Stump the Priest: Question #10- Why are some denominations against female priests? Is this backed up scripturally? Is it mans law or Gods law?

This is a good question to ask because it is undoubtedly the single largest issue facing our new Anglican Province (the ACNA) as we move forward into the future.  Let me preface a discussion on this by saying that there is integrity in the convictions expressed on both sides of the argument, and there are no villains in this discussion.

Viewing it simply in terms of the health and well-being of the Church, I have seen women’s ordination in the contemporary church as very positive.  Beyond of the more radical feminism infecting the liberal branches of the Church, I have experienced effective and healthy pastorates among the orthodox women priests I have worked with.  They have been allowed in our post-patriarchal culture to become effective priests and pastors alongside men, and I discern that the Holy Spirit is indeed teaching us something new in this regard (The Rev. Nancy Kenney’s ministry is a case in point).  But that is not good enough.  As a biblically anchored Christian, we must support such a position scripturally.

Let me first say that I am not helped by arguments around the fact that Jesus was male, or the 12 apostles were male, or that there were no instances of women’s ordinations (anointing for ministry by the laying on of hands) in Scripture.  I view this as cultural context more so than New Covenant mandate. As an Anglican I am led to argue from what Scripture explicitly upholds (such as the calling of men to ordained ministry) and do not conclude that it prohibits that on which it is explicitly silent (the calling of women to ordained ministry).  Scripture does not explicitly say that women should or should not be ordained.

Nonetheless, Scripture implicitly says a great deal about women in leadership (eldership) in the Church, and we need to look at the broad sense of Scripture on this… how Jesus saw women… the teachings of Paul… the actions and makeup of the New Testament Church.  On this basis, I am led to take Galatians 3:28 as a primary text.  It permeates the New Covenant Scriptural ethos and washes over the social norms reflected there.  This new reality brought to us in Christ is…

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Paul’s words here are consistent Jesus’ treatment and view of women in the Gospels.  This is particularly clear in John’s Gospel. (A good book to check out on this is The Community of the Beloved Disciple, by Raymond E. Brown, particularly Appendix 2, “Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel”)².  A case in point is the Samaritan Woman at the Well.  Jesus overrode social barriers, taught her, and perhaps most significantly for this discussion, allowed her to take on the “apostolic” ministry of proclaiming the Good News to her village.

Again, looking at the New Testament broadly, it talks about women congregational leaders such as Lydia (Acts 11), Priscilla (1 Cor. 16, Rom 16), Phoebe (Rom 16).    In fact, Romans 16 list twenty-six church leaders, 8 of whom are women.  The Book of Acts mentions prophets (speaking for God) 11 times, 4 of whom are women.¹  All of this points to an equality of call and leadership of women and men, and it is consistent with what Paul is expressing in my selected text, Galatians 3:28.

Based on this alone, one would conclude that God would not and does not withhold callings and gifts for ministry based on any of these differentiators (ethnicity, gender or social status).  But Scripture has much to say that seemingly contradicts itself on this.  That needs to be reconciled.  We cannot look at it all in this short dissertation, but we can look at a two of the big ones.

The two passages (both Pauline) are 1 Cor. 14:34-36 (traditionally translated, “Women are not to speak in worship”) and Ephesians 5:22-24 (“Wives submit to your husbands”).  I understand the 1 Cor. Passage as not being about woman leadership roles, but about women (presumably certain women in the Corinthian church) being disruptive.  I think Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase in The Message captures this idea well:

Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here.   Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.  Do you—both women and men—imagine that you're a sacred oracle determining what's right and wrong? Do you think everything revolves around you?

I, for one, sincerely hope this passage does not mean that women are generally barred from speaking in church.  This would mean that Larry, presently our only male choir member, would be singing by himself).  The original Greek can perhaps better be translated “clamor” or “tumult,” rather than normal proceedings of worship.

Concerning the Ephesians 5:22-24 passage (“wives submit to your husbands”), John Bristow’s book, What Paul Really Said About Women, is helpful in dealing with the inconsistencies this passage seems to impose.  He makes the point that the usual translations out of the Greek of “be subservient to” can perhaps better be rendered “be supportive of.”  I can’t make Bristows arguments for him in this short document, but I found them convincing in reconciling this text with Paul’s understanding of the Kingdom of God.  For your own study, I recommend Bistrow’s book.

We are, however, a long way from consensus on this in the Anglican Communion, much less in the universal church.  To be in communion means not acting in disregard for our brothers in sisters in Christ, and this is a huge factor in the stance our diocese and the ACNA has taken.  As Paul said, “If eating meat sacrificed to idols causes your brother to sin, then refrain from it” (even if it is not an issue for you). We find ourselves in this position as The Diocese of the South. We as a diocese do not ordain women, but duly ordained women in apostolic orders may be licensed to function as presbyters (priests) at the discretion of the bishop.  Nancy Kenney is being licensed by Bishop Foley to function as a priest at Holy Trinity.  Thanks be to God for that, and for her ministry.

¹ What Paul really Said About Women, John T. Bristow (Harper Collins, 1991).
² The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Raymond E. Brown (Paulist Press, 1979)

Truth

This quote is from John 18:38 where Jesus is being tried before Pilot the governor. Note that John’s Gospel talks a lot about Truth:

·         John 1:14        John says that Jesus was “full of grace and truth.”.

·         John 8:32        “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

·         John 14:6        Jesus says he is the way, the truth and the life.

·         John 14:17      Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth.

Jesus is “Truth” not simply because He tells the truth, but because He is Truth.  Jesus is Truth because he embodies the supreme revelation of God, the author of all truth. 

This is a good question because post-modern thinking of our time has moved away from the belief in objective truth.  It has a name, “relativism.”  This is clearly a sign of our movement as a culture away from the one true God who embodies Truth, and toward the Enemy who is the father of lies.

So where was Pilot going to find the answer to his question, “What is Truth?”  His answer was standing right in front of him on that Good Friday.

Stump The Priest Question #6- Was Abraham a henotheist rather than a monotheist before his encounter with Melchizedek?

---Yes

What is the difference between Episcopalians and Anglicans?

The question is about the difference between “The Episcopal Church” and “The Anglican Church in North America,” both churches in the Anglican Tradition in North America.  Let me start by explaining a bit about Anglicanism.

Anglicanism has its roots in the 1900 year history of Christianity in the British Isles.  Today there are approximately 80 million Anglicans worldwide.  Anglicans see themselves as one expression of God’s One, Holy, Catholic (meaning"universal") and Apostolic Church and is characterized by an emphasis on liturgical and sacramental worship, Protestant beliefs and a love of the great traditions of the Church.  Anglicans are bound together by a “common worship,” which is expressed and propagated in the “Book of Common Prayer” first drafted in 1549 during the Protestant Reformation in England.  Anglican churches are also largely bound together ecclesiastically (organizationally) in what is known as the worldwide "Anglican Communion." 

The Episcopal Church was formed after the American Revolution as an ongoing expression of Anglicanism in the United States.  In recent decades, however, the Episcopal Church has progressively taken on a revised view of Anglicanism and of the Apostolic Faith, what is known as Modernism and Modernist Theology.  The Episcopal Church today, particularly among its clergy, understands the Faith in some ways inconsistently with the Faith of the Apostles as recorded in Scripture and the Faith of much of the rest of the Anglican Communion throughout the world.

Two salient issues differentiating Apostolic Christianity (classic Anglicanism) from Modernism (The Episcopal Church) are understandings of the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness Christ.  This is far too limited a venue to fully explain, but in modernist thought the revelation of God in Scripture in many of its facets is seen as outdated and overridden by modern experience and human intellect.  Similarly, the uniqueness of what God has done in Christ has given way to an openness and inclusivity that trumps the apostolic understanding and eyeswitness experience of the uniqueness of the person and work of Jesus. 

This theological drift in the Episcopal Church and all its ramifications has caused a fragmentation in the Anglican Communion.  Presently the Episcopal Church finds itself in what has been termed “impaired communion” with much of the Anglican Communion.  North American Anglicans who could not go where the Episcopal Church is theologically headed and who wanted to stay with the broader Anglican Communion appealed to other provinces of the Anglican Communion to take them under their wing, at least in some interim fashion.  This congregation, The Church of the Holy Trinity, is a good example.  Holy Trinity was a church plant under the authority of the archbishop of Nigeria.  The foreign archbishops subsequently have encouraged the formation of a new Anglican province under which orthodox Anglicanism could re-gather in North America.  The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) thus came into being.  An Archbishop of this new province was consecrated, and dioceses have formed.  

We thus have two expressions of Anglicanism in North America, one modernist, the other traditionally orthodox.  We should note that there are many orthodox believers still in the Episcopal Church, particularly among the laity.  There are also whole dioceses still in The Episcopal Church that are orthodox, such as the Diocese of SC (lower part of the state).  But the Episcopal Church leadership and clergy have a strategy to redefine Episcopalianism.  This process is essentially complete.

Why do we pray for the dead?

First, let us note that this question is about praying for the dead, not praying to the dead or praying through the dead, both of which are totally un-Anglican and un-scriptural.  The question is asking if it is efficacious and right that we should continue to commend our loved-ones in prayer to God after their death.

This question has a history going back to the earliest Christians. It was a huge point of contention during the Protestant Reformation over reaction to the doctrines of Purgatory, Indulgences and Masses for the dead.  Prayers for the dead logically require belief in an intermediate state between death and judgment at the Last Day, which sounds too much like purgatory to many Protestants.  Most Protestants today therefore believe prayers for the dead are a waste of time- It is either of no use to those destined for hell; or completely unnecessary for those destined for heaven. 

One problem is that we Anglicans have been all over the board on this question.   Article 22 of the thirty-Nine Articles of Religion formulated during the Reformation condemns prayers for the dead as “vainly conceived.”  But it was in the 1549 Prayer Book, removed in the 1552 book, absent in the 1662 Book, and reintroduced in Prayer Books of the later part of the 19^th C.  In the most recent American Prayer Book the issue comes up in two places, the prayers at funerals, and the Prayers of the People in the Eucharist.

But what is really needed to explore this question is a clear theology (understanding) of death, heaven, hell and something called “The Communion of Saints.”  (The Communion of Saints refers to Christians throughout time gathered in Heaven as the Church Triumphant).  One of the problems the Church has had over the centuries (Anglicanism being chief among them, as demonstrated in the paragraph above) is a muddled and inconsistent belief on these matters.  This has happened because we have such limited scriptural details about what lies beyond the veil of death.  We can, however, start by looking at what scripture does tell us.  Here are scriptures related to what lies beyond death.

Luke 16:22-23     The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.

Luke 23:43           ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’

2 Cor. 5:10            For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil.

1 Peter 3:19           ¹⁹By which also he (Jesus) went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Rev. 6:9-11          When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; ¹⁰they cried out with a loud voice, ‘Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?’ ¹¹They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow-servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed.

From some of these passages can we conclude that there is an intermittent period after death and before judgment during which sanctification (growth toward God) can possibly continue, and therefore prayers for the departed would be effective.  The Luke passages suggest not; I Peter and Revelation suggest yes.  The Luke passages suggest people who die are immediately judged; the 1 Peter and Revelation passages suggest there is an intermediate place, what Scripture calls Sheol.  The 1 Peter passage says Jesus actually went to such a place to preach to the souls departed. 

How do we decide?  How do we know?  Paul is definitely right in 1 Cor 13:12…For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

But what is perfectly clear in Scripture is that those who are “in Christ” will be raised up with Christ at the Last Day to new life in which all creation will be made new and at which time we will be eternally present with God, enjoying Him forever.  Otherwise, it may be necessary for us Anglicans to tolerate a bit of un-knowing and mystery in this matter.  CS Lewis never steers us wrongly; so, perhaps while we are still only “seeing through a glass dimly,” we can go where he has gone on this question:

 “Of course I pray for the dead.  The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me.  And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden… At our age the majority of those we love best are dead.  What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best is unmentionable to Him?  Even in Heaven some perpetual increase of beatitude (sanctification), reached by a continually more ecstatic self-surrender, without the possibility of failure but not perhaps without its own ardors and exertions…might be supposed.” (CS Lewis, Letters to Malcom,  pp. 107-109 ).

Why would God object if they love one another?

1.    As Christians we understand that marriage is the only appropriate context for human sexuality, but why has God willed this to be so, and why has He so consistently articulated it in Scripture? 

We can start by acknowledging that God who created human sexuality should certainly have something to say about how it is to function among His people.   If we understand the mind of God on this, then we will have the answer to the question posed as to why from God’s perspective simple emotional and physical attraction, or a sense of being “in love,” is not enough for sexual intimacy. 

This question is particularly appropriate in our time.  Our post-Christian American culture has almost entirely moved away the God-given boundaries around human sexuality.  What has developed in its place is “companionate sexual relationships,” even "companionate marriages," in which open relationships exist for which there are no real expectations of life-long intimacy or expectation of sacrificial, unconditional love.   All that is required is mutual consent at the moment… no commitment, no binding mutual responsibility, always a back door to the relationship.  Whether we like it of not, it is not what God willed for human sexuality and the family charged with procreationand and nurture of children.

God has in mind something much more grand than this for the marvel of human sexuality.  Matrimony and the Marriage Bed offer a possibility for the most fulfilling of all human-to-human relationships.  It offers the possibility for two people becoming “One Flesh,” blending their lives together and being more complete, healthy and whole than either of their lives separately could be.  The union of a man and a woman is also intended by God for the procreation and nurture of children, and it is this stable family environment of unconditional, sacrificial love that is the God-intended setting for the raising of children.  This in a nutshell was God’s intent in Creation (Genesis 2:4‑9, 15‑24).  The marriage liturgy puts it this way: “The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.” 

Humans are made in the image of God and are therefore both physical and spiritual beings, and the mating of two people has physical and spiritual consequences.  Human intercourse is a spiritual act.  The spiritual consequence can be what psychologist call bonding or Peter Harobin in his teachings calls Soul Ties.  These soul ties stay with us in life.  Multiple ties have their affect on that one eventual life-long Soul Tie, denigrating it and interfering with it.  God’s boundaries around sexuality, therefore, are there for a reason, a divine reason. 

Why did Jesus submit Himself to the Father?

The Incarnation (God becoming man [Jesus] and dwelling among us… “God Emmanuel”) is one of the wonder-filled mysteries of God’s Revelation of Himself to us.   It is a mystery because in our limited human understanding we are not able to fully comprehend it.  The Trinity (One God revealed in three Persons) is another such mystery, and again, in our limited humanness, we cannot comprehend how one person of the Trinity will interact with another person of the Trinity.  It is here that this question leads us.

The answer lies in the fact that Jesus was not only fully God, he was at the same time fully human.  In fact, Jesus was perfectly human, the new model for a new humanity, the New Adam as Paul says, a new humanity perfectly submitted to the Creator Father.  In short, Jesus in his perfect humanity was perfectly submitted to God.