NationStates Jolt Archive

I remeber I did this on a forum, but I can't remeber if I did it on this one or not. I apologize if I did.

Anyway, how do you feel about it? Are you in favor of ordaining women? Opposed? Unsure? And why do you think that way?

I'm mostly interested about ordination in the Church but opinions about other religions would be interesting, too.

Sorry, I use the term all the time, so I didn't think that some might be unfamiliar with it.
ordain - v. to invest with the functions or office of a minister, priest, rabbi, etc.

Come again?

of course, why not?! i mean, not all of them obviously, just those that want to be.

Come again?

I think it means "Is it ok for women to be religious leaders?"

What is ordaining? :confused:

What is ordaining? :confused:

When a person becomes a catholic priest I think.

personally i have no problem with women becoming ordained in the church

What is ordaining? :confused:

See the edited OP. Sorry for the confusion.

Sure, after all their is mention of female leaders in the early church in the Letters of Paul, so its not like there isn't precedent.

I think it means "Is it ok for women to be religious leaders?"

Umm, this was settled almost a century ago. Most priests I've come in contact with have been women, so...

When a person becomes a catholic priest I think.

not just catholic the term covers all denominations, that i know of.

Umm, this was settled almost a century ago.

but i think it has also been established that some people still have their heads in the dark ages.

not just catholic the term covers all denominations, that i know of.

hmm okay I think your right, well I'm catholic so thats the only place I've ever heard it being used.

Umm, this was settled almost a century ago. Most priests I've come in contact with have been women, so...

Not really. Most Christian denominations refuse to ordain women.

Not really. Most Christian denominations refuse to ordain women.

Well, we who live in the 21st century, we settled it almost a century ago, then.

Umm, this was settled almost a century ago. Most priests I've come in contact with have been women, so...

History always repeats its self. With every thing that is happening the Christian church all over the world, in America especially, are you really all that surprised?

absolutely.

Well, we who live in the 21st century, we settled it almost a century ago, then.

So is that your reason? That it's primitive to insist on gender roles? Or is there more to it?

Umm, this was settled almost a century ago. Most priests I've come in contact with have been women, so...
So your world view is pathetically limited?

History always repeats its self. With every thing that is happening the Christian church all over the world, in America especially, are you really all that surprised?

To tell you the truth, I don't really give a shit about "the Christian church all over the world" as it is completely irrelevant. I read bits and pieces about the Church of Sweden and they seem to be keeping up with the time, and that's all I'll be arsed to pay attention to.

So is that your reason? That it's primitive to insist on gender roles? Or is there more to it?

are you prepared to defend prescribed gender roles then?

So is that your reason? That it's primitive to insist on gender roles? Or is there more to it?

Maybe its asinine to think that just because one is a woman that she can not have a relationship with God and lead others in their faith?

are you prepared to defend prescribed gender roles then?

I never said I supported them.

So your world view is pathetically limited?

By volition. I tend to stay away from priests altogether - too much drama and insanity - but I haven't had a 100% success rate.

Maybe its asinine to think that just because one is a woman that she can not have a relationship with God and lead others in their faith?

I never said that. But why would it be assinine?

The question isn't about capability: the question is "ought?" not "can?"

So is that your reason? That it's primitive to insist on gender roles?

No, it's just plain old stupid...

Or is there more to it?

... nah, mostly the stupidity aspect of it, but then again with religion, that's par for the course.

I never said I supported them.

good good, just checking ;)

good good, just checking ;)

Well, I never said I didn't either. My view is determined, and I'm just taking a survey, not trying to convert on something that I think is not necessary for salvation or a proper understanding of God. I also think that the Bible can be used to support both positions, so I don't demand one way or the other (at least not in the secular crowd ;) )

Well, I never said I didn't either. My view is determined, and I'm just taking a survey, not trying to convert on something that I think is not necessary for salvation or a proper understanding of God. I also think that the Bible can be used to support both positions, so I don't demand one way or the other (at least not in the secular crowd ;) )

well i'm not prepared to get into a fight , i need to go to bed, so we'll just leave it at that shall we?

It's none of my business who a religious organisation decides to invest office in, seeing as I have no ties with any religious organisation.

I think of religious organisations as private clubs, if their policies say something about excluding people from higher posts, then, no matter how pig-headed and ignorant their logic may be I have to accept that it is their choice to make, and not mine.

well i'm not prepared to get into a fight , i need to go to bed, so we'll just leave it at that shall we?

I wasn't trying to get into an argument, which is precisely why I didn't say which view I hold. I'm observing and questioning in this venture, not telling.

Personally I have a tough time seeing a problem with it, but then again, my contact with the Catholic Church is limited to a funeral about four years ago.

It's none of my business who a religious organisation decides to invest office in, seeing as I have no ties with any religious organisation.

I think of religious organisations as private clubs, if their policies say something about excluding people from higher posts, then, no matter how pig-headed and ignorant their logic may be I have to accept that it is their choice to make, and not mine.

so true

but if i am asked my opinion, i often have one even if it is none of my business.

If women (or womyn) are the equals ofmen, then I surely don't see a reason why they shouldn't be ordained like their male counterparts.

I don't see a problem with women acting as preachers.

Although I believe that 'female priests' are impossible as priests are understood in the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Absolutely not because then men would get to become nuns and the whole order of the god-fearing world would be reversed! Satan would take over and society as we know it would crumble in to a repulsive pit of sin!


Besides, aren't womyn less holee than menfolk?


;)

not being a religious person and believing that all people are equal regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or hue it is utterly dispicable that all positions of responsibillity in any society are not allowed to both sexes.


W

Absolutely not because then men would get to become nuns and the whole order of the god-fearing world would be reversed! Satan would take over and society as we know it would crumble in to a repulsive pit of sin!


Besides, aren't womyn less holee than menfolk?


;)

uh......no, we are more holee......I mean we don't have that yucky double purpose urethra.

Personally, I see no problem with women being ordained as ministers/priests. However, I do see a problem with me enforcing my personal views on a private religious organization.

I can't imagine women @#$%ing it up any worse than men have :rolleyes:

Some of the best sermons I've ever heard were given by an ordained female minister. To suggest that women cannot be called to the clergy is pretty ridiculous.

Nowt wrong, in fact can we sue the Catholic church under sexist legislation for not alowing it?

Nowt wrong, in fact can we sue the Catholic church under sexist legislation for not alowing it?

No, you can't sue the church under anti-discrimination legislation any more than you can sue them for not allowing non-Catholics to take communion. Their religion is sexist, and they willingly become members, so the law has nothing to do with it.

I don't see how having a penis makes one more qualified to be clergy, so I see no reason why not.

Women should not be ordained, NEither should men, why? cause religion is evil

Women should not be ordained, NEither should men, why? cause religion is evil

some people believe that evil exists only in the theology of religion.

Women should not be ordained, NEither should men, why? cause religion is evil

Heheh I love this sort of rethoric. I always thought that things like good and evil where purly subjecticive. Is it evil to kill civilians in a war? Or is it evil to use suicde bombers in retaliation for killing civilians?

"Women priests. Great, great. Now there's priests of both sexes I don't listen to."
- Bill Hicks

I definitely think women being ordained would be good for the respective religions, though... but only attractive women. Think of the Church turnouts when it comes time for Vida Guerra to give her sermon on the pros and cons of adultery.

I think women should realise that if they're in relationshipswith old sour sacs of auuthoritarian cum, they're the ones who'll raise the kids & make sure everyone goes to church on time, and simply stop. The outcome?

Lots of little atheist kids, who don't know they're supposed to be assholes to 50% of the human race
Lots of lonely men, sleeping on benches with other lonely men
And very soon thereafter, either lots of closed cult houses, or lots of gay marriages.

Everyone wins.

Ordained women, or not, scripturally it could depend on which translation of the Bible you want to follow:

NIV 1 Timothy 3:1-3
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

NRSV 1 Timothy 3:1-3
The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money.

Notice the lack of gender identifiers in the second version there? Surprisingly enough, it’s the protestant/evangelical NIV that positively reads the scripture as defining the role of leaders in the church as male exclusive and it’s the “acceptable to catholic” teaching NRSV that does not.

On a denominational viewpoint about the question of ordaining women or not, each denominations treats their leadership roles differently and thus obviously they will have different qualifying indicators of who is or is not an acceptable person for their specific titles. As such, one church might have all unmarried males only, right down to even the ushers level of participation, whereas another church might have a same-sex married lesbian bishop leading their region. How are either of those position scripturally supported though? They aren’t.

NIV Titus 1:6-8
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.

NRSV Titus 1:6-8
someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled.

We see here that the position is to be filled by a male in both the NIV and the NRSV, whereas it wasn’t before. But now they both agree that the position of the elder/leader should not only be a male but also married (only once, one wife, not divorced nor polygamous) and of good behaviors, AND they should have children (who are also supposed to be followers or at least well behaved) and the person should be essentially blameless in all of those other aspects as well. I know of no church denomination that actually enforces that. But how can they determine that they will allow this divorcee to be able to do it and that person with their juvenile delinquent child can or that unmarried man can etc., but this woman can not? I do not know. If they follow ALL of the rules for both men and women then neither will I judge their exclusion of women from leadership roles.

Both positons, pro or not women ordination, seem defendable, but the scripture is clear and equally ignored by all sides.

BTW: Just because a women is or is not allowed to govern a church from a position of authority within it, it does not diminish their contribution to the congregation nor dismiss her understanding of theology and scripture and ability to share that understanding in a meaningful way with the rest of her church.

Question: If all divorced people had to resign their positions of authority in their churches, how would that affect the leadership of your church and the churches you are aware of? I suspect significant leadership changes would take place. Most likely for the better, IMO.

What the church does is none of my concern and I really don't have an opinion of who's ranting about hellfire from the pulpit.

What the church does is none of my concern and I really don't have an opinion of who's ranting about hellfire from the pulpit.


Heheh yet you posted to this thread?

Heheh yet you posted to this thread?

It's just like choice. One can choose to not choose, one can be of the opinion that they have no opinion. Nothing wrong with either sentiment, or the expression thereof.

It's just like choice. One can choose to not choose, one can be of the opinion that they have no opinion. Nothing wrong with either sentiment, or the expression thereof.


Granted but thsi poster declares he has no intrest in the church yet posts his comments onto a thread about the church. Sorta says he does have perhaps a smattering of intrest huh, otherwise he would or perhaps she, would have not posted to this thread at all.

Granted but thsi poster declares he has no intrest in the church yet posts his comments onto a thread about the church. Sorta says he does have perhaps a smattering of intrest huh, otherwise he would or perhaps she, would have not posted to this thread at all. It's not a lack of interest, I'm very interested in the path religion goes down, as we should all be so long as it's such a powerful force politically, I simply have no right to tell them how to practice their faith. Live and let live afterall.

Plus polls that lack a "Don't care" option bug me.

As a quick pedantic point, there's a difference between being an ordained priest, being an ordained deacon, and being a church leader.

I don't know many churches that ordain female priests, I'm fairly confident that the Anglican Church is the biggest, and they're certainly not united on the idea!

Most churches ordain female deacons, I think even the Catholic church does, certainly the Anglican church always has, and there's a biblical precedent for it.

And I don't know of any churches that don't accept female church leaders, although there may well be a few.

Don't forget Celtic Christianity, which was reversed: the senior figures in the church heirarchy were female-only posts, and the most senior posts were Abbesses, until Roman Catholicism was brought in to England.

All right, I remember having made a post about this before on another forum.

First, there's the definitive anti-women pastor verse.

1 Timothy 2:12
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

It's possible that Paul means that women in all times an cultures are not to say anything in church or not to have authority over men in terms of teaching and spiritual oversight. That seems to be the conclusion whenhe says Eve, created second, was first to be deceived

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

The difficulty with this view, however, is that elsewhere Paul seems to recognize the authority of certain women who were teaching and evangelizing.

Romans 16:1-3
"I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [Or deaconess] of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. Greet Priscilla [Greek Prisca, a variant of Priscilla] and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus."

Philippians 4:2-3
"I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, [Or loyal Syzygus] help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life."

I think that Paul was simply giving advice here on how Christians could accommodate themselves to imperfect cultural conditions--just as he did when he advised slaves without advocating the institution of slavery.

1 Timothy 6:1-2
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them."

Timothy faced a situation where false teachers (probably church elders) were preying on women--young widows in particular. Restricting their public involvement in church would

1. Dramatically undercut the support of the false teachers and
2. Gain respect for the church in the Ephesian community at large.

Paul wanted to present the Ephesian church in the best possible light so the gospel would have a better chance at being heard in an essentially hostile enviroment. He also wanted women to learn (something denied Jewish and Greek woman) under calm, peaceful conditions. When we understand Paul's "rules" in this context, I, at least, see that he was recommending things that to help the church gain integrity in the community.

Question: If all divorced people had to resign their positions of authority in their churches, how would that affect the leadership of your church and the churches you are aware of? I suspect significant leadership changes would take place. Most likely for the better, IMO.

Yes, it would drastically change the leadership in my church and others. And yes, it would be very much for the better.

Don't forget Celtic Christianity, which was reversed: the senior figures in the church heirarchy were female-only posts, and the most senior posts were Abbesses, until Roman Catholicism was brought in to England.

Thats not quite true. It was run by both Abbots and Abbesses, with Bishops acting in a cerimonial purpose. Further they did acknowledge the primacy of the Pope.
According to wiki they difered from RC in the following
"The method of calculating the date of Easter. The Celts celebrated Easter on the Vernal equinox. On Roman demand they agreed to celebrate it on "the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox".

The method of Tonsure practised by monks. The Celts shaved the front of their head, from ear to ear. It is possible that this tonsure was originally used by the druids, as we find it referred to as "tonsura magorum".[citation needed] On Roman demand they agreed to shave the crown of their heads.

Authority of Bishops. In the Celtic Church authority was vested in Abbots and Abbesses. The role of Bishop was ceremonial. Delegates from Rome complained of "persons not in holy orders with authority in the church". "

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Celts held these Marian Doctrines. They follow from the doctrine that Mary was exempt from Original Sin. Decuit, potuit, fecit — "It was appropriate, it was possible, it was". The Celtic view was declared dogma in 1854.

Infant baptism. The Celts held four baptism services each year. They agreed to alter this and baptise infants within eight days of their birth.

1-to-1, penitent to confessor private confession. This was a Celtic invention; it was unknown outside of the Celtic Church before the sixth century. Until then, Rome required public confession.[5]

Should women be ordained as ministers/priests? There are two ways to read that question.

If you view it from the point of view of a religion that does not already have women ministers (of whatever kind), then the question is, "Should this religion ordain women?" That is for the given religion to figure out. And if there is dissent within the religion then it is up to the traditionalists to justify their male-only tradition. If they can't justify it, then the dissidents can either change it or start their own religion.

If you view the matter from the point of view of the functionality of religion, then the question is, "Should women be ordained?" That implies that there is some question about the ability of women to either perform roles in rituals and/or to have profound spiritual experiences. There is absolutely no reason to assume that women are any less spiritual or, if it comes to that, theatrical than men.

Since the OP opened the question to non-Christians, I'll offer a few examples:

In Shinto there are both priests and priestesses. They serve different but equal functions. Shinto priests primarily conduct public rituals whereas Shinto priestesses primarily deal with the more magical aspects of the religion, such as divination and spirit mediumship. Priests and priestesses work together for some types of rituals. There is also a special category of semi-priestess, called miko. Miko are all teen-aged girls, many of whom have had some spiritual experience or otherwise volunteered. They are understood as "temple attendants," but the most famous function of the miko is to perform dances and music for the entertainment of the kami.

In many Wiccan traditions, both priests and priestesses are required, as partners, to conduct fully realized rituals because they serve as stand-ins for the god and goddess, both of whose energies need to be combined.

In most shamanic religions, the most important spiritual practitioner is the shaman, who can be either a man or woman. Shamans are not ordained by any religious organization, but they must undergo formal training and, increasingly, they are joining what amounts to official guilds to cut down on charlantanism. However, the point is that shamanism is open to both sexes because it is based on the individual's spiritual experience of a "call from the spirits," not on an external theology of what a shaman is supposed to be. However, there are some shamanic religions which until relatively recently only used female shamans. One example of that is Korean shamanism.

So when we look at female spiritual practitioners/priestesses/ministers, etc, around the world, and when we put them together with Christian, Jewish, Muslim female visionaries (St. Theresa and Mary Baker Eddy come to mind, as two examples), it becomes obvious that there is no reason to assume that women are less capable than men of serving religious functions for society.

So, to my mind, that leaves as the only question, the question of why a given religion chooses not to ordain women and whether that reason is good enough for its followers.

As a quick pedantic point, there's a difference between being an ordained priest, being an ordained deacon, and being a church leader.

I don't know many churches that ordain female priests, I'm fairly confident that the Anglican Church is the biggest, and they're certainly not united on the idea!

Most churches ordain female deacons, I think even the Catholic church does, certainly the Anglican church always has, and there's a biblical precedent for it.

And I don't know of any churches that don't accept female church leaders, although there may well be a few.

Don't forget Celtic Christianity, which was reversed: the senior figures in the church heirarchy were female-only posts, and the most senior posts were Abbesses, until Roman Catholicism was brought in to England.

My old church only had male deacons. So did the 3 other churches before that one.

I think it's a good idea, but at the same time I don't think it will ease sexist opinions held by many Christian men. :(

My old church only had male deacons. So did the 3 other churches before that one.

I think it's a good idea, but at the same time I don't think it will ease sexist opinions held by many Christian men. :(

Why, for both of your statements?

Should
In most shamanic religions, the most important spiritual practitioner is the shaman, who can be either a man or woman. Shamans are not ordained by any religious organization, but they must undergo formal training and, increasingly, they are joining what amounts to official guilds to cut down on charlantanism. However, the point is that shamanism is open to both sexes because it is based on the individual's spiritual experience of a "call from the spirits," not on an external theology of what a shaman is supposed to be. However, there are some shamanic religions which until relatively recently only used female shamans. One example of that is Korean shamanism.

I just want to point out quickly that that depends on what one means when one says "shamanism." Are you talking about all religions with "shaman"/"wiseman" figures or do you mean the "shaman" in the manner it is used by some Neo-pagan/New Age groups. Because with the former it does require that the person adhere to the spiritual beliefs of the culture in question and that they be trained propery in the workings, rituals, and indeed an external theology, of sorts, of what a shamen is supose to be in the beliefs of said religion. Further it depends entirely on the religion in question weither they have female "shamans" or not. Some will have both, some will have only male, and some as you said would have only female.

Piss off! they're gonna enslave all men we need to be able to hold something over them.... That and we have penises... :D but we do have poorly positioned testicles :(

I just want to point out quickly that that depends on what one means when one says "shamanism." Are you talking about all religions with "shaman"/"wiseman" figures or do you mean the "shaman" in the manner it is used by some Neo-pagan/New Age groups. Because with the former it does require that the person adhere to the spiritual beliefs of the culture in question and that they be trained propery in the workings, rituals, and indeed an external theology, of sorts, of what a shamen is supose to be in the beliefs of said religion. Further it depends entirely on the religion in question weither they have female "shamans" or not. Some will have both, some will have only male, and some as you said would have only female.
What's your point? You seem to be pretty much repeating or micro-tuning what I said, but that doesn't have anything to do with my point, which is that there are plenty of female spiritual practitioners with various titles available in the world. Please look at what I wrote in the context in which I wrote it.

By the way, I am referring to shamanism as traditionally practiced in indigenous cultures in Asia, the Arctic, Oceania, Africa, and South America (big territories with lots of variation among them). I am not using it in reference to Neo-pagan/New Age groups.

What's your point? You seem to be pretty much repeating or micro-tuning what I said, but that doesn't have anything to do with my point, which is that there are plenty of female spiritual practitioners with various titles available in the world. Please look at what I wrote in the context in which I wrote it.

By the way, I am referring to shamanism as traditionally practiced in indigenous cultures in Asia, the Arctic, Oceania, Africa, and South America (big territories with lots of variation among them). I am not using it in reference to Neo-pagan/New Age groups.

Right, I was just micro-tuning thats why I only picked out the one little bit there. I just wasn't quite clear on what was going on in that bit and thought would try and clear up the parts that to me seemed a tad foggy.