The Ongoing Divisiveness of Women's Ordination

The issue of women's ordination is a topic that received Touchstone's attention many year ago. It has received very little of late, perhaps in part because we've said enough about it and because it has ceased to be an issue in certain circles--most denominations have gone one way or the other with it and things have settled down as the debate has cooled. But the embers are flaring up again as some Anglicans who have left the Episcopal Church (or have been shown the door) are coming together to form the Anglican Church in North America. Among the dissenters and re-formers, there is no one mind on the issue of ordaining women to the priesthood.  Discussions, like this one at TitusOneNine, are taking place in cyberspace and real meeting places. It's not an issue that admits of accepting both positions, such as, say whether an Orthodox congregation favors pews or not.

I wrote this rather long-winded editorial back in 1992 about women's ordination. At one point I wrote about what an observer from the future might see (like you, reader, in 2009?):

Our observer would also report a major cultural change in how we value people. Despite our rhetoric, we value people mostly by their function in society and not their creation in the image of God. We value people on the basis of what they own and what they do. So, our observer might note, to deny a women employment in the pastoral office is clearly to deny one of the positions valued in our society and to make her a second-class citizen. Having a meaningful function is the chief road to self-fulfillment, rather than simply being a good person—achieved by submission to and formation by the Holy Spirit of God. The ordination of women then becomes inevitable not by the weight of theology but by the pressure of the surrounding culture. Indeed, much of the language surrounding claims to the pastoral office is not that of biblical service but of personal “rights” and self-fulfillment.

The observer from the future might also note that the roles based on familial relationships—mother, father, wife, husband—along with the labor they require, have been devalued, even sneered at, while society values profoundly impersonal work—science, finance, engineering—which are based on data. It does not matter whether you are a man or women to work with this neutral data. Even positions with a more personal element to them, such as counseling, amount to diagnosing specific problems defined by the research of social scientists. Literature and art, once the expression of what is human, are thought of as the publishing or movie “industries” and are strictly business. Whatever is corporate is impersonal and functional. And so with the pastor of the franchise church. Since he is no longer a “father” to his flock, a woman pastor need not be a “mother” to hers. The pastorate is now unisex, governed more by modern social sciences than by patriarchal Scriptures.

When we establish a unisex pastorate by essentially denying significance to the male-female nature of humanity, we have done more than simply bring the secular “equal opportunity” ethos into the sanctuary of the Church. We have paved the way for chaos. If there is no created orderliness to sexuality and sexual roles, then indeed we not only may—but must—bless same sex “marriages.” Children can be raised by lesbian “couples.” And denial of the pastorate to homosexuals is indefensible.

Such is the environment in which we find ourselves debating the issue of women’s ordination.

That was 1992. If you want to read more of what Touchstone published, and better than what I wrote, here is S. M. Hutchens on "God, Gender, and the Pastoral Office" from 1992.

Comments

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

The On-going Divisiveness of Women's Ordination

may be largely fueled by what the previous blog post titled,

"Here Lies Feminist 'Scholarship'".

And based on the content and substance of your post, perhaps it could be simply retitled:

Feminist "Scholarship" Lies.

[Christopher Hathaway]

In truth, not much real discussion takes place at T19 because of their strict controls on comments and banning practice. But if there is still some conflict over there you can imagine what it is like where people are free to speak their minds.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I'd like to give a shout out to the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee for doing the following:

"The Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee recommended in a unanimous vote Monday afternoon that the denomination cease its relationship with Broadway Baptist Church, a Fort Worth, Texas, congregation that has been the source of controversy over its stance on homosexuality.

At issue is whether the church is in violation of Article III of the SBC Constitution, which states that churches "which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior" are not in friendly cooperation. Broadway Baptist has approximately five open homosexual members, including two male couples, according to church leaders. Some of the homosexuals serve on church committees.

The issue with Broadway Baptist, though, is over a church allowing members who are homosexual and unrepentant.

"If churches are ministering to homosexuals, they are doing nothing more than what our own convention's task force has asked us to do," Wilson told Baptist Press. "But in Broadway's case … the church was in effect saying that it was OK to have members who are open homosexuals."

But Wilson said the church's actions ran counter to what it claimed in the letter.

"[I]t was more from what they were actually doing in practice where the conflict was," Wilson said. "While they didn't officially endorse it, they were allowing members and also people in leadership that were homosexual."

Excerpted from: Southern Baptist EC recommends ceasing relationship with church over homosexuality.

[mcmoderator]

Comments by trolls, and responses to those, will be deleted. Give the moderators time to act, and don't feed the trolls.

[mcmoderator]

From the ground rules:

"Disagreements with a moderator's deletion of a comment, or with these site rules, should be sent by e-mail to the editor. Comments posted that argue such matters will be deleted."

[Karen]

As is always the case with mainstream "complementarians," your article never defines masculine and feminine. What, precisely, do women lack that makes us unfit for public roles? Please describe precisely what you think women should allowed to do in life?

[Christopher Hathaway]

Karen, I think the definitions of masculine and feminine are quite simple. Masculine means male, and feminine means female. As far as what the woman lacks; she lacks the quality of being a man. Your question seems to assume that the world is ordered by the things we do rather than what we are. We complimentarians see the division between man and woman as a fundamental order within creation. What we do as men and women flow from that order, not the other way around.

I think women should be allowed to do whatever they are capable of doing that did not erase the distinction between the sexes, which really means that separation of the sexes is an important thing to preserve in many areas, rather than something to be destroyed. In practical terms the list of what they shouldn't do is very, very small.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Chris, don't forget the list of things women can do that men can't. Be mothers, for example. It was not a man that God chose to be the human parent of the Second Person of the Trinity. Once Karen starts to explore the full meaning of that, she might have taken a step toward understanding complementarian theology -- and the Fatherhood of God.

[Wolf Paul]

As a "conservative Evangelical with catholic tendencies" I agree with Christopher Hathaway that women should be allowed to do almost anything in the public square.

I have little problem with women in leadership in secular institutions, and even in the church I think the only "male preserves" should be eldership and the ordained ministry, because that clearly seems to be warranted by Scripture.

I even have little problem with women teaching theology, even to men, because I think that the Corinthian passage about women keeping silence in the church has a fairly narrow context. As long as a woman is teaching under the authority of the elders I see no problem -- and even men teaching in the church must be under the authority of the elders.

[bonobo]

What, precisely, do women lack that makes us unfit for public roles?

I'm sure I don't know: ask a Catherine of Sien or a Teresa of Avila. Would these spouses of Christ have taken a demotion to become a minister of His instead? Now that would have been a public disgrace...

[Karen]

The only aspects of motherhood that men can't perform are pregnancy and lactation, an ability women share with every other member of the order of placental mammals. So, how is something I share with rats a particularly important gift from God? (Please note that I am only discussing biology here; the parts of childrearing that involve actual interaction with actual humans can be done by both men and women, and are uniquely rewarding.)

[Benighted Savage]

I attended a lecture given by the feminist Alison Jaggar in the mid-80s. One proposal she made was that in order to get men more involved in the child-rearing process, they should be given injections to force them to lactate. I guess she thought that nursing was key to the child-parent bond; my memory isn't that clear. What is clear to me is that among some feminists there is no clear-cut distinction between biology -- or the body -- and behavior, even social behavior. Perhaps some feminists are less "gnostic" than others.

As for me, the fact that I have an "actual" body with a determinate sex is a very important aspect of God's gifting me with existence.

[Karen]

Benighted Savage, you're probably NOT using one of the bodies that for two thousand years been deemed defective because it isn't male.

As for the alleged feminist who believes lactation is the only way to make men engage in child care, well, in the 1980's there were a lot of stupid ideas. Also, anyone can call herself a feminist, but the test is whether she believes that women are as human as men are, and are entitled to the same rights and privileges. I would guess this woman did not believe that.

[Kamilla]

Ah, yes, trust a feminist to show how much they value women by comparing them to rodents. Such ploys never fail to bore, do they?

Karen,

"cans", "rights", "privileges" -- that's the wrong starting place. The question is not "can" a man lactate. The question is not "can" a woman run a country (or a church). For crying out loud, you can stick a fork in an electrical outlet any time you want. But should you?

If you start with questions like, "What can a woman do?", "What about my rights?", "Why can't I have that privilege?" you are never going to be happy with God's answers. However, if you recognize that you come before God naked, without any rights or privileges, asking, "What would you have me do?", "How shall I be in this world?", saying, "Though you slay me, yet shall I serve you". Well, then, you might be surprised at the answer but you won't go away angry.

Kamilla

[Michael]

So, how is something I share with rats a particularly important gift from God?

You have the gift of sight and the gift of hearing. Other mammals have intercourse, just as we do. You share LIFE with every other creature on Earth along with the plants...

And you're pondering how because something is not exclusively human it's not a gift? There's no point in answering this question, because no answer will be the right one.

[Benighted Savage]

"Benighted Savage, you're probably NOT using one of the bodies that for two thousand years been deemed defective because it isn't male."

I'm not an Aristotelian, if that's what you mean.

As for me, I am my body. "I" am no more apart from my body than "I" am from my conscious self. It's not a tool, or something I use and discard. It's me: a package deal, and one that I'm quite thankful for.

[Karen]

Complementarianism insists on a permanent hierarchy, where the lower classes are lower because of an accident of birth. My objection to permanent hierarchies lies in the aphorism "crap rolls downhill." So long as you're in the lower position, you will always suffer more crap. None of you seem to understand that. Why do women deserve more crap in life than men do?

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

None of us seem to understand it, Karen, because there is nothing to understand. You have confused "different" with "higher" and "lower." There is nothing "lower" about women's gifts or roles. Men are commanded to sacrificial service, not arrogance and harshness. I'm sorry if you've met men who did not understand that, but it is the truth nonetheless. And if "permanent hierarchies" distress you, then what are you to make of the fact that you live in a Universe which is ordered as a permanent hierarchy? Does crap flow downhill from God?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Karen: "My objection to permanent hierarchies lies in the aphorism "crap rolls downhill." So long as you're in the lower position, you will always suffer more crap. None of you seem to understand that."

Satan had the same objection to permanent hierarchies.

[Michael D. Harmon]

If you think of it as "rank," Cyranorox, you don't understand it, either. Christ outranked everyone in the Upper Room, and yet He washed their feet. When you understand that, you will understand what we are saying here. He was still God, and they were still His creations, so their relative positions in God's order weren't changed by His action. What changed was the relationship between "higher" and "lower." Your comments show no appreciation for either His created order or His example of how to live in it without denying its forms and functions. It's not "either-or," it's "both-and." God showed us we are not diminished by service, we are exalted by it -- both men and women, in their ordained spheres. That many of us -- specifically many men -- do not live up to this standard and even abuse it doesn't mean the standard needs to be replaced by spurious and deceptive (and politically inspired) notions of "equality" that exist neither in Nature nor in the divine economy.

[Margaret]

If the first shall be last and the last, first, Christian women should jump for joy--if we are indeed "last" by simple fact of our victimized sex. Where would be room for resentment?

[Kamilla]

Uhm, excuse me, Cyranorox.

See, this is the only reason I post. Because otherwise someone might make the mistake of taking your claims seriously.

If mine is a "low" rank, I glory in it. For my low rank required the same sacrifice any "high" rank did. Is there anyting else I need to know about my worth?

Kamilla

[Kamilla]

I've finally figured out what Karen's and CyranoRox's *arguments* remind me of. Does anyone remember the part of the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy series where Ford and Arthur encounter the Golgafrinchans? Remember how they were the *low* service people?

And does anyone remember what happened to the home world after they sent off all their service folks to *start* life on a new planet ahead of them?

Kamilla

[Kamilla]

Cyranorox,

You misunderstand me. I did *not* compare you and Karen to fictional aliens.

As for the rest of your post, it's already been answered.

Kamilla

[Karen]

As others have said, God isn't human, and in human hierarchies, crap is unavoidable. If males, by virtue of being born with a Y chromosome and androgen receptors, always have authority over females who weren't so very lucky, then a large majority of those men will misuse their authority. You, and all complementarians, assume the ideal is the typical. It is not and never will be, and the only way to prevent misuse of authority is to strictly limit its writ.

[TimC]

Cyranorox,

I had a hard time parsing your last post, but it looks to me like you are suggesting that the relationship between male and female is a function of "our society." I think it is fair to say that those of us who are complementarians disagree. We believe that our stations and responsibilities as men and women are part of the created order. They aren't socially constructed. Apparently you (and Karen) believe differently. Fine. Then make that argument. So far all that I can decipher from the contrary posts here is that you aren't happy about the way things are. (Guess what? Even complementarians don't always like the way things are!) What I don't hear is any critical engagement with the foundational argument. If man and woman are complementary beings by design from God, then our happiness or unhappiness really doesn't make much never-mind. Angst ain't an argument.

[Kamilla]

Karen,

You said, "You, and all complementarians, assume the ideal is the typical."

Though I prefer the term patriarchalist, I'll dare to speak for complementarians as well - we assume nothing of the sort. In fact, I would dare to say very few of us think it is either *ideal* or *typical*. But it is commanded of us. So we, however imperfectly, obey.

Kamilla

[Christopher Hathaway]

As others have said, God isn't human

Others don'tunderstand the Inacarnation.

[Karen]

Men and women are designed by God. What that means at this point in this world is by no means certain. I don't believe that God designed women in such a way that we can't use our reason and exercise authority. You do think that. You may not assign the word "inferior" to women's functions, but that doesn't mean those functions aren't actually inferior. You don't believe mothers deserve high-paying jobs, or that fathers should cook and clean. If you think that's permissible, you've certainly never said it. I want to know specifically what actions, jobs, or behaviors are permitted to women.

Let's refer to another example from the Bible -- slaves and masters. Do you believe that some men are designed by God to be the property of other men? The Bible assumes slavery, and St. Paul on several occasions commands slaves to be obedient to their masters. In late Antiquity, the economy was such that slavery was going to exist and escaped slaves would most likely have starved to death. Does that mean they enjoyed being slaves? Modern society, however, does not accept slavery and in fact puts people in prison for enslaving people. Why should the relationship between master and servant change from late antiquity but the relationship between men and women stay there?

[Kamilla]

Karen,

Absolutely nothing you've written here, in your response posted at 5:18:35 pm is true.

Nothing.

Kamilla

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Kamilla,

I know that Karen is militant, but the first sentence that she wrote, "Men and women are designed by God" is true.

Calm down sister.

[Rob G]

"the only way to prevent misuse of authority is to strictly limit its writ."

There's some truth in that, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying; your approach is more along the lines of "the only way to preven misuse of authority is to get rid of the concept altogether."

For a sane, common sense defense of the necessity of hierarchy, see Wendell Berry's book "Standing By Words."

The argument is simply that unjust hierarchies, or abuse of hierarchy, doesn't, and literally can't, negate the concept. Hierarchy in creation is a given, Berry argues -- something which cannot be gotten around. When its proper manifestations are squelched, it will of necessity reappear in less "proper" versions.

[Benighted Savage]

"Let's refer to another example from the Bible -- slaves and masters. Do you believe that some men are designed by God to be the property of other men?"

This sounds more like Aristotle of the _Politics_ and the _Ethics_, not the OT or NT.

"The Bible assumes slavery, and St. Paul on several occasions commands slaves to be obedient to their masters."

I believe it is "servants" that are being commanded to obey their masters, at least in 1 Peter 2. Is that what you are referring to? And it's for the benefit of the servants, not the masters. Read within the context of the whole chapter, I don't think that the meaning is as narrow as you argue it is.

"Why should the relationship between master and servant change from late antiquity but the relationship between men and women stay there?"

Perhaps because in terms of Christian anthropology, theology, etc. the relationship between man and woman is more essential than the relationship between (or even the earthly existence of) master and slave. Not to mention that "master and slave" is not exhaustive of hierarchy in society. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Cyranorox, you use the word "roles" as if they were parts in a play. But they are ontological, not assumed due to societal expectations. That's feminist thinking, not Christian thinking. I must fulfill the "role" of a man because I AM a man, and that role is proper to my God-designed purpose. I may do so well or poorly, or both at different times, but God's purpose doesn't change and isn't affected by how well I fulfill it. I don't want to place "social pressure" on others to fulfill their roles, I merely believe that people will be happiest/most productive/most fulfilled if they do. There is no coercion in religion. Do what you will. But don't think that your choice is the same as God's, or that faithful churches should accept the advice ("bow to the will of") those whose understanding of God's economy is less than complete and who are clearly not in submission to it. No, we will not.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

CyranoRox: "The question is, how to live out such hierarchy as exists in a world where there is neither slave nor master, male nor female, in Christ; where the myrrhbearers cast away the ancestral curse."

The question is, aren't you a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and isn't there a hierarchy in your church whereby the priests are ordained men only? And this existence has worked very well for many centuries, if I'm not mistaken.

Or do you protest against this patriarchy in the Eastern Orthodox Church also?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

The question is, aren't you, CyranoRox, a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and isn't there a hierarchy in your church whereby the priests are ordained men only? And this existence has worked very well for many centuries, if I'm not mistaken.

Or do you protest against this patriarchy in the Eastern Orthodox Church also?

[Rob G]

"if you have to impose [the true role], as men generally on women generally, or as conservatives on the populace..."

Both of these examples are inaccurate, IMO, but if we presume they are correct for the sake of argument, is the solution then to have the feminists and liberals (which are really the same animal) impose their version of the "roles" on the unwilling?

It seems to me that this in fact has been the goal of humanist modernism (i.e., progressivism, or liberalism, as it's known today) since at least the time of the French Revolution. In short, it's the attempt of rebellious man to knock God off his throne and climb up there himself. True Christianity should have no truck with it.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

I make no apologies for my comments, Cyranorox. If you have some beliefs or agenda you have not stated, you are responsible for withholding it. And if you don't want your comments criticized in the light of the Vincentian Canon or the long-held teachings of the historic church, this is the wrong board for you to be on.

[TimC]

Cyranorox,

No one here is "imposing" anything on anyone. We are proposing that the ideal ordering of men and women under God requires a recognition of innate and created differences. These differences lead to the attribution of particular responsibilities to each sex, especially within the church.

Have there been "imposers" of this view throughout history? Undoubtedly. But I challenge you to find any comment here that can be so construed when interpreted straightforwardly. You are beating a straw man.

You seem to think (I have noticed this in several threads on this blog) that advancing an argument for what is the right ordering of society is the same as imposing it on everyone. In other words, we can offer no counsel to those who are living contrary to the knowledge we have received from God. But this a peculiar view, particularly for one who identifies as a Christian. If in fact, we (the Church) have personal access to the Logos and if this Logos is as universal as we believe, it would be utter dereliction of duty to watch the world continue to order itself toward evil and say nothing. We must go on proposing what is true, and we begin with getting our own house in order with regard to the boundaries of ordained ministry.

[Benighted Savage]

"Except, of course, the idea that liberals are animals; or rather, we can agree that conservatives and liberals are the same animal."

You're right if you mean by this that conservatives and liberals, however these shibboleths are defined, agree that there should be LAWS that FORCEFULLY encourage and maintain order in society. Anarchists, even liberal ones, are a pretty rare critter. Just ask the folks who got on Notre Dame property when they were protesting Pres. Obama's recent visit.

Where many Christian conservatives would differ would be in the source of positive law: as much as possible it should be natural law, which in itself is derived from divine (and ultimately eternal) law. NOT from phantasmata of the liberal imagination.

[TimC]

OK, so I guess if (1) we are in complete agreement and (2) I was simply restating what everyone else has been saying in this thread, then (3) you agree with the majority of the commenters here. Meaning, apparently, that you just like to agitate people you agree with. That's nice.

As for your comment about liberals being animals, you'll have to clue me in to where that came from. Was that comment directed toward Karen for comparing women to rats? Or is that just another straw man?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Priesthood is an area which was previously the domain of only men. It is now an area of “equal opportunity” in many Christian Churches. The Eastern Orthodox Church or Ekklesia however, remains resolute in its stance on the issue of priesthood and allows only males to become ordained as per its interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and Holy Traditions. The Holy Scriptures which were Divinely inspired writings and Holy Tradition which was an oral transmission of Divine Truth, are for the adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Ekklesia, nothing less than the Revelation of the Triune Godhead.

...

No one person is considered to be superior to another or have a greater role or function to fulfill. In 1 Corinthians 12 : 25, we see the reason for the Ekklesia : “that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another”. Even Jesus Christ as the Head of the Ekklesia which is His body serves: “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22 : 27). Every believer has to mould his/her life to conform with God’s Word and must work out his/her “own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2 : 12). God desires that mankind including both men and women must be saved and to this end: “you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3 : 28). Men and women have very distinct responsibilities within the Ekklesia. Contrary to what many believe, the woman’s role and function is no less than the man’s but it is clearly different. Men are called to lead worship according to Paul : “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling” (1 Timothy 2 : 8). Women on the other hand are ordered to keep silent and are not permitted to have authority over men or to teach (1 Timothy 2 : 9 – 12). The Ekklesia has faithfully maintained this tradition in terms of priesthood and it is attested to in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Christ clearly chose those whom He willed (Mark 3 : 13 – 14; John 6 :70). He did so in conjunction with the Paraclete and God the Father (Acts 1 : 2) after intense prayer (Luke 6 : 12). Male priests became intimately associated with the mission of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Logos (Mark 16 : 14 – 15). The Apostles also prayed before selecting and appointing their assistants (1 Timothy 3 : 1 – 13 ; 2 Timothy 1: 6).

Consequently modern-day priests, as the successors of the Apostles, share in the priestly office and not women. No women were among the Twelve Apostles or amongst their successors. This was a contrast to what was occurring in other early religions however, where the idea of priestesses was not uncommon in the Levant. In Rome one would come into contact with the Vestal Virgins while in Delphi there was an oracle served by priestesses. In the early Church women were not denied priesthood because of sexism or chauvinism but by the plan of the Triune Godhead.

Excerpted from THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH.

Read it all, particularly those who are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

CyranoRox: "There is room for women who have chosen the better part, men who make themselves eunuchs, and a bouquet of variant roles, without departing from God's will. The Fathers mention several women who lived as men, or even monks, in holiness."

As my comment above references, there is NO room for women to be ordained as priests in the Eastern Orthodox Church. If it did happen, many EO's would say that the EO Church is departing from God's will.

Incidentally, I don't know of any Early Church Fathers ordaining women to the priesthood. God's design: Biblical Patriarchy.

[TimC]

"::....the feminists and liberals (which are really the same animal)::"
Whoops! I missed that. Point granted.

"::another:: straw man? but there was no prior one."
:-)

[Margaret]

"Rank is real. The relationship is properly eros toward those above, agape toward those below"

Oh my goodness. We owe Monica such an apology.

[Steve Nicoloso]

In response to Michael Gauvreau's examination of Catholicism in Quebec, Fr. Richard Neuhaus penned:

The Catholic Action renewal proceeded, as Gauvreau writes, “from a negative reference point: the values of previous generations could offer no guidance or salvation for young Catholics confronted with the pressures and challenges of modern society.” Many bishops and priests ardently supported this youthful demand for an “authentic” Catholicism. The leaders of Catholic Action believed themselves to be fervently Catholic in seeking a more genuine form of lay Catholicism. The male leaders who dominated Catholic Action were disdainful of “feminized” popular piety and devotions centered on the family and extended families of parish communities. They were inspired also by the 1930 encyclical, Casti Connubii, which places a new emphasis on the spiritual and sexual dimensions of marriage. An enormously popular marriage-preparation program was launched that promoted a “sanctification of sex,” strongly favoring the nuclear family and mutual satisfaction over ­traditional familial patterns. Marriage was elevated over celibacy, and it was urged that the clergy had little to say about how the faith should be lived in the real world. The new approach was described as “personalist,” in contrast to the cultural and routine Catholicism of the past...

With the support of the more influential clergy, it was proposed that there are two Catholicisms: “one authentic, heroic, spiritually pure, communitarian, appealing to masculine reason, and the other routine, sentimental, unthinking, overly pious, excessively individualistic, appealing primarily to women and the less educated.”

That movement, now senile (or dead), to make North American Catholicism more "relevant", has of course had precisely the opposite effect: the Church has become more feminized than ever thought possible. And those priests who once fretted over old biddies saying the Rosary instead of listening to homilies or reading their Bibles, who demanded a more muscular, masculine, and rational Church, are the very same ones who are now positively embarrassed at the Catholic Church's lack of (and inability to perform, thank God) Womyn's Ordination, who lead the irrational charge to Bowdlerize the hymnbooks (and liturgy where they can get away with it) of male pronouns. And far from having fought clericalism, they have entrenched themselves in the positions of power to preserve their adolescent, self-loathing ideations.

I'll take ol' biddies praying the Rosary any day over this... tho' I'd prefer a muscular Catholicism, that isn't embarrassed about itself.

Is there any denomination that permits WO who can show anything but a decline in membership? Hip-n-relevant, indeed!

[Benighted Savage]

"Timc, your clue
::....the feminists and liberals (which are really the same animal)::

::another:: straw man? but there was no prior one."

????????????

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Steve Nicoloso: "Is there any denomination that permits WO who can show anything but a decline in membership? Hip-n-relevant, indeed!"

I'm firmly against WO as many regulars know, but to answer the question honestly, the answer is "Yes."

Here are some of the ones that I'm aware of that do ordain women and have not (as of yet) declined in membership:

Assemblies of God (pentecostals)
Willow Creek churches
Nazarene churches
Evangelical Covenant churches

[Bill R]

"Evangelical Covenant churches"

I'm quite familiar with the Evangelical Covenant churches in Southern California. I have yet to see one with an ordained woman pastor. If it is permitted, I suspect most congregations are opposed to it. Also keep in mind that many evangelical churches, such as the Covenant, have local autonomy and are not bound by what the denomination determines. I know that's the case with the local Covenant church where I live, which expressly does not permit female pastors.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

ECC probably gives churches local autonomy.

From the ECC website page titled: "2006 Resolution on Women and Ministry":

In 2006, the Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC) celebrates the 90th anniversary of Women Ministries and the 30th anniversary of the denomination’s decision to go on record as affirming the ordination of women. It is the joint recommendation of the ECC Christian Action Commission and the ECC Commission on Biblical Gender Equality to fully affirm Christ’s call to all women to present, share, and use all their gifts to further his kingdom.

Declaration

“The Evangelical Covenant Church affirms women in all ministry and leadership positions within the church, both lay and clergy. We believe that the biblical basis for service in the body of Christ is giftedness, a call from God, and godly character—not gender.”

Response

Through his life, death and resurrection, Jesus Christ has given us a new way of relating to one another, as well as to God. Therefore, we ask each man and woman to listen for God’s call, and to accept and act on his and her giftedness, in order to fulfill God’s purpose for his or her life. We also ask each congregation to welcome and provide opportunities for the cultivation of each man’s and woman’s gifts, so that the body might grow into the fullness of Christ.

To this end, we call on all members and friends of the Evangelical Covenant Church to welcome:

■women and men as senior pastors, associate pastors and staff ministers;
■women and men candidates equally by all pastoral search committees;
■women and men to preach;
■women and men lead worship services, including prayer;
■women and men serve communion;
■women and men serve on church councils and boards;
■women and men serve as church chairpersons, elders, overseers, and deacons;
■women and men teach all ages and sexes;
■women and men into opportunities to use their gifts as they explore God’s call in their lives.

[Bill R]

"To this end, we call on all members and friends of the Evangelical Covenant Church to welcome:..."

They may call, but no one locally is answering! ;-)

[Rob G]

The Assemblies of God have been ordaining women for years, but their rationale for doing so is not based on theological liberalism or secular radical egalitarianism. Still, you seldom see a female senior pastor; the church I grew up in had a woman assistant pastor (she was the music director and youth leader), but virtually all the churches that I knew of had men as senior pastors.

In any case one should differentiate between those denominations which ordain women based on feminist ideology and other sub-Christian anthropologies and those that do it for other reasons.

[Kristor]

Karen & CyranoRox:

It's not about this world, or who has what amount of power in this world. It's not about you, and what you deserve, and did or did not receive. It's not "the dwarves for the dwarves." To worry about whether you got more for your day's labor than the men hired for just the last hour, is to miss the feast altogether.

Karen, it is just this that you do, in complaining that childbearing and lactation are no better than what cows and sows get. Who do you think you are, to get something better than what cows and sows get? You should be so lucky, to have been graced with mammalian dignity - and that, not because you are worthy, but only because you are beloved. And who are you, to spit upon life itself, just because your particular little life doesn't come with a mitre? Thank God you have a life; thank God you have been spared the mitre. Anyone who wants the office is ipso facto unfit for it. If you seek the priesthood for the perquisites and honor of the position, then it is not priesthood you seek.

The thing is that in the economy of the world, there is absolutely no free lunch. The authority of the priest, like the authority of the mother, is fully bought and paid for. It exacts a price.

Besides, if you think it's bad now, just wait. Very soon - far sooner than you think - not only will your civil rights be taken away from you, but everything else will, too. Like it or not, you will take up your cross, and carry it to the place where you will be nailed upon it, there to die in agony and bloody sweat. There is no choice about that. The only choice you have is in how you will bear it. You will pay the same full price that everyone pays. What will you buy with that price?

“Set your affection on heavenly things, and not on earthly things; for ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ, in God.”

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"The October 2005 issue of Toronto based Catholic Insight magazine contains a detailed report on two recent Catholic women’s ordination conferences. The insider account reveals that the internationally publicized ‘ordination’ events were more a front for a wider agenda to grab power and insert acceptance of homosexuality, abortion and a New Age type of anti-Christian religion into Catholic institutions.
The Catholic Insight article, The ‘ordination’ of ‘womenpriests’ by Donna O'Conner-Hunnisett, especially relates the content of various talks given by speakers at the second Women’s Ordination Conference which took place at Ottawa’s Carleton University. The conference concluded with the so-called ordination of four “priestesses” and five “deaconesses” on the St. Lawrence River which was heavily reported by the world media. What was excluded from almost all reports was the bizarre, militant, anti-Christian background to the movement as revealed at the Ottawa conference and a previous, similar conference in Dublin in 2001.

O'Conner-Hunnisett writes that she was greeted at the registration desk by two women who identified themselves as “lesbian, pro-choice Catholics, and said they would have to consult Joanna Manning” (a well known lesbian, pro-abortion activist) about letting her into the conference.

Some of the main speakers were noted to be Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, who writes extensively on feminist biblical interpretation and Rosemary Radford Ruether, whose writings include Integrating Ecofeminism and Goddesses and the Divine Feminine. Ruether discussed her valued position on the board of “Catholics for a Free Choice.”

There was also Mary Hunt, a feminist theologian, co-founder of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual, USA, and a lesbian.

Joanna Manning’s talk was titled Erotic Justice: Commitment to Personal and Global Transformation. O'Conner-Hunnisett writes that Manning’s talk “was full of liberal, sexual, and New-Age concepts. Trinity is ‘mother, Lord within us’; and the best experience of God is found in mutual sexual relationships. Christian teaching ‘is frozen into frigidity by fear of sex.’ We need gays and lesbians – it is ‘a unique way, the creative energy of God.”’

The writer says “there were many more delegates in Ottawa, both lay and religious, who openly identified themselves as gay and lesbian. The topic of diverse and free sexual lifestyles permeated most aspects of the conference, and formed part of their vision of a new all-inclusive Catholic Church, which would also allow for abortion, contraception and a non-celibate women priesthood.”"

Excerpted from: Women's ordination groups all about power, free sex, abortion, New Age religion....

[Margaret]

Kristor--beautifully expressed.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Kristor,

Have you seen this story by Time Magazine called What's So Wrong With Being Selfish?

Excerpt: "Women should be allowed to care about pleasing ourselves -- and only ourselves -- without being judged. What is wrong with a woman being selfish? Really. Think about it for a second. Why shouldn't we be selfish if it means we're meeting our own needs and taking care of ourselves? What's wrong with caring more about bringing pleasure to your own life than anything else? It should not be as controversial as it apparently is for women to think of themselves first if they are not hurting anyone. Reasonable people agree a woman should make herself happy, but why do these people suddenly because so unreasonable when those women say it would make her happy to just focus on herself?"

[Kristor]

Truth Unites:

Mark well what I asked Karen. I asked her what she would buy with the price of her life. What would she have her life be about? I.e., when she thinks about what she most wants in life, for herself, what is it? When she thinks about what is most dear to her, what she values most, and what is the best way for her to take care of herself, what is it that she should be doing? Chasing power and perquisites? Or serving humbly, anonymously,and worshiping in secret?