Ordain a Lady

[Matthias]

“Founded in 1975, the Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC) is a grass-roots driven movement that promotes activism, dialogue, and prayerful witness to call for women’s ordination and gender equity in the Roman Catholic Church.”

This is a music video the WOC produced for the cause.

The lyric which caught my attention: ”Don’t listen to Saint Paul, ’Cuz I can lead the way.”

Setting aside that this a Roman Catholic fight, it is an issue that has come up and continues to come up in Protestant circles.

”Don’t listen to Saint Paul” is an argument which I don’t find persuasive.

Can that hurdle be cleared using scripture?

 

[Matthias]

“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

(Luke 10:16, NABRE)

Don’t listen to Paul?

If Paul wasn’t sent by Jesus then that is a reasonable argument.

But if Paul was sent by Jesus, don’t listen to Paul?

The New Testament - if it is to be believed (and I firmly believe that it is) - informs us unequivocally that Paul was sent by Jesus.

Don’t listen to Paul = reject Paul. (Red flag)

Reject Paul = reject Jesus - who sent Paul. (Red flag waving vigorously)

Reject Jesus = reject God - who sent Jesus. (Sound the loudest alarm possible)

Not everyone will agree with this analysis, but that is the way I view it.

This is the hurdle that I don’t see a biblical way to clear - but just because I don’t see a biblical way to clear the hurdle doesn’t necessarily mean that such a way doesn’t exist. In fact, there is one passage of scripture in particular (1 Peter 2:5-9) that has been put to me by those advocating the ordination of women as priests, but I’m not at the moment persuaded that it does.

Does Peter contradict Paul? Is the teaching of Paul reconcilable with the teaching of Peter?

 

[Dan Clarkston]

”Don’t listen to Saint Paul” is an argument which I don’t find persuasive.

The devil deceived them in to not understanding that the Lord is the one teaching thru Paul and other biblical writers.

So theses people are being led of the devil seeing they are in opposition to the Word of the Lord just like their father the devil and this goes not only for catholics but for the reformers as well.

 

[Matthias]

The devil deceived them in to not understanding that the Lord is the one teaching thru Paul and other biblical writers.

So theses people are being led of the devil seeing they are in opposition to the Word of the Lord just like their father the devil and this goes not only for catholics but for the reformers as well.

“Don’t listen to Paul” should be a non sequitur for those who hold the Bible as authoritative.

If that argument is removed from the “ordain a lady” movement and replaced with “the priesthood of all believers” argument, do you think the movement would have a solid biblical claim to validity?

 

[Dan Clarkston]

If that argument is removed from the “ordain a lady” movement and replaced with “the priesthood of all believers” argument, do you think the movement would have a solid biblical claim to validity?

No because they are catholics who follow false doctrine as do all catholics

 

[Matthias]

No because they are catholics who follow false doctrine as do all catholics

“Setting aside that this is a Roman Catholic fight …” - some people won’t be able to do that, but I’ll rephrase the question for those who are able, including perhaps yourself:

If the “they are Roman Catholic” argument is removed from the “ordain a lady” movement - note that some Protestant churches support the movement for female ordination - and replaced with “the priesthood of all believers” argument, is there a biblical case to be made for the ordination of women priests?

 

[Matthias]

@Pancho Frijoles we’ve been discussing the relationship of theology and practice in another thread. In that regard, have you watched the video I posted in the OP?

If you have, what is the fruit you see displayed in it?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

@Pancho Frijoles we’ve been discussing the relationship of theology and practice in another thread. In that regard, have you watched the video I posted in the OP?

If you have, what is the fruit you see displayed in it?

Thanks for asking my opinion.
I will share first my overall view of the issue, without the specific reference to "Don't listen to Saint Paul". Then I will include in a second part a view about that specific part of the song lyrics.

Let me start then with the general first impression:

I don't see with clarity any fruit displayed there, other than some degree of joy... which I hope to be sincere... and I choose to believe sincere until proven to be false.
When we are not sure about the quality of the fruit, we wait. We don't condemn. We don't ask people to answer a quiz on Theology as a shortcut. We wait the tree to bear the fruit.

You, Matthias, have mentioned that, by producing a false fruit for a while, Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. Then let's wait. Can we be deceived for a while? Depends on what "deceived" means. If you didn't commit a sin following the advice of a good-looking smiling lady, you have not been deceived. You may end up disappointed, which is a different thing. Disappointment is, indeed, a good thing. It shows you cared about those ladies.

Since I am not a Catholic, I don't feel appropriate to suggest what form of administration of clergy would work better for the Catholic Church. From my non-Catholic perspective, I would wait to see whether female ministry results in more people getting more committed to Christ. If the result of ordaining ladies were an improvement in the righteousness of believers within the church, it would show it was the right thing to do. If not, it wasn't.

 

[Behold]

Can that hurdle be cleared using scripture?

If a woman can "be the Husband of one wife" then she is qualified to be a Pastor., according to Paul's doctrine.
So, a homosexual would say......(Lesbian), """well, im married to my wife" "and we have babies"........ and yet, SURPRISE !!..= a "Husband" is a MALE... and she's not even if she and her "wife", believes it.

And regarding the "culf of Mary"....well, they dont let their Priests have wives, even tho Peter their 1st Pontiff, had a wife.
So, just erase the "cult of Mary".... from the list...all together., when dealing with anything that Paul teaches.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Now, regarding the lyrics "Don't listen to St Paul",
It is obvious to me that these ladies weren't calling believers to stop considering the letters of Paul as inspired by God. Otherwise, they wouldn't care about being ordained in the Catholic Church in the first place.
To me, what they mean is that we shouldn't take Paul's advice on women's role in church (relevant at Paul's time) and apply it to this time literally.

Assuming I am right in my understanding of what they meant, the words chosen for the lyrics were a silly mistake, because it is easy to misunderstand them. However, I could not call it a blasphemy, heresy or the like.

 

[Matthias]

Thanks for asking my opinion.
I will share first my overall view of the issue, without the specific reference to "Don't listen to Saint Paul". Then I will include in a second part a view about that specific part of the song lyrics.

I don't see with clarity any fruit displayed there, other than some degree of joy... which I hope to be sincere.
When we are not sure about the quality of the fruit, we wait. We don't condemn. We don't ask people to answer a quiz on Theology as a shortcut. We wait the tree to bear the fruit.

You, Matthias, have mentioned that, by producing a false fruit for a while, Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. Then let's wait. Can we be deceived for a while? Depends on what "deceived" means. If you didn't commit a sin following the advice of a good-looking smiling lady, you have not been deceived. You may end up disappointed, which is a different thing. Disappointment is, indeed, a good thing. It shows you cared about those ladies.

Since I am not a Catholic, I don't feel appropriate to suggest what form of administration of clergy would work better for the Catholic Church. From my non-Catholic perspective, I would wait to see whether female ministry results in more people getting more committed to Christ. If the result of ordaining ladies were an improvement in the righteousness of believers within the church, it would show it was the right thing to do. If not, it wasn't.

Thank you. That helps me to better understand you.

As for me, I’ve seen and heard enough in the video to convince me that the fruit looks good on the surface, but isn’t. It’s open rebellion. The fruit is a slap in the face to Paul - a work of darkness.

The church that licensed me would see the fruit in the video, apply the principle of “the priesthood of all believers”, close their eyes and ears to what is said about Paul, and pronounce it good - or at least acceptable, and a matter of conscience. I spoke (and still do in retirement) openly and critically against that position.

 

[Matthias]

Now, regarding the lyrics "Don't listen to St Paul",
It is obvious to me that these ladies weren't calling believers to stop considering the letters of Paul as inspired by God. Otherwise, they wouldn't care about being ordained in the Catholic Church in the first place.
To me, what they mean is that we shouldn't take Paul's advice on women's role in church (relevant at Paul's time) and apply it to this time literally.

That could suffice as an accurate description of the church that licensed me and the college that trained me.

Assuming I am right in my understanding of what they meant, the words chosen for the lyrics were a silly mistake, because it is easy to misunderstand them. However, I could not call it a blasphemy, heresy or the like.

It wasn’t a mistake. That has been their message since 1975, as an organization. It began long before the foundation of the organization.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

That could suffice as an accurate description of the church that licensed me and the college that trained me.




It wasn’t a mistake. That has been their message since 1975, as an organization. It began long before the foundation of the organization.

Well, you are in a better position to assess the fruits of this movement or these ladies.
I am not. I just watched the video and told you what I think.

I would ask you, though: Do we share the same understanding of what "fruits" mean in biblical language?
The metaphor of fruits is good because bearing fruit represents 1) the last event of the biological process (before death) and 2) the teleology of the biological process (reproduction). So, fruits are something developed over time, and that represent the main purpose of faith and grace. Being the main purpose of the tree, a decision can be taken to preserve the tree or chop it off based on the quality of the fruits.

The Scripture doesn't present "fruits" as "beliefs". Do you agree with that? There is a well known list of fruits of the Spirit and fruits of the flesh.

So, I hope you are not confusing "fruits" with "beliefs".
If you tell me you have been following the movement, you could provide examples of the bad fruits they are producing.

Otherwise, it is a matter of being right or wrong on these propositions

1. Paul's advice on women's role is still applicable for this time at my church
2. Paul's advice on women's role is not applicable anymore at my church.

Or perhaps on these ones:

1. All recommendations from Paul are applicable to all Christians at all time
2. Not all recommendations from Paul are applicable to all Christians at all time.

 

[Matthias]

Well, you are perhaps in a better position to assess the fruits of this movement or these ladies.
I am not. I just watched the video and told you what I think.

I appreciate that you shared what you think about it with me.

But I would ask you: Do we have the same understanding of what "fruits" are?
The metaphor of fruits is good because bearing fruit represent 1) the last event of the biological process (before death) and 2) the teleology of the biological process (reproduction).
The Scripture doesn't present "fruits" as "beliefs". Do you agree with that? There is a well known list of fruits of the Spirit and fruits of the flesh.

The fruit of the spirit and the flesh is well-defined by Paul. Sound doctrine produces good fruit in those who listen, believe and obey.

So, I expect you are not confusing "fruits" with "beliefs".
If you tell me you have been following the movement, I expect that you can give examples of the bad fruits they are producing.

Otherwise, it is a matter of being right or wrong on any of these propositions

1. Paul's advice on women's role is still applicable for this time at my church
2. Paul's advice on women's role is not applicable anymore at my church.

Or perhaps these ones:

1. All recommendations from Paul are applicable to all Christians at all time
2. Not all recommendations from Paul are applicable to all Christians at all time.

Jesus is sent by Yahweh. Paul is sent by Jesus. Unless Paul states that he is speaking his own thoughts on an issue, he is speaking the thoughts of the Messiah, which are the thoughts of God. The thought is, therefore, the final word on the subject. As a disciple of Jesus, I’m bound by it.

The Church, from my perspective, has often gone beyond that in the post-biblical development of doctrine, as well as in practice.

 

[RedFan]

Jesus is sent by Yahweh. Paul is sent by Jesus. Unless Paul states that he is speaking his own thoughts on an issue, he is speaking the thoughts of the Messiah, which are the thoughts of God. The thought is, therefore, the final word on the subject. As a disciple of Jesus, I’m bound by it.

How can we tell whether, for example, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 ("the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”) is Paul speaking his own thoughts, or Paul speaking from divine revelation?

 

[Matthias]

I was never a Roman Catholic but I was a Protestant @Pancho Frijoles . How would you expect Roman Catholics and Protestants to react when they hear that I was rebaptized after renouncing my former belief in their God? The message is clear to them. Their reaction is, with few exceptions, predictable and understandable.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus is sent by Yahweh. Paul is sent by Jesus. Unless Paul states that he is speaking his own thoughts on an issue, he is speaking the thoughts of the Messiah, which are the thoughts of God. The thought is, therefore, the final word on the subject. As a disciple of Jesus, I’m bound by it.

Still, the fact that a recommendation of Paul is inspired by God, does not mean that is applicable at all times in all circumstances.
It means it is the best recommendation that could have been given for that time and circumstance.

When people asked Jesus why his view on divorce was different from that given my Moses, he answered that Moses' laws were given "because of the hardness of your hearts".

So, there is no way to rule out that Paul's advice on the voice of women at church, along with other social / administrative recommendations, were given "because of the hardness of their hearts".
We have Paul's advice to Timothy (or was it Titus?) on drinking a bit of wine instead of water for a stomach problem. No doctor would give that recommendation today. Paul doesn't explicitly say that such recommendation is out of his own thoughts. I believe it was inspired because it was the best that could be given to that person, given his circumstances

 

[Matthias]

How can we tell whether, for example, 1 Cor. 14:34-35 ("the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”) is Paul speaking his own thoughts, or Paul speaking from divine revelation?

Paul speaks the thoughts of God and Messiah unless he says that he isn’t, which he does on rare occasion. Paul is speaking here the thoughts of Yahweh and Jesus.

 

[Matthias]

Still, the fact that a recommendation of Paul is inspired by God, does not mean that is applicable at all times in all circumstances.

It is to a disciple of Jesus.

It means it is the best recommendation that could have been given for that time and circumstance.

When people asked Jesus why his view on divorce was different from that given my Moses, he answered that Moses' laws were given "because of the hardness of your hearts".

So, there is no way to rule out that Paul's advice on the voice of women at church, along with other social / administrative recommendations, were given "because of the hardness of their hearts".
We have Paul's advice to Timothy (or was it Titus?) on drinking a bit of wine instead of water for a stomach problem. No doctor would give that recommendation today. Paul doesn't explicitly say that such recommendation is out of his own thoughts. I believe it was inspired because it was the best that could be given to that person, given his circumstances

Peter was right when he said that Paul sometimes says things which are difficult to understand. They still carry authority and must be understood properly. It’s easy to manipulate Paul’s words, and destructive. Theorizing about what Paul might or might not say in a situation he hasn’t encountered and addressed is a minefield. What we have is what God in Messiah gave him.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I was never a Roman Catholic but I was a Protestant @Pancho Frijoles . How would you expect Roman Catholics and Protestants to react when they hear that I was rebaptized after renouncing my former belief in their God? The message is clear to them. Their reaction is, with few exceptions, predictable and understandable.

Sure. Your experience resonates with me.
I have been considered apostate 4 times. (Did I already tell you that? If I did, I'm sorry)

First when I was rebaptized as a Seventh Day Adventist after having been baptized a Catholic.
Second when I was rebaptized as a Latter Day Saint (mormon) after having been SDA
Third when I left the Mormon church to become an atheist.
A fourth one I get for the three prior religions when I declared myself a Baha'i. (We make a kind of Shahada).