Author Topic: The Ordination of Women  (Read 28725 times)

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17024
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #255 on: December 19, 2010, 10:05:52 PM »
As usual, I question the usefulness of the phrase "defense of the male pastorate". It is not, nor has it ever been, a defensive position. It is simply the shape of the Christian religion, which itself is the proper shape of humanity.

Peter:

Peter, I would respectfully ask you to think through the above statements. 

For most of Church history, the idea that women not serve as pastors fell into the same category as women not being physicians, lawyers, university professors, etc.
Actually, I have been the one maintaining all along that the movement to ordain women is premised on the women's rights movement and sexual revolution, with women becoming pastors following the same logic as women becoming lawyers, etc. But when I point out the suspicious chronological coincidence, people tell me, no, the move to ordain women is a purely theological thing independent of secular feminism.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42667
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #256 on: December 20, 2010, 12:35:02 AM »
Actually, I have been the one maintaining all along that the movement to ordain women is premised on the women's rights movement and sexual revolution, with women becoming pastors following the same logic as women becoming lawyers, etc. But when I point out the suspicious chronological coincidence, people tell me, no, the move to ordain women is a purely theological thing independent of secular feminism.

While your argument might have some merit in regards to mainline ordinations, there were female evangelists and church leaders long before the woman's rights movement. I quickly think of Aimee Semple McPherson, Kathryn Kuhlman, Mary Baker Eddy, and I'm sure that there are many others.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Erma S. Wolf

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #257 on: December 20, 2010, 01:35:04 AM »

While your argument might have some merit in regards to mainline ordinations, there were female evangelists and church leaders long before the woman's rights movement. I quickly think of Aimee Semple McPherson, Kathryn Kuhlman, Mary Baker Eddy, and I'm sure that there are many others.

 ::)


Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #258 on: December 20, 2010, 03:48:26 AM »
Ann Hutchinson, in colonial days; the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 04:15:55 AM by Charles_Austin »

Erma S. Wolf

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #259 on: December 20, 2010, 09:21:23 AM »
Ann Hutchinson, in colonial days; the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.

OK, Charles, I'll give you Ann Hutchinson.  But just when do you and Brian think the movement for women's rights began?

(I think to claim that any of those women named from either the twentieth or the nineteenth centuries were unaffected by the movement for women's rights is very problematic.  And the movement for women's rights encompassed much more than the right to vote, which actually was seen as a means to an end.)

 

Team Hesse

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #260 on: December 20, 2010, 09:30:15 AM »
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42667
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #261 on: December 20, 2010, 09:32:13 AM »
Ann Hutchinson, in colonial days; the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.

OK, Charles, I'll give you Ann Hutchinson.  But just when do you and Brian think the movement for women's rights began?

I have just been enlightened. The first woman's right convention was held in 1848; with a national convention in 1850.

However, I think that Peter's use of "secular feminism" points more specifically to the second wave of the woman's rights movement in the 1960's.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42667
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #262 on: December 20, 2010, 09:34:33 AM »
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Mary Magdalene is referred to as "the apostle to the apostles" by Bernard of Clairvaux.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Erma S. Wolf

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #263 on: December 20, 2010, 09:56:43 AM »
Ann Hutchinson, in colonial days; the women "prophets" of the pentecostal and charismatic groupings of the early 20th Century.

OK, Charles, I'll give you Ann Hutchinson.  But just when do you and Brian think the movement for women's rights began?

I have just been enlightened. The first woman's right convention was held in 1848; with a national convention in 1850.

However, I think that Peter's use of "secular feminism" points more specifically to the second wave of the woman's rights movement in the 1960's.

The movement for women's rights has gone through a number of "waves"; and a distinction must be made between the movement beginning in the late 1950's that crested in the early 1970's, and the one that emerged in the mid-to-late eighties and continues to affect us today.  All of these waves are related to one another, but there are critical differences.  This last wave is one that I take great objection to, as I think it has gone in a direction that, among other things, rejects the basic teachings of Christianity and draws its strength from ancient (but very much alive and kicking) heresies. 

(And Brian, you might want to look up Mary Wollstonecroft, the mother of Mary Shelley.  Interesting anticedents to the "modern" women's rights movement.)

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #264 on: December 20, 2010, 09:59:19 AM »
Erma writes:
OK, Charles, I'll give you Ann Hutchinson.  But just when do you and Brian think the movement for women's rights began?

I comment:
Don't know about what Pastor Stoffregen thinks on this, but I tend to wonder whether the "movement" began long long ago in a galaxy far away, maybe the first time a woman was "sold" as a bride, maybe as Hildegard of Bingen sought to exercise her vocation, or Teresa of Avila began writing letters to the pope, or when Jean d'Arc put on armor and rallied her troops, when Quaker women began leading the movement for abolition of slavery or, and or, and or....

Let's go w-a-y back and consider the time when, in Lysistrata, Aristophanes gave the women of Greece leadership of a "movement" to use free their womanliness from male domination and use it to end war.

Maybe even the Blessed Virgin Mary took the Word of God spoken to her as her own "movement" to accept a situation and a role probably denied to her by her society.

To attribute a "woman's movement" only to secular concerns of the sixties is simply a ruse to make it easier for some theological types to dismiss its importance.

Erma S. Wolf

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #265 on: December 20, 2010, 10:12:29 AM »

Maybe even the Blessed Virgin Mary took the Word of God spoken to her as her own "movement" to accept a situation and a role probably denied to her by her society.

Not sure I agree with you altogether on this.  But I am personally convinced that the proper translation in Luke for Mary's reply to the angel Gabriel is that she is "the servant of the Lord"; and that in this she (and the evangelist St. Luke) are intentionally echoing the prophet Isaiah in his "servant-songs." 

And while I obviously disagree with my brothers and sisters in the Missouri Synod on the matter of ordination, I believe that one of the most powerful prophetic statements was made silently by the woman in the Gospel of Mark (and Matthew) who poured the perfumed oil over the head of Jesus right before his Passion.  As Samuel and the other prophets of old, she was declaring him the Anointed One by her act, which spoke louder than words for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. 

Scott6

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #266 on: December 20, 2010, 11:27:00 AM »
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou

The OHM didn't exist during Deborah's and Huldah's time, while Junia -- whether she is actually termed an apostle or simply well-known among the apostles doesn't matter much -- could easily have been one of a large groups of apostles that were just what the term means.  I.e., sent one.  The early Christian churches (and Jewish synagogues) sent people carrying messages to other churches (and synagogues) in order to communicate with them.  The apostle was essentially a letter-carrier and did not necessarily have any particular authority other than to deliver the letters.  Sorta like an ancient pony express.  ;)

Timotheus Verinus

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2340
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #267 on: December 20, 2010, 01:04:11 PM »
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou

The OHM didn't exist during Deborah's and Huldah's time, while Junia -- whether she is actually termed an apostle or simply well-known among the apostles doesn't matter much -- could easily have been one of a large groups of apostles that were just what the term means.  I.e., sent one.  The early Christian churches (and Jewish synagogues) sent people carrying messages to other churches (and synagogues) in order to communicate with them.  The apostle was essentially a letter-carrier and did not necessarily have any particular authority other than to deliver the letters.  Sorta like an ancient pony express.  ;)

I might choose to speak to Deborah later, but I do note that I love the text in 2nd Kings for its rich pearls of verses.

" 2 [Josiah] did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left." and 13 “Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” and 19 Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people... and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the LORD. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your ancestors, and you will be buried in peace.   All this on the proclamation of a woman. Josiah just simply sought the heart of God.

Some thoughts from one who does still say scripture teaches only some men should be called for the Pastoral Office. Yet we cannot simply base this in human construct and structure that denies the plain description of faithful women's service, such that the scriptural examples are tossed aside.

"not turning aside to the right or to the left." He was blessed to stay out of ditches... because his heart was responsive and he repented, when he heard what God had spoken. I don't know about you, but, Oh that I could have that on my tombstone! ... buried in peace, gathered to my ancestors..

TV
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 01:19:27 PM by TVerinus »
TAALC Pastor

James Gustafson

  • Guest
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #268 on: December 20, 2010, 01:21:23 PM »
The more important question to me is , what about Deborah, Huldah, or Junias? Even Chrysystom refers to the last as apostle in his writings.

Lou

The OHM didn't exist during Deborah's and Huldah's time, while Junia -- whether she is actually termed an apostle or simply well-known among the apostles doesn't matter much -- could easily have been one of a large groups of apostles that were just what the term means.  I.e., sent one.  The early Christian churches (and Jewish synagogues) sent people carrying messages to other churches (and synagogues) in order to communicate with them.  The apostle was essentially a letter-carrier and did not necessarily have any particular authority other than to deliver the letters.  Sorta like an ancient pony express.  ;)


Oooh, jeez, I'm dealing with just Junia here, but this is a hard one I think.  Yes, AND no, not a completely comprehensive answer I think.    ???

I think the oral tradition was enhanced via the letters and writings, which were carried back and forth, and especially while the authors yet lived the carrier (s) would be expected to be able to answer questions about the letters being carried or the authors who spoke/wrote them.  To carry and deliver the written word would also lead to the expectation of being able to answer question about the letters, would it not? Such questions as "what are they referring to when they said..." or, "what was their mood, how happy or upset when they said this here", or just plain old questions about general health and expectations and travel plans etc.   Additionally, it's hard for me to imagine that the letters wouldn't have been read aloud many times, perhaps at every house that had Christians in it when the carrier stopped along the way, so they would be memorized by repetition by the carriers by default even if not by requirement.   So no, I don't think its completely fair to assume the letter carriers were simply pony express carriers.  A simple mail carrier who wouldn't even know what was in the envelopes, a non-Christian wouldn't have been expected to carry the letters, or so I think.  The oral tradition kept the words of the original spoken word alive, the letters were necessary for endurance when the authors began to die off.  So clearly, I'm referring only to very early tradition, but the period of time the Junia should belong to.  

Am I mistaken?  If Junia carried letters regularly I suspect she would by necessity be a source of public knowledge, a.k.a., a teacher of the gospel. I can't prove this, but what do you think, does the material support such an outlook in your opinion?  If so, what does that tell us about Junia?

There's so little to work with here, I'm afraid of coming to rock solid answers with so much speculation involved.  :-\
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 01:25:58 PM by James Gustafson »

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17024
    • View Profile
Re: The Ordination of Women
« Reply #269 on: December 20, 2010, 02:26:08 PM »
Why do people offer examples of women who weren't pastors as proof that women can be pastors?