For all you Piskies out there – what do you think will be the future of conservative Anglicanism in America? +Duncan and +Iker are both fine, godly bishops, yet +Pittsburgh is pro WO and +FW is anti-WO.

Warriors were scarce, they were scarce in Israel; until you arose, Deborah, until you arose as a motherly protector in Israel. (Judges 5:7)

Women are allowed to take glory over men.

[Deborah says] “However, there will be no glory for you in the course you are taking, for then the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman” (Judges 4:8-9)

I have heard some to say that God chose Deborah to shame men into shaping up. Who says God isn’t trying to do the very same thing today? [Well, I suppose I would, because I don't believe in a God who controls anyone's destiny. But I refer to the beliefs of the Christian community.] God very well may be leading women to take roles of leadership as he so clearly has in the past.

The misogyny of a few past (imperfectly human) leaders should not set an unalterable precedent of denying women equal chance to grow toward their full potential. Even in an extreme patriarchy, women are not all denied the right to lead. Why should we be less accepting of women’s spiritual gifts of leadership than they?

I would say – maybe the interpretation is inaccurate of what Paul is saying then – if the interpretations of Paul by church doctrine make God seem illogical. Or maybe Paul is being illogical?

The question I raised about faith and law is very poignant to the way one thinks through their faith walk – and you answered it with “There is no reason following from the bare fact of imputation”. No reason? How can anyone choose to follow a teaching in the faith without a reason? I think the imputation idea has to be false if this is the reasoning behind it.

I point to the idea Paul is making a point about law and faith – that when he mentions law he mentions our actions of lawlessness (immorality) and we functioned in that – and that when we move to faith – we move to enacting to intents of the law of God (morality). It is way easier a way to look at the role of faith in one’s life – Paul, in my opinion, makes it very hard to undestand his 1st century rhetoric – thus we get a theology of imputation (which has no place in Jewish thought).

“According to Gill it refers to Gen 3:16″ (Yurka)

Genesis 3:16 “Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

The point is from ‘he will rule over you’ – which says nothing about a church leadership whatsoever – we have to imply that is what it means there. And this, this is not a law either from the Mosaic Law.

Also, if Gentiles are free from the law – they are more than definitely are free from this in the kingdom of God. Since this is a curse – not a blessing – and all curses are to be broken in the Christ and in our living out of the kingdom of God. So this is not even the highest standard from God – this is a curse that can be alleviated ‘here and now’. I am pretty sure if we can alleviate the problems with child-birth we can do a much easier job with the idea of woman leadership (or at least co-leadership).

Also the interpretation of that passage about a woman’s desire being for her husband and he will rule over her – well this could be about relationships and nothing more (emotional attachment). How is it we see that as even being about a woman being a leader – not like Moses didn’t have Miriam as a type of leader…or Ruth…Esther…Mary…all these women lead in things men did not – or could not. Even one of the judges was a woman in the book of judges.

It’s very convenient for people to go back to the law on an issue like this – keeping it as a law – but not on so many other things Paul leaves out of his letters. Paul even ‘teaches against the law’ a few times – he teaches people to not eat kosher, to not be circumcised, or to only follow 3 partial laws in Acts 15. I mean, which is it – we following the law or are we allowed to ‘not follow it’? And if not follow it, why are we so stuck on woman leadership when no actual law exists (but a curse).

The Anglicans don’t really seem to have any reason, so it makes sense for them to ordain anyone.

Many Protestants change their theology as often as their shirts, so they don’t have any reason to exclude anyone either.

Other Protestants make a scriptural case for women “not teaching or having authority over a man” and “remaining silent in all the congregations”. Selective reading? Hey! Doesn’t everybody do that? So they have reasons. Maybe not really great ones, but reasons all the same.

Still other Protestants add on tradition or history as part of their reasons for keeping women out of the priesthood. Of course, to me, any Protestant trying to base anything on history is just a crack up.

The Catholics and Orthodox have a long tradition of male only priesthood, and they have their claim to apostolic succession (which is male only), and theyhave interpretations of Scripture based in the Church’s history and majesterium.

Given the massive abandonments of ancient traditions by Catholics in the latter 20th century, I don’t think they have a very good set of legs to stand on. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised to see them cave on female priests and deacons within the next generation or two.

The Orthodox do still hold to ancient traditions and they frankly don’t give a flying fart what the rest of the world thinks. So they won’t be moving on the issue. Of course they also have one more element to add.

For the Orthodox, iconography is of paramount importance, and any servant at the altar represents, in some degree, Christ. Since he was a man, only a man can be a Christ icon. For a woman to be there would be like painting a picture of Jesus as a woman. It would just be flat wrong in fact, history, you name it. So from this perspective too the Orthodox have their reasons for male only priesthood and they won’t be moving anytime soon (if ever).

The posting was prompted by a report about the situation in the Anglican church, but of course, I would want equality to apply in all of Christendom.

In the article, are you looking for the Anglican church to become more liberal in their acceptance of women in all church offices? or are you looking for all Christian denominations to do so?

I suppose you could argue that the heresy is the main thing, but the decline linked to it is something tangible that is easier to point to.

Personally on the secular level – it certainly seems to me that since women are as intelligent and virtuous as men it is perfectly reasonable to let them preach and teach men, but look at the Episcopal Church. It is led by a woman (a former marine biologist Katharine Jefferts-Schori) which was the fastest declining deomination last year (4%).

when did Christians make decisions based on what was popular to the world?
Good point. The tragedy of American Christianity is that it worships growth over everything else. But the problem in the Episcopal Church goes beyond that. They’ve fallen into gross doctrinal error (relating to inclusivism, human sexuality and the nature of God).

The fact Paul points to a law about ‘women not speaking’ that neither of us can find
According to Gill it refers to Gen 3:16: http://freegrace.net/gill/1_Corinthians/1_Corinthians_14.htm

re: 1 Co 7:25. Paul is always careful to state (as you note) when he is speaking in ‘this-is-my-opinion’ mode. Therefore the default mode is divine inspiration, which is why we should obey 1 Ti 2:12 as divinely inspired and *not* subject to questioning.