Tuesday, June 30, 2015

women clergy bad idea even if biblical

I won't make the biblical and historical case for women's
ordination. some others have done this, in some cases
flawed in other cases well. I agree with this picture, but
I oppose ordaining women. why?

Something can be biblically allowable but not a good
idea in a given context. Even if a woman priest were
doctrinally orthodox, even a traditionalist old calendar
no pews etc. priest or even bishop, even if she had the
mind of a man (as 1800s critics of women speaking in
public said some really sharp woman had), even if she
was of perfect virtue and humility, was post menopausal
so no disruption of service by periods or childbirth
and   40  days after that could occur,  there is one major
problem. the fact that she is female, and the message
this sends.

The move towards women's ordination has been primarily
one of moving with cultural trends that infect the church.
The typical seeker or recipient of ordination in the
protestant/evangelical and now episcopal scene, argues
for and satisfies the desires of those who think in terms
of, political and gender representation reasons.

A woman priest who does NOT think in these terms
is going to have to constantly denounce them and make
the case for her role instead of focusing on the Gospel
and lives of saints as examples for us and so forth,
because her presence in the altar is catering to such
feelings, and seeming to be a triumph of them.

Because of the packaging of women's rights with all
kinds of wickedness, such as "sexual freedom" that
no man should have either in fact fornication by a man
is a sin that was subject to penance in ancient times
and St. Paul said was grounds for what would later
be called excommunication. Now the idea is, that
the double standard is wrong (it is) and that women
should be as free to be sluts as men are sluts (no,
men should be forced to be chaste, by various legal,
ecclesiastical and social measures). Abortion is
another issue packaged as "women's rights" and
somehow the perverts get their rights listed as women's
rights because the female of the  pervert crew, the
lesbian, and the male to female transgender (who
is really just a eunuch and a fraud) are women, so
their "rights" or "issues" that wouldn't be an issue
if they weren't perverts, becomes "women's issues"
just because they are women.

So a woman priest  would be supporting all this
that she opposed (if she opposed it), because the public
mindset packages all these together.

Until this packaging can be broken up, and they are
all seen as they are, SEPARATE ISSUES, a woman
should not be ordained. this though done because of
her value in that role  for NOT her "feminine
qualities" but her priestly or episcopal quality,  what
is modernism and reverse sexism and lesbian and
abortion "rights" and the tired old capitalism vs.
Marxism argument can even be dragged into the mind
of the person observing her, when in fact these things
are both frauds.

So I do not support female ordination. Not only does
this send a wrong message even unintentionally, by
doing so it strengthens those who would modernize
things even more and gradually doctrine is chipped
away at. This is not inherently one package, but since
it is often presented this way, with gender neutral bible
translations for instance, and other things which perhaps
originated as an effort to add to the ranks of a movement,
the presence of female clergy regardless of what they
teach, gives a support to this kind of thinking, and the
next ordained woman may not be of priestly or
episcopal quality and may be shaky on doctrine and
down the road it is heresy.

This is SOLELY because of the social and political
context that any such female ordination would occur
in, if it happened today. Not because women inherently
bring this and that with them, but because  the mindset
around them does package them together.  Thus
loosening doctrine may be a situation some women
may find more helpful to get ordained in.  but in an
orthodox doctrinal scene, her presence giving an okay
to the  incoherent mentality of most people (it seems),
would make it easier to undermine doctrine later.


  1. No case from the Bible or Orthodox tradition can be made for the ordination of women. The former is what I will discuss in this post. Before I proceed, please note, that a truly regenerate Christian has the highest regard for the God-inspired Scriptures. St. Paul said that all Scripture is inspired (2 Tim.3:16). In the sacred Scriptures, we see that all elders were males, and needed to be the husband of one wife (1Tim. 3:2). Elder was a position of authority, and women were not "to usurp authority over the man" (1Tim. 2:12). The prohibition is not based on culture, but on the order of creation (1Cor.11:3) and on the nature of the Godhead. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." Women differ only in function, not in nature, redemptive status, or spiritual gifting.

  2. have or usurp authority is a special term not used anywhere else in the NT authentein, in regular Greek use (outside the Bible) it has violent and even obscene connotations. If women differ that much in function, why would God place Deborah (a prophet so hearing directly from Him) over all Israel as judge, which is an authority like king and a teacher?

    The FACT that Laodicea Council said presbitydes or female presidents (which Justin Martyr shows is the term for what later became called a priest) were not to be appointed any more, but nothing about anything they had done needing to be redone because not valid, nor any declaration rendering them invalid.

    Indeed I have the highest regard for the Scriptures and that means I don't limit myself to just one or two verses on a subject I did for ALL the information in the Bible about it whatever it is. This is what the Fathers did also, they had to to defend or had done so already that they were able to defend against arian and gnostic mishandling of Scripture.

    Paul addressed Priscilla BEFORE her husband as often as the more usual vice versa. THEY not Aquila only took Apollos and taught him when he was preaching with inadequate information. The issues Paul raises here are telling.

    a. if woman is formed second and is to learn from man THEN HER MODEL IN ALL THINGS IS MAN. she must ultimately become manlike (not androgynous just get rid of the cowardly, gullible, approval hungering etc. etc. "femininity" be a fake guys don't like this and that dishonesty that characterizes "feminine" nature).

    Despite the example of the amazons and some other women warriors, including apparently at times in the Byzantine military since St. John Chrysostom denounced them letting women bear arms, Augustine couldn't wrap his head around the biblical view of woman as COMPANION of man. the only thing she could possibly be a help regarding was reproduction. in all other matters only another man is a proper companion for a man. UNLESS Eve was a lot more of a tomboy than you would think. "help meet" is ezer neged, a helper of the equal partner sort who is like unto him, face to face implication of neged can mean opposition or man to man sort of thing.

    b. the deceived issue, she was not tricked into thinking the fruit was a different fruit that wasn't forbidden like someone presented a drink they don't know has poison in it, she was tricked by a line of talk and thought she didn't challenge. NOTHING MEN HAVEN'T ALSO DONE. most if not all heresies began with a MALE clergyman of some rank or other. And drew lots of priests and monks and bishops. Eve was too sure of herself and once inclined toward something didn't stop and think twice.


  3. Basically, if woman want to keep Eve's headstrong ambitious and too sure of herself qualities, they can keep her curse as well.

    what was her curse? that her longing better translated recourse would be to her man, and as a result he would rule over her. This got more extensively played out in various lands at various times. Apparently her fertility was increased making more days inconvenienced. The Hebrew reads that her CONCEPTION as well as her pain would be increased. probably originally she only ovulated once a year like most mammals.

    Where did Paul address this? to the Ephesians, who had a background in false goddess worship, a city founded by an amazon general, and hysterical and ecstatic practices. The use of the word authentein makes me suspect that something like the psychological dynamic though not the acting out of sado masochism bondage and discipline with its dominators and submissives was in play. A lot of women who were not the least bit worthy of the honor and status they might aim at might well play on the city's background and the weird dynamics of some relationships which can operate outside those relationships.

    BUT IN ANOTHER EPISTLE PAUL SAYS WE ARE TO GROW UP AS A CHURCH INTO OUR HEAD WHO IS CHRIST, we cannot truly do so since He is God as well as man, and He is King and we are not. The woman can grow up into her model the man and become like him in a way the Christian cannot become like Christ, for in the human situation all players are strictly human. THERE IS ONE MODEL FOR BOTH SEXES, A MALE, JESUS CHRIST.

    the comparison of marriage to the church's relationship to Christ again is a pulling of the fangs of patriarchal sexism, turning the usual roles of the sexes upside down, so that per paul the man is nurturant and supportive of the woman, instead of her the dominated servant whose only goal in life is to be to serve him and get his approval.

    One could argue that if the laws and property and money situation were such that men were under the control of women, women should treat them as Christ treats the church. the central issue is that like telling masters to be good to servants or get judged by God for it since God is no respecter of persons (double standards per social rank) and parents to not drive children to despair.

  4. You didn't engage the clear and explicit instructions articulated by St. Paul prohibiting the ordination of women. When studying the Bible, is is important that we interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. St. Paul is clear that women are not to be pastors or to usurp authority over the man, and he appealed to the order of creation, for why this is not to occur. I will now respond to some of your comments.

    YOU SAID: have or usurp authority is a special term not used anywhere else in the NT.

    MY RESPONSE: Even if true, it's irrelevant. All it takes for a teaching to be true, is for it to be stated only once.

    YOU SAID: why would God place Deborah (a prophet so hearing directly from Him) over all Israel as judge, which is an authority like king and a teacher?

    MY RESPONSE: Christians interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. No one denies that there were female prophets in the Old Testament, and even in the New Testament. But when it comes to Church structure and order, St. Paul states clearly that women cannot be pastors.

    YOU SAID: I don't limit myself to just one or two verses on a subject.

    MY RESPONSE: All it takes for a concept to be true, is for it to be mentioned one time in the Bible. The Bible doesn't teach that something must be stated more than once in order to be true. St. Paul is explicitly clear, and historically he Church has understood him to be clear.

    YOU SAID: Paul addressed Priscilla BEFORE her husband as often as the more usual vice versa.

    MY RESPONSE: Even if true, it doesn't prove that women can be priests, bishops or pastors. Again, you need to engage St. Paul's explicit teaching. Also, there are some passages which mention Aquila before Priscilla. (See Acts 18:2; Acts 18:26; 1 Corinthians 16:19).

    YOU SAID: most if not all heresies began with a MALE clergyman of some rank or other.

    MY RESPONSE: Even if true, it's irrelevant. But I would remind you of the modern heresies of Theosophy (founded by Helen Blavatsky), Christian Science (Ellen White), Spiritualism (the Fox sisters).


    You need to engage St. Paul's very clear and explicit teaching on the subject.

    1. everything I said engaged those clear teaching. re read. and that special term is NOT irrelevant because otherwise a normal term would have been used. it pointed to something other than normal authority role at the very least comparable to what Jesus said was not to be done by men either, that the gentiles rulers lord it over them but it is not to be so with you.

      the later heretics you mention such as Eddy and White were not in the firstseveral centuries when all the great heresies that these are only shadows and retreads of some of which were developed.

      I already said that Aquila was mentioned before Priscilla, that she was mentioned first as often as he was. that the church was in THEIR house. that BOTH of them taught Apollos.

      Deborah was NOT JUST A PROPHET she was the RULER. that's what a judge is. as such being also prophet she would have been the teacher of Israel during her reign.

      Finally, when Jesus denounces the false prophetess Jezebel in Revelation, He does not address the issue of her femaleness but of what she taught and that they allowed her to teach this. He did not remind them they shouldn't allow any woman to teach.

      As I have said I AM AGAINST FEMALE ORDINATION BECAUSE IT IS MORE TROUBLE THAN IT IS WORTH. Some of Paul's clear one time statements are generalities that may be modified such as all should stay in the state they were in when they became Christian, if unmarried (divorced or never married) remain single if married don't seek to become unmarried. Obviously this is not an absolute. EvenPaul remarks that to avoid fornication everyone should have their own spouse, this to people converted from a wild city who would not have been virgins or not divorced maybe several times already.

      The fact remains, that for the most part women are that abnormalilty called "feminine" whichis more deplorable (and the result of encouraging in this direction) than the typical flaws of men, until they learn from their proper model, men, righteous men that is, they are not fit to lead

    2. https://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2013/05/council-of-laodicea-proves-women-were.html