Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Virtue Online has put both Tom Wright's argument and Douglas Wilson's response on the same page. I'm on Wilson's side of this issue, myself. However, I did put the parts I liked best from Wright in the "Body of Thread" excerpt section.
1 posted on 11/24/2012 7:24:17 AM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: ReformationFan

Thanks for posting this. It deserves a careful reading, and I’ll do that later today.


2 posted on 11/24/2012 7:32:30 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("In Christ we form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." Romans 12:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Bigg Red

mark


3 posted on 11/24/2012 7:56:53 AM PST by Bigg Red (Sorry, Mr. Franklin, I guess we couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReformationFan; SunkenCiv; Biggirl
(Please excuse me, a Catholic, for butting in here: I'll give my view if I may, and then retire.)

I do think Douglas Wilson takes the win for this round, anyhow. I much respect Tom Wright, but I'm a little disappointed at the weakness of his argument here. As Wilson notes, Wright just basically says "Early Christianity was counter-cultural in its high regard for women," "Mary Magdalen, Junia, Phoebe" and that's it, tout court.

He doesn't deal with the fact that Judaism and Christianity were BOTH counter-cultural in that they had neither goddesses nor priestesses. Everybody else did: think of the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians; Anat, Ashtoreth, Ishtar, Nammu, Juno, Ceres, Aphrodite, Isis, Sekhmet. This lack of goddesses and priestesses in Judeo-Christianity is both significant and consequential. Shouldn't we look into that?

Highly trusted, highly talented and highly regarded as Magdalen, Junia and Phoebe were -- highly regarded as Mary, the Mother of God, present at Pentecost, must have been --- there is no record that they or any other woman was ordained by the laying on of hands to join the ranks of the presbyteroi or the episkopoi.

We know, from the history of the first years of the Church, that slaves were so ordained. We know that gentiles were so ordained. Any church that had the radical chutzpah to ordain slaves and uncircumcised gentiles would not have blanched at ordaining devout, intelligent, capable women --- if that were the will of God.

Would Mary Magdalen or Dame Julian of Norwich have been better or greater, had they been priests? Would Edith Cavell or Mary Slessor have been more glorious, had they been bishops? I am persuaded that the really important, and really interesting people in the Church are not the priests or the bishops, but the saints.

5 posted on 11/24/2012 1:55:42 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious." George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ReformationFan

Women have great liberty to serve the Lord, but not as the quarterback, though he needs holy men and women himself. To teach otherwise is contrary to Scripture as well as the historical faith of the church.

And the attempts to justify women pastors ruling men require such wresting that they serve as an argument against what they contend for: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html


6 posted on 11/24/2012 4:22:57 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson