Feminism and the ordination of women as priestesses and ministers.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I refuse under any circumstances whatsoever to belong to any church that does not permit the ordination of women.

How do you square that with the Bible?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How do you square that with the Bible?

There is a higher law than even Scripture, and those who proclaim that Scripture is the universal, literal, whole, and highest law make a claim about the Bible that it does not make about itself.

What is the higher law?  And how can we know it?

I square it the same way I do when Paul forbids women from wearing jewelry - certainly applicable to the specific group in the specific time he was writing to.

That was written in the context of modesty.

However, Paul himself also speaks of several ordained women.

When?  Because afaik there's no evidence of female priests or pastors in the early church.  Female deacons did exist, on the other hand.

Furthermore, my conscience not only neutrally dissents from those who forbid the ordination of women - it outright demands such ordination. I would view myself as being guilty before my mother, my female pastor, my grandmother, and many other women if I told them that I was more qualified for the priesthood than they are. Indeed, if I told my mother that, I would expect to get slapped.

I'm certainly not saying I'm more qualified than women.  I'm equally unqualified as very few men are qualified to be ordained.

Sexism is a sin, and to partake in it on God’s behalf is the highest form of blasphemy.

I'm not partaking in sexism.  The Bible is clear that men and women are equal, but it is also clear that the two sexes are not interchangeable.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I refuse under any circumstances whatsoever to belong to any church that does not permit the ordination of women.

How do you square that with the Bible?

Any writings on this in the Bible were written very specifically to certain cases in certain churches and the main concern was that women at the time were not as educated. It's obsolete today.

That seems like a very convenient way to explain away uncomfortable doctrine.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Traditionally, Anglicanism would put Scripture over tradition and reason, right?

Female deacons did indeed exist (although it was controversial among some church fathers and theologians whether women could also be priests), but it was only until the 12th century that the church started saying "Don't ordain women as priests" (without implying that women never were ordained), but prior to that, theologians argued that whenever the words of consecration are recited, the consecration happens regardless of whether a man or a woman says them. (The right to consecrate the bread and the wine, however, is the sacrament of orders for priests, according to Alexander of Hales.)

Do you have any sources for this?  Because when I researched this I could only find heretical groups in the early church who ordained women.

You are saying that, actually, as you are taking the position that women by default are wholly unqualified to be ordained. You would inherently be more qualified for ordination based on the fact that you are male, if the complementarian view is correct.

Not really, I'm still unqualified since I'm not called to be a pastor.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I'm not Catholic so I might not be the best person to respond to that article, but I'm prertty sure that abbesses were not bishops.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How do you square that with the Bible?

There is a higher law than even Scripture, and those who proclaim that Scripture is the universal, literal, whole, and highest law make a claim about the Bible that it does not make about itself.

What is the higher law?  And how can we know it?

I square it the same way I do when Paul forbids women from wearing jewelry - certainly applicable to the specific group in the specific time he was writing to.

That was written in the context of modesty.

However, Paul himself also speaks of several ordained women.

When?  Because afaik there's no evidence of female priests or pastors in the early church.  Female deacons did exist, on the other hand.

”In the context of modesty” means nothing. If you hold the writings of Paul to be authoritative in doctrine, then women are forbidden from wearing jewelry and men from having long hair.

Junia, in Romans 16, is referred to as an apostle. This is a title given to the Twelve, to Paul, to Barnabas, Silas, Andronicus, Timothy, and to her. Priscilla, too, is sometimes considered to have been a presbyter. Junia, given the title of apostle, becomes equal in rank with the authors of Scripture.

Furthermore, Sarah Crosby was the first female preacher in the modern age, and she was granted such license by John Wesley. Sojourner Truth, one of the greatest preachers in American history, was a black woman ordered to preach by God in a vision. Given her testimony, I hesitate to decry such visions as false.

IIRC Junia is only referred to as an apostle in certain translations.  Some say that the passage is actually referring to a man named Junias.  I'm less interested in what later Christians did concerning this issue.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If what god 'ordains' for male and female roles happens to dovetail with societal rules and traditions of the time in which it was written then you can be assured there's nothing ordained about them. Except by men.

Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" and other religious scholars make it abundantly clear that the Bible is the work of humans and is not the infallible word of God.  

How can the Bible be the infallible word of God when there are multiple versions of the Bible?  This is not just stylistic differences of phrasing, but differences in meaning.

Yes, there are differences in the different English translations of the Bible.  How does that disprove the Bible?