Replies

Keep in mind not only was this posted in 2005, but it was written in ‘48, a very different ecclesiastical world.

Today, we have bigger fish to fry and yes, a biblically faithful woman, seems better, than an biblically wishy-washy man. I’m sure Lewis didn’t dream of sodomists arguing that their perversions are morally good. So compared to the homosexual issue, the issue of women as priests seems to be small potatoes....but they are related, even if not of the same level.

The current crises is one of authority. Who or what determines what our ethics should be? Pop psychology? The ethics of the university, or Hollywood? Some “authority” telling us how to live in the Church? 450 years ago after a muddled time of great corruption in the church, scripture itself was seen as the final arbiter of truth, the final authority.

This is not to say Tradition, that is the sum of interpretation, practice and belief which came before in the Church, or Reason—probably best termed “common sense” are to be ignored, they are authoritative too...just not the final word.

Your experience of a good woman priest, is your experience—anecdotal evidence. When we as a church want to determine corporately what is right, we look at these 3 in order: 1. Scripture, 2. Tradition, 3. Common sense or Reason. When those 3 all seem to agree, it’s something to pay attention to.

Your personal experience falls under the Reason category, or, perhaps something like personal tradition (or experience). It has some weight, but not final weight. One can easily find homosexuals for example, who will tell you how much their ‘partner’ helped them learn to love the Lord.... That’s their “experience.” So what though, it’s biased, and that by sin—how can someone living in a way the bible calls an abomination tell us anything about loving the Lord? Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying a woman priest is equal in wrong-ness to a homosexual one...but the issue is, do we weigh our experience by scripture (corporate Tradition and Reason) or do we just say, “if it works it must be right.”??? For a while the Germans were winning WWII and murdering Jews too—the final solution appeared to “work” for them....but of course that didn’t prove it right. I know I know, extreme examples, but, I’m just trying to drive a point home.

I don’t doubt that a godly woman was able to help you. However, IN THE LONG TERM, FOR EVERYONE, is having women specifically in the office of priesthood good for the Church?

Scripture doesn’t ever show us women ministers. The 12 disciples were men, not women—even though the gospels make clear Jesus had plenty of godly women following Him. The apostle Paul makes pointed remarks about women teaching and being in authority over men...saying it’s not the practice of the churches, and not something he recommends. Are we smarter now than St. Paul? Specific requirements given for Church leadership in the New Testament ALWAYS show them to be men. Are women to minister at all? Of course, but in different ways than leadership over the whole of the Church, men and women.

The Church for 2000 years in belief practice and interpretation, Tradition, has not had women leading men. Why does this generation think they are smarter than ALL those past? Does scripture compel them? No. It’s simply modernist secular philosophy, infecting the church, even among “conservatives.”

As for an argument from Reason, C. S. Lewis gives the best one above. It can only be dismissed, not refuted...see our ex-Freeper neuter-feminist above.

My only point is, we cannot let our personal experience guide us contrary to Scripture, Tradition and Reason. God is not a pragmatist, and He expects us to trust Him, not our own experience or notions on how to best live.

You know, I used to think that way too.

We did have one female priest in the ECUSA parish I used to belong to that was a very good preacher, decent counselor, pretty straight up person. But when push came to shove she sided with the homosexual lobby in ECUSA - there turned out to be a not-so-secret agreement between the feminists and Integrity, "we'll support women's ordination if you'll support homosexual ordination", and she went right along. So much for integrity (the virtue, not the lobbying group).

But her competence turned out to be the exception that proves the rule. Our former parish was the diocesan training parish - so that for the 28 years we were in that parish every woman ordained in the Diocese of Atlanta went through a training rotation of 6 months to a year in our parish. So I had the opportunity to see a wide ranging sample of female priests.

With that ONE exception, they were unfit to serve. Couldn't do the work, couldn't lead, couldn't build a team, couldn't reach a decision. Why were they all so unfit? Lots of different reasons -- but perhaps the major one was that most of them got into the ministry business for all the wrong reasons. Doctrinaire feminism, trying to escape neurosis and other mental problems, trying to make a political point. And then there were the ones that had set out to "shock civilization into common sense" (a crib from Kipling) and MAKE the church accept female priests. And THEN there was the mean short-haired lesbian who brought her "partner" to church socials . . . they DID let her go, that was over the top back in the late 90s.

I began as a well-intentioned young person with the idea that women ought to be able to do whatever they want. But my very negative experience with all these female priests led me to rethink the idea.