women who work not out of the desire to attain "fulfillment" but because they must in order to provide for their families--either with or without the presence of a man. In such cases, necessity dictates, and the absence of the woman from the home is one more example of the broken nature of human existence.

Fundamentally, then, the reason why men have external careers in addition to fatherhood is because having a job outside of the household is intrinsic to the role of the father. On the other hand, women have families instead of external careers because nuturing and managing the household is intrinsic to motherhood, while working outside the home is not.

[Matthias]

It is plausible to acknowledge that men and women are different, in a more fundamental way than blondes and brunettes, yet to disagree about which traits and roles are affected by that difference.

It is more than plausible to so argue; it is absolutely necessary for a Christian. The creation narratives in Genesis specifically discuss sex differences and are cited for that left-handpurpose in the New Testament (by both Jesus and Paul) as being directly relevant to social order. If Genesis said "blonde and brunette he created them," and if the NT went on to discuss different social roles for blondes and brunettes by reference to the creation narratives, we'd have to talk about that too - but it doesn't, and we don't.

Similarly as to what traits and roles are affected, we may argue, but only if our arguments are based on scripture.

[Patrick]

I heartily agree with your last sentence Matthias. However the problem comes in that any Scripture which disputes our view we always have a way of interpreting around. You can give a list of Scriptures, I can give a list of Scriptures, we both will exegete the Scriptures in the way we match our arguments. At a certain point its not a matter of one side having Scriptures and the other side being anti-Scripture. We choose our own canon within a canon, and can use manifold scholars to support our view as the view and call it Scripture's view.

The Vineyard association will not be saying, "forget Scripture". They will be looking at Scripture all along, but if they look at different verses or verses differently, then they will be branded in a certain way.

Scripture has women in leadership, not a lot but throughout. Scripture has women who prophesy, who guide, who teach. Every gift we want to talk about we can find a woman in Scripture doing it and doing it as approved by God.

Scripture becomes a back and forth debate, which is why an appeal to Scripture can't get us very far.

But at this point I'm thinking we're all going in circles now. So I leave you all to the conversation. Thank you everyone for your perspectives.

[Jendi]

Stuart, it may be true that "children want quantity time, unlimited quantity time, infinite quantity time", just as many immature adults narcissistically want their beloved to be completely available to them, but I don't think that giving in to that demand is always the best way for the mother to shape her child's character. It also seems to me that the model of "women in the home, men outside the home" is a Victorian artifact, whereas home and career were far less separate for most of Western history in which the homestead was more of an economic unit. The latest research on anthropology suggests that cavewomen did a lot more than just minding the babies. Until the industrial age, managing the home was a career because the home was a business. Now all that is left of women's creative role in the home, unless you are an entrepreneur of a home-based business (as I am), is the emotional work of being totally available for her child, which can border on unhealthy codependence. Why do you think you see so many Martha Stewart clones aggressively micro-managing their children's lives?

[James Altena]

"There is only one Tradition. That is the Spirit among us. Tradition is defined only by that which the Spirit is leading us to do. For the Tradition goes much farther back than Ignatius, or any of the Fathers. The Tradition goes even farther back than Moses.

"It is that Tradition which I seek. . . ."

Patrick, this is hardly a definition or description of any "Tradition," let alone THE Tradition of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The problem with your quote are: a) who is the "us" to which you constantly refer, and b) your (false) claim that the Tradition changes.

Numerous persons (including myself) have already responded to you regarding point b) in this and in other previous posts, so I won't rehearse that again. The problem with point a) -- and many of the assumptions behind your various postings -- is that it is self-referential. If one assumes that the content (not just the particular expression) of the Tradition can be changed, then the Tradition has no normative status, but only historical or antiquarian interest.

Your various posts repeatedly imply a view of Scriptural exegesis as being primarily an individualistic enteprise, and to boot one heavily determined by personal prejudice or socio-cultural conditioning. If so, then two consequences ensue: 1) All Scirptural exegeses, including those of the Fathers (or even St. Paul himself) are merely elaborate exercises to claim divine authority for asserting subjective biases; and 2) one person's exegesis is just as good as another's, and the preferred exegesis is simply the utilitarian one of that which serves immediately desired ends of the tyranny of the current majority.

But in that case, attempts at "discernment" of the Spirit can provide no true discernment at all. Unless there is a standard apart from ourselves -- our own time and place, our own mindset -- such supposed "discernment" is immediately reduced to self-referential naval-gazing. Your position offers no basis for discerning "what the Spirit is leading us to do" from error, self-willfunless, worldliness, or diabolical deceit. (Indeed, you repeatedly cite worldly trends, institutions, and phenomena -- e.g. changes in slavery or women's social status -- as your evidentiary bases for your attempts at exegesis and discernment.)

By contrast, the Vincentian canon of consistent consensus -- that which has been believe by all men (i.e. the faithful) at all times, in all places -- provides exactly the criteria for true discernment. God can and does do new things -- but those new things are consistent with, not contrary to, the things that He has done before. Hence if something novel is proposed -- a new exegesis of a Scriptural passage, a new practice in the Church -- it can immediately be checked against the words and pattern of Scripture and established teachings of the Church. If it is consistent with those, then the novelty may be given further consideration (not simply an immediate green light). If it contradicts the Tradition, then we may be sure that it is heresy to be rejected forthwith.

The whole point is precisely that we do not appeal (nor have to appeal) to our own exegesis or preferences. Instead, we joyfully submit in obedience to a collective wisdom far greater than our puny individual minds -- a collective wisdom formed and guided by the Holy Ghost, not mere human efforts. This is the path of obedience which Dr. Hutchens and others here invite you to trod with us. As Chesterton put it, a catholic is someone who knows that there are other people smarter than he is. Yes, the Tradition is the voice of the Spirit speaking in the Church -- but we know that it is the voice of the Spirit, and not the voice of a man or demon, precisely because it is the collective voice of the faithful of many preceding generations, sifted, tried, and tested. You can only reject the Tradition by individually standing in judgment of that collective discernment and declaring yourself to be its equal or superior.

Not all exegesis is equal. Your exegesis of Gal. 3:28 or I Cor. 12 is NOT as good as that of Chrysostom, Augustine, or any of the the other Fathers. Nor would mine be, were I so foolish as to have the temerity to attempt it. But again, this is precisely the point -- those of us who accept the Tradition do not make such attempts. We instead strive humbly to accept, obey, and safeguard that which has been handed on to us by those far greater in the Faith than ourselves. Per the quote often attributed to Sir Isaac Newton (who was in turn actually quoting a 12th c. scholastic author), "If we have seen further, it is because we have stood on the shoulders of giants."

Intellectual historian Roland Stromberg in his book "After Everything" punningly and aptly noted the "Drang nach Neuheit" (pursuit of novelty) as a keystone of the 20th c. mentality -- the obsessive (and inherently destructive) pursuit of novelty and "originality" as ends in and of themselves, without regard to their consonance with or value relative to the rich heritage of the past. By contrast, the Christian within the Tradition proves all things and holds fast to that which is good, to the pattern of sound words rather than exegetical and ecclesiastical novelties.

It is a fearful thing to recall that the person who knowingly and willfully withstands the Tradition, and claims to be so doing by inspiration of the Spirit, is a false prophet or worse (Deut. 13, II Thess. 2, numerous passages in the Johannine epistles, etc.). Thus St. Paul warns us to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught." The itch to entertain exegetical novelty is what C. S. Lewis termed "damned nonsense," and explained in a footnote that he meant it literally -- that unless checked, such talk would literally lead a soul to Hell. This is what Dr. Hutchens is pointing to in urging you to consider whetehr to tread the broad or narrow way. If we speak strongly and urgently here, Patrick, it is because we care for your soul.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, it may be true that "children want quantity time, unlimited quantity time, infinite quantity time", just as many immature adults narcissistically want their beloved to be completely available to them, but I don't think that giving in to that demand is always the best way for the mother to shape her child's character.<<<

How to put this? My wife and I have raised two wonderful children under fairly trying circumstances in which both of us had to work. We did not use institutional day care, but rather, whenever possible, left our children in the care of other families, which worked out pretty well, since we were careful about the people we chose. However, that did not ameliorate the fact that our children made huge demands on our time, which nothing could diminish. You do need to be there for them, when they are sick, when they are fretful, when they are in need of guidance, when they are in the school play or concert, or win an award, or a sporting event. This definitely constrains career possibilities. I managed to avoid many of them by being self-employed, but my determination to place my family before my job means that I have turned down commissions, have not risen as high as I might, have not made as much money as I could. And that's fine, because I chose it that way. My wife is employed full time in a highly demanding job (intellectually), but she, too has turned aside from the path of career advancement because of our children. Whether it is turning down foreign assignments, or skipping out on a "highly recommended" training program, or whatever, it is clear from our mutual observations that those who wish to achieve professional success must sacrifice a good deal of their family lives, while those who wish to raise families must sacrifice career advancement. Men are better positioned psychologically, though, to deal with an external career, simply because the role of father does not require the same total dedication of self that motherhood does. "Providing" is a man's natural vocation; "mothering" is a woman's. Almost every psychological and socioogIcal study of the past decade has shown this, and nothing is really going to change what has been validated by millennia of human experience. So I will repeat once more: YOU CANNOT HAVE IT ALL, and if you try to have it all, you will be miserable.

[Jendi]

Stuart, I greatly admire the choices that you and your wife have made, which actually sound more egalitarian and nuanced than your gender-rhetoric would have led me to expect. My husband and I both left the corporate big-city life for similar reasons (we don't have children yet, but hope to). As Christians, we should do as much as we can to make such choices economically viable for everyone. I just get concerned sometimes about the idealization of motherhood on this blog, because I have also seen the damage wrought by the other extreme: parents whose meaning in life is so invested in their children that they are unable to let them leave the nest. Our vocation as men and women must be found first in Christ, not in family OR career. Part of being a good mother is to maintain a sense of self that is separate from her children, so they can feel permitted to develop their own selves.

[Patrick]

James, I welcome your counsel, and take it serious. Do know that I am arguing in one way on this forum for reasons, and I would approach the topics differently in different contexts. My goal is not an individualistic approach to Scripture, and I can happily provide exegetical notes for my approaches. My whole history of study has shown that I'm likely very different than how you are seeing me. Of course, since you don't see that you only go by how I'm arguing here.

However, here we all know the appropriate Scriptures, and yet I'm considering whether there are strands of thought which may have been misplaced. Augustine may not be the best interpreter for gender issues, to be honest, and maybe others may not be either. This isn't to appeal to myself, but to appeal to a broader trend os study in many places. When millions and millions of people agree with how I am interpreting Scripture it is not individualistic, even if it is different than the Catholic approach, and thus different than millions and millions of others.

If it was just me saying these things I would be wary. But I echo the thoughts of many and many, all wrestling with this issue and many of those genuinely good scholars and interested in what the Spirit is doing now. It is dangerous to go against Tradition, but it can be equally dangerous not to go against Tradition if that is what the Spirit is doing. Those who rejected Jesus did not do so because they were heretics, but because they knew their salvation was in the Tradition. They were so committed they completely missed when Jesus came and did something they didn't expect.

My point is that Scripture can be interpreted differently and good hearted people can argue over interpretation of Scripture that is anything but settled. Take John Cassian and Augustine, for instance. Or any of the other great theological battles waged throughout history.

I want to keep the faith of the Apostles, with the same attitude of the Apostles, holding onto the teaching while remaining fluid and watching what is going on that is beyond any of us.

Habit can often be mistaken for Tradition. And such things change, the question is what is core and what is not.

People disagree, and people often use Scripture to do it. My use of Tradition is to suggest what we are dealing with goes farther past the Church. God did not begin working with the Church and so the Tradition to hold onto is that which God began when everything began.

Tradition is a sort of Christian accordion word, meaning much or little, varying according to the speaker. The fact is that traditions do change. I attend Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels and find a different experience than if I attended Notre Dame in the 1100s, and a very different experience than if I attended Tertullian's description of a Love Feast in Carthage in the late 100s.

I appreciate your care for my soul, and I know you say that with genuine care, as does Dr. Hutchens. I care for my soul as well, and for the souls of all those for whom this issue pushes them outside the bounds, either to the right or to the left.

My life is a reflection that I take Scripture exceedingly seriously. My arguments here are a suggestion that someone like me can take it all seriously and approach things differently without being put into the box of heretic or relativist. My goal is not to make anyone happy but at the end of my life, when I see Jesus, for him to say, "Well done." I can, then, only do that which seems to match this goal, and follow the questions and guidance I have. I may be wrong, and so I say all I say with humility and listening.

But what if I'm right. Along with all the millions of others who think the Spirit is doing much the same sorts of things I think the Spirit is doing. I care for your soul too, James, and so I say what I say.

Maybe, just maybe, the Spirit is working in me and guiding me, and inspiring me to speak. Jesus is Lord, and I've given him the totality of my life to be Lord over. On that alone I rest my soul.

[Patrick]

By the by, it does worry me a little bit when I hear people talking about big T Tradition and are refering to medieval doctrines and practices. Being a Gentile church is a consolation, not a Tradition. That we do not follow the rules laid out in the books of Moses is a freedom, but that is the Tradition as God spoke it. Acts 15 does not give Gentiles priority, it gives them allowances to break free from the Tradition according to the work of the Spirit, as long as they follow a few guidelines. Which tradition did Peter follow? He was accused by Paul for being too restrictively Jewish.

Which means my friends who attend a Messianic Jewish congregation are really the most Christian among us, if Tradition is the standard. Augustine may be wrong. Aquinas may be wrong. God spoke through Moses and the Prophets. That is the Tradition Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill.

This, of course, doesn't help my position on gender issues. But, I did want to clarify Tradition according to Scripture, not tradition.

[Jaames Altena]

Patrick, it is not possible to have a serious discussion with you when you insist on willy-nilly redefining terms to suit yourself -- which is what you repeatedly do with Capital-T "Tradition." As has been stated by myself and others many times here and elsewhere, the definition of the Tradition is the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church, providing the proper exegesis of Scripture. It is NOT the same thing as "traditions," meaning mere customs or habits (and we who speak of the Tradition know how to distinguish it from those, thank you very much). How many more times does this have to be said???

To write that "it can be equally dangerous not to go against Tradition if that is what the Spirit is doing" is to assert that God contradicts himself -- which is heresy, pure and simple. God is not Walt Whitman ("Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself?" -- Leaves of Grass.) It is the literal "damned nonsense" of which C. S. Lewis spoke.

The same is true of "My use of Tradition," which is at bottom little different from a Bp. Griswold speaking of "my truth" and "your truth." There is no such thing as "my" or "your" use of the Tradition -- only right and wrong use of it. The Tradition is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick what suits you; it is a unity that is either accepted or rejected in toto. It once again simply displays your essentially Montanist mentality of making your own subjective "discernment" rather than the Tradition the voice of the Holy Spirit.

"My point is that Scripture can be interpreted differently and good hearted people can argue over interpretation of Scripture that is anything but settled." True -- but the ordination of women is an issue that WAS settled by the Tradition long go, and can not be re-opened any more than what the Tradition teaches about the Trinity, the Incarnation, abortion, homosexuality, etc., etc. What you statement here implicitly appeals to is the shopworn subjectivist-relativist fallacy of "I'm sincere and that's what REALLY matters." Sorry, but Truth and obedience to it matter much more. Charity requires us who write here to withstand your errors to assume that you err due to ignorance or confusion rather than hardness of heart -- but withstand you we must, for the sake of both the truth and yourself.

St. Paul also counsels us to reject a heretic after the first and second admonition. You, sir, are a heretic. I therefore will let you have the last word if you wish, and will not respond to any more of your postings here.

[Patrick]

I'm sad you feel that way James. My community and my life speak differently than your judgement, but that is not within your view, so it is too bad you only know me through my postings here. Especially as you seem to misunderstand what I am saying and judge me according to a preconceived notion. I do appreciate your straightforward pronouncement, however. Beating around the bush is always so frustrating.

Actually, I affirm God in three persons, Jesus born, died, and risen again, and the assorted essential bits of the creed. I differ on definitions and approaches. I may be wrong, but I am not heretically wrong. For nothing I have said enters into heretical notions, even as many warn me against approaching that, a warning which I do heed. I consider Mere Comments a safe place to argue and to listen, not a declaration of my ultimate beliefs, and like with Dr. Hutchens I would be very wary of establishing any creed besides the Creed.

Fortunately, Jesus seems to show that he doesn't mind if people are wrong, as Peter learned and we all have learned. As far as Tradition goes, I stand by what I say, which is to suggest, with Paul, Gentiles are grafted onto the vine, they did not originate the vine, and do not own the vine.

We both will stand before God someday answering for all our opinions, and he will set us straight on all things. May he judge us both with profound grace.

I wish you peace and blessing on all your pursuits even if you do not wish the same for me.

[Scott Walker]

I can't seem to refrain from the effort to engage Patrick. I concede your good will. I cannot judge your relationship with God. But you said something that sends up red flags for me, and, I think, for other Christians who are following the capital "T" Tradition. You refer to "What the
Spirit is doing now", as if that is somehow different from what the Spirit has done in the past. That may be, but the Spirit cannot contradict what He has done in the past. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever." The Spirit Whom, we Traditionalist Christians affirm, has led the Church into all truth has not suddenly changed His mind. Women were never ordained as presbyters or bishops among the early Churches, and that, for us, settles the argument. "Heretic" is a hard word, one that I'm not quite willing to assign. Nonetheless, the essence of heresy is the insistence that one can pick and choose among dogmas of the Church. Refering to an earlier comment on this thread, one can, but one may not, if one wishes to be within the Church. You write thoughtful posts, but some things are not up for negotiation, no matter how thoughtful one may be.

[Patrick]

Scott, I thank you for the kind reply. I agree that the Spirit has not changed his mind. I disagree the Church has always excelled in grasping what the Spirit has always been doing. We are an imperfect people and have not yet found the fullness of God in the Church. Hence our rather spotty history.

My point is not to ever say the Spirit contradicts. Rather my point at each point is to suggest maybe we have missed aspects and it is worthwhile to look again.

The Spirit did not contradict when Gentiles were allowed full communion within the body of Christ, as Gentiles. Yet, some interpretations suggested this was the case, hence the various comments in the Scriptures.

Some things are not up for negotiation. I absolutely agree with this. I would say these are contained in the creed we all recite. Outside of this, even if deep and traditional, I suggest we can have a conversation. Some would rather this topic be in that category and I still dispute whether this is the case. However, my disputing should likely have ended two or three posts ago.

I also would like to apologize if in my having this conversation I have offended anyone or caused dismay. I think I drifted into arguing when my goal all along was to explore this issue in what I thought was a safe forum. Coming from the background I do I may not have realized areas of deep sensitivity, and should have backed off instead of pressing. I believe in what I say, but I do not believe I was right to cause offense. Please forgive me.

[Jenna]

If I may comment on Scott Walker's post, as one who has been following this thread but not commenting, Patrick's reiteration in his various posts of the phrase "what the Spirit's doing now" has disturbed me, too. Quite frankly, the source of my discomfort is the fact that the ECUSA has used the phrase over and over as their justification for consecrating Gene Robinson, for blessing same-sex marriages and for ordaining openly homosexualist clergymen.

Since that phrase appears nowhere in the New Testament - at least not to my knowledge - I assume that you are all applying Isaiah 43:19 to the circumstances you defend. I appeal to the other gentlemen who have commented on this thread (if you're still reading it) for an exegesis and application of that verse. Shouldn't it be applied much more narrowly? Doesn't it refer to the return of Israel from its Babylonian captivity, and, eschatalogically to the Way of salvation for spiritual Israel, that is, Christ?

Just asking.

[GL]

Patrick,

The Spirit did not contradict when Gentiles were allowed full communion within the body of Christ, as Gentiles.

I have restrained myself on your past mention of this as if this proves that the Spirit changes for reason revealed below. That Gentiles would be included in God's plan for salvation was foretold early on and repeatedly in the Old Testament writings. This was not some new revelation in the 1st century A.D. See, e.g., Genesis 22:17-18, Isaiah 11:10, Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah 60:3, Malachi 1:11. "What the Spirit's doing now" does not and cannot contradict what the Spirit has done in the past. Later revelation threw new light on older revelation, but it never contradicted it.

True, the Church had to resolve the issue of circumcision. It resolved it without taking a poll of all "Christians" or having each congregation voting on it or having Paul set up the Church of the Uncircumcised as an alternative down the street from the Church of the Circumcised. Frankly, as a Protestant, the way it was resolved creates a lot of problems for me -- they had a council and Peter announced the decision to which, apparently, everyone submitted. Over the past two years, my meditations on that event have caused me not a few questions about Christ's intended polity for the Church.

Our times and the times of our more recent ancestors have been filled with "new workings of the Spirit" that have been proclaimed by self-identified "prophets" whose "prophesies" just happened to coincide with the tone of the secular culture in which they lived. Following these prophets has led to disaster.

While I disagree with Stuart's argument that Paul's prohibitory injunctions against women as teachers of and authorities over men apply only to priest and bishops, his repeated insistent that we Protestants have already gutted much of the pastoral office does have some merit. It is in essence the same argument that is made by some that Christian acceptance of contraception and divorce has already gutted the sacredness of marriage, leaving us impotent to resist the call for same-sex and polygamous marriages.

Patrick, your arguments have given me yet another reason to contemplate crossing the Tiber or the Bosporus because they are the same arguments that have brought Protestantism to the sorry state in which we are today. "By their fruits you shall know them." If the Catholics and Orthodox didn't have significant contemporary problems of their own, I might well have already left Protestantism. Patrick, you are not helping me resist the urge.

[Scott Walker]

GL, swim on over. The water's fine on the Bosporus. One point of clarification: if you're referring to the Council of Jerusalem in your post above, it was actually St. James, acting as the Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, who had the final and decisive word. (Acts 15: 1-21) Regarding "what the Spirit is doing today", a few months ago my wife and I yielded to a shameful impulse and spent a few horrified minutes watching the alleged prophetess Juanita Bynum performing her act on TBN. The point of her rant, as best we could determine, was that the Spirit was going to be doing something so new and different in these latter days that most believers would completely miss it. What occurred to us both was that one could not devise a better way to soften up an audience for the introduction of the most egregious heresies, such as is, in fact, happening right now among pursuers of the novel in the ECUSA, the UCC and, alas, my former confession, the ELCA. (TBN, "The Blasphemy Network", is, of course, the premier dispenser of heresy among self-described "Bible believing" Christians.) We have been deeply distrustful of "what the Spirit is doing now" ever since.