Why Women Can Never Be Priests

I know that not everyone in the Catholic Church agrees. Some feel since the declaration may not be infallible, it could be reversed in the future. Others consider that the doctrine must be "received," that is everyone or almost everyone has to agree before it becomes binding. And a few will point to the Galileo affair or slavery to argue that all teachings of the magisterium are open to revision.

Those positions, I am convinced, are wrong. However, I do not write this to refute them. Rather since I believe every Catholic must assent to this teaching, what I hope to do is to help some of my brothers and sisters make that assent which our faith requires.

The assent in question must not just be external: "I won't go against the pope from the pulpit, but in private I will express what I really believe." That tactic has advantages in the short term, but in the long run it will never do. Bernard Lonergan (Method, Insight) has shown that only common meaning can bring people together in a community. That is, we must share not only the same words but a like understanding. That can only happen in the Church by internal assent. I write this with the desire to remove some of the blocks to that vital assent.

First we must ask: Why is this teaching so difficult for us, especially as American Catholics? The answer is clear. Saying women can never be ordained, can never attain some position that is reserved exclusively for men, goes against the grain of everything our culture stands for. We believe in the equality of all people and that there should be no artificial obstacle to advancement. This doctrine is sometimes called "egalitarianism."

The Civil Rights movement of the last four decades has fought to enshrine egalitarian principles in legislation. The aim is to not only eliminate barriers but to undo the damage caused by past discrimination. Because of our basic philosophy, to accuse someone of prejudice or discrimination is a heavy insult. The accused can even be brought to court.

Still there is one major area where we do allow job discrimination in our society. It is very germane to the discussion of women's ordination, but I wish to save it till the end.

What I want to underscore is why we Americans have reacted so negatively to the pope's declaration. That reaction has led to a wholesale misunderstanding of papal teaching regarding women's role. To some it appeared the pope was denying their equality with man. That is patently not the case. I could quote pages of papal documents to the contrary.

To others it seemed the pope was upholding a disacredited patriarchy with all its negative connotations: wife abuse, male irresposibility, "machismo," etc. It can only be said that the pope, besides espousing woman's basic equality, has been an eloquent spokeman for restoration of respect for woman as woman and especially as mother (see Crossing the Threshold of Hope).

What is at stake in this debate is not woman's equality and dignity. I take them for granted, as does the pope, the Catechism, the whole magisterium of the Church. The issue is really much deeper. In fact the entire Bible hinges on it. God's revelation from the first chapter of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse connects with this issue.

"God created man in his own image and like. Male and female he created them and said 'be fruitful and multiply.' (Gen 1:28)

"This is the wedding feast of the Lamb, and behold his bride has prepared herself." (Apoc 19:7)

Almost everything between those two verses ties in with the theme of the divine nuptials. From the creation of woman out of man's side to the blood and water flowing from Christ's pierced side. From the espousal of Yahweh with Israel to Jesus' dramatic announcement: "Wedding guests don't fast when the groom is present." (See John P Meier A Marginal Jew for a discussion of the importance of this verse.) These and many more texts show what the Bible is about. In them we see the very goal of all human history unveiled: The eternal wedding banquet of Jesus and his bride, the Church.

The Church is not feminine by some linguistic accident. It goes much, much deeper. As Thomas Merton said, "before God we are all feminine." He was not only echoing the great mystical tradition, but the core of divine revelation. C.S. Lewis in his brillant essay, Priestesses in the Church? makes that very point. He acknowledges all the logical reasons for women's ordination: the clergy shortage, the ability of women to better reach certain people, etc. (In fact his list, which was compiled 50 years ago, includes every reason mentioned in the current discussion.) However, he says, although it may be very logical, it changes the whole nature of what the Church is. Unfortunately the Anglican Church did not heed the words of its most famous son.

Now here is where the issue gets murky. You can react to the Anglican decision in a variety of ways. Some would say, "It's about time! Welcome to the Twentieth Century." Others could say that this gives a home to Catholics who favor woman priesthood. In fact, one could ask, Why don't they just join the Anglicans? After all, if I went into a McDonalds and told the waitress I wanted deep fried chicken with lots of spices, she would simply tell me, "Sir that is not on our menu, but there is a KFC right across the street." I have actually said as much to some of my friends who feel so strongly that they say that the pope is unjust.

I hope we can get beyond the rhetoric of justice and injustice in talking about this issue. Those words, as well as oppression, dictatorial, etc. assume that the Church is a kind of sovereign nation. It is not. It is a completely free association. You can accept or reject your baptism. We have no police or court system to make you comply. We cannot levy taxes and force you to pay for them.

I lived in a country for seven years where injustice meant something so terrible that it seems a mockery to apply that word to the Catholic Church. A woman thrown arbitrarily in jail where she is made fun of by the guards and humiliated by the officers is an injustice, especially when there is no calling to account of perpetrators. However, a professor losing his job because what he teaches is opposed to the institution paying his salary is done no injustice. A woman who has hundreds of opportunities, but one of them is not a low paying, high stress, twenty four hour a day job is not a victim of injustice. I am sorry if I offend, but I do not know how to make that point any plainer.

If we are not talking about justice, what are we dealing with in this debate? What is at stake is the integrity of Jesus message and the Church he founded. The most comon argument against women's ordination is that Jesus did not choose them as part of his Twelve apostles. (Even though the full blown structure of bishop-priest-deacon was not completely clear until some decades after Jesus resurrection, Vatican II teaches that it was part of Jesus will in the election of apostles whose successors are bishops and priests*.)

Here we must be extremely careful of arguing that Jesus in choosing only men was limited by his culture. First, the Incarnation means that from all eternity He knew he would be born a first century Paletinian Jew. He chose that culture. But second, and this is most to the point, he often went against the norms of his culture. The Gospel is one of the great counter-cultural documents, not just for us twenty centuries later, but at the very time and place the words were spoken and written. Jesus had a lot of smart and zealous women disciples (some of them pretty good contributors to boot). However he selected only men for the Twelve on which he would found the new Israel, his Church. That choice cannot have been an accident that Jesus would have easily revised if he had forseen our American Republic and its civil rights laws.

A "reductio ad absurdam" is sometimes used at this point. His disciples were not only men, they were all Palestinian Jews. Should only Jews be priests? I'm afraid that this hits on one of the really big scotoma (blind spots) of our culture. I heard a women say, "In one way I am glad I am female because I can understand how blacks feel." You don't. At least by virtue of being a woman, you do not. The two experiences are radically different.

The earliest Church was composed entirely of Palestinian Jews but quickly accepted the Hellenists and finally the uncircumcised Greeks. When each group entered, the men brought their women with them--and vica versa. And they all accepted the male priesthood as an essential part of Jesus' plan for our salvation.

I think you can see where I am going. The male priesthood is necessary because Jesus the Bridegroom had to be male. Only a male can represent him at the altar, the renewal of the great act of sacrifice by which he gave himself totally for his Bride. After talking about marriage and the mystery of human sexuality, St. Paul says, "There is a great sacrament (misterion) here. I take it to apply to Christ and his Church." The very reason God created sexuality and made that theme run through his creation and his Bible, is to suggest, to foreshadow, to signify what will endure when this passing world is gone. The wedding feast of the Lamb and his beautiful bride.

I see no offense to women in this. In fact, what girls everywhere dream of is being radiant and lovely, of wearing a beautiful garment. Of entrusting herself into loving and protecting arms. Of being fruitful and bringing forth children of her own. Of being deeply reverenced for her fertility, her motherhood. An education, a good job can fit into those dreams, but not replace them. (Those dreams can be realized in another sense by a direct consecration to the Bridegroom himself, but that is another topic.)

Let's be honest. What upsets women is not so much male domination, but our irresponsibility, our lack of consideration and respect. In a secularized city like Seattle the Promise Keepers filled the Kingdome with almost 60,000 men who want to assume their proper roles as leaders of their families. And their wives were pushing them to go and praying for them while they were there. They would gladly follow Paul instruction, "Wives, obey your husbands." But they also want their husbands to heed the words, "Love your wives as Christ loved the Church. He gave his life for her..." (see Eph 5)

Women will of course take on "male" responsibilities--when men drop the ball. They have no other choice, but I have yet to meet a woman who likes it that way. But here is precisely the dilemna we are facing in the Church. You don't need to do a sociological study to see the Church is largely constituted by women who do the greatest share of the everyday work. Furthermore they have qualities of care, constancy, spirituality which would make them more effective than many of our present male priests (present writer not excluded). Especially when people see so many of us abandoning ship or whining about how hard the priesthood is, the question naturally arises: Why not ordain some women?

Furthermore--and this is where the "justice" argument might have some force--if we say the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of the Christian life, how can we settle for priestless Sunday services when we exclude half the human race from the priesthood? (I must note there can be a certain hypocrisy here. Do those who use this argument actually take advantage of present opportunities for Eucharist, even on Sunday? The recent Women's Ordination Conference wound up rejecting not only Eucharist but apparently theism itself.)

Inevitable duplicities aside, the questions are good. But I can only say they are secondary to the ones raised previously: the meaning of sexuality in creation and above all the New Creation. We men must stand up straight and accept the burdens, as well as the privileges, of our sexuality. And women must do the same. There is no other way.

Now we are back to our original dilemna. How can we reject a "division of labor" all the way along, but embrace it at this point. Call it what you like, theologize till the cows come home, is it not after all a case of discrimination?

As I said in the beginning, there is one area where job discrimination is allowed, even demanded in our society. That is Hollywood, Broadway, the symbolic presentation of inner struggles and triumphs. Take "Gone with the Wind." I cheerfully admit I would be a lousy Rhett Butler. But even with my bald head, skinny body and whimpy voice, I would do better at it that any woman. Than any woman. For sure there are women more "macho" than I... Well, I won't conclude the sentence. I think you get my point.

Let me say also if the director were somehow so desperate as to cast me as Rhett, the opposite qualification would be essential for the one portraying Scarlett.

Rhett and Scarlett and the millions of variations on the theme are indeed what creation is about. And where it is going. The priest at the altar with the congregation gathered around him does not just represent Christ. The groom acts through him to form the bride which will be his for all eternity.

and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry

It should be noted the apostles were raised as Jews at a time when women were viewed as nothing more than posessions.

John 4

Jesus Talks With a Samaritan Woman

1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. 4Now he had to go through Samaria. 5So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour. 7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[1] ) 10Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." 11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?" 13Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." 15The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water." 16He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back." 17"I have no husband," she replied. 18Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true." 19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." 21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." 26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

The Disciples Rejoin Jesus

27Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, "What do you want?" or "Why are you talking with her?" 28Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29"Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ[2] ?" 30They came out of the town and made their way toward him. 31Meanwhile his disciples urged him, "Rabbi, eat something." 32But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you know nothing about." 33Then his disciples said to each other, "Could someone have brought him food?" 34"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35Do you not say, 'Four months more and then the harvest'? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. 38I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor."

Many Samaritans Believe

39Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers. 42They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Look at that again

"He told me everything I ever did."

Exactly how can it be wrong for man or woman to then tell of what Christ WILL do?

42They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

It could be argued her "testimony" of Christs prophecy is exactly what every pastor and priest does each Sunday - If she could testify for Christs glory, why then not today - Its plainly the Holy Spirits realm to open thier eyes - and the samaritans state just that, having heard her testimony and having the spirit act upon thier souls.

Could it be we look upon women in the pulpit with the same eyes the jews & apostles of palestine looked upon them?

Are we saying they lack the discernment to interpret Scripture?

Are we so literalist in our reading to interpret the word use "man" to include only men, or the body "man"kind?

1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

??Then, is the SBC a central bank with branches??

Well, yes and no. Jerry_M gave a very good reply to you earlier.

Historically, Baptists can be either Calvinistic or Arminian and have alternated between the two since our founding by the English Baptists.

Baptists are among the strongest of missionary churches. There was a very long-term dispute over whether Baptists had any common interest in anything except missions work or for that matter whether there was any legitimate work for any church to do except support missions work. We remain today strongly committed to foreign and domestic mission work but missions are probably not considered the primary activity of the churches in the way it once was.

Like many churches, Baptists were given their name by their enemies, not the name they chose for themselves.

Baptists are historically opposed to state-church alliance and believe in a proper separation of church and state, but not in the eradication of the church by the state. Without Baptist influence, America would have had four established state churches with all the problems Europe experienced with state-church alliance. Baptists would generally agree with many jurists who say that separation is for the health of the church but pragmatic minds would say it guards the interests of all citizens. I agree with both.

Baptists are also historically characterized by being ruled only by scripture and insisting upon the baptism of believers only and by immersion only. We don't splash any babies. We regard baptism and communion as ordinances of the church which contain no miraculous power of any sort; we do not regard them as sacraments. They are not essential to salvation but it is expected in Baptist circles that ordinary believers will be baptized and remember Christ in the Lord's Supper simply because He commanded it and it is virtually the rule of example in the New Testament (the thief on the cross next to Jesus being an exception since he died on the cross unbaptized but with Christ's assurance that he would be in Paradise with Him that very day). In many Baptist circles, referring to the Lord's Supper as 'communion' will draw criticism as Baptists are very careful to distinguish their practices and beliefs from those of Protestant churches and the church of Rome.

With regard to dissident members of the SBC, we expect that churches whose practices are unbiblical will die out. And that is what has happened historically.

I say good riddance to the sodomy-loving, abortion-loving people (like Carter or Mel Carnahan) who are in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. We'll let them die out and weed their rather feeble influence from our seminaries.

Maybe Jerry would like to comment on some of this since he knows Baptist history and distinctives better than I do.

You will get diverse opinion..Some of the the Arminians ordain women..some do not (like the Southern Baptists)....and not a Calvinist in the lot would believe in woman Pastors..

OK non RC's what say ye?

11 posted on 7/10/02 7:35 PM Mountain by RnMomof7

Mom:

My bible and the guy claimed to be the first Pope says we are all Priests.

1Peter 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone — rejected by men but
chosen by God and precious to him —
1Peter 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual
house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1Peter 2:6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen
and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will
never be put to shame.” [Isaiah 28:16]
1Peter 2:7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those
who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has
become the capstone,” [Or cornerstone] [Psalm 118:22]
1Peter 2:8 and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that
makes them fall.” [Isaiah 8:14] They stumble because they
disobey the message — which is also what they were
destined for.
1Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
praises of him who called you out of darkness into his
wonderful light.
1Peter 2:10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of
God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have
received mercy.
1Peter 2:11 Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world,
to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.
1Peter 2:12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they
accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds
and glorify God on the day he visits us.

xeni>a <truth@Y'shuaHaMashiach>

Re. 64.

The liberal influence has already been eradicated from the seminaries. Southern Seminary in Louisville was absolutely awash with liberalism when I was stationed at Ft. Knox in the early 80's. Now, it is the most conservative of all five seminaries (surpassing even my alma mater, SWBTS in Ft. Worth) and requires all faculty to sign the "Abstract of Principles", a thoroughly Calvinistic statement of faith adopted by the seminary at its inception in the 19th century. God bless Al Mohler, and may his tribe increase!

Ther has never been a better time to wear the label of Southern Baptist.

(BTW, I am one of those who cringes at the term "communion" as relating to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. In my mind, that is one of the premier Baptist distinctives.)

1 Timothy 2

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Plainly, this is Pauls desire.

Acts 2

16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17" 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

Acts 10

45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

Nehemiah 8:2

So on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand.

1 Corinthians 16

19The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

Romans 16

7Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

The liberals and moderates have either departed or been made irrelevant, and I anticipate that you will see a resurgence of missionary enterprise amongst Southern Baptists in the near future. We have already shown our ability to respond to disaster, having the best equipped, most responsive disaster relief teams on the planet. Many Baptists are offering a cup of cold water in Jesus' name, both home and abroad, and I expect this to increase as well.

Isn't it strange how the periodic resurgence of Calvinist doctrine tends to coincide with increased missionary efforts and church growth? Our Arminian friends like to pretend that the opposite must be true.

(BTW, I am one of those who cringes at the term "communion" as relating to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. In my mind, that is one of the premier Baptist distinctives.)

I'm well-aware. It is to me most distinctive that we strictly separate ourselves from others by observing the Lord's Supper as an ordinance of believers, not a sacrament. One does hear 'communion' from time to time but 'Lord's Supper' is the overwhelming favorite.

Other than separating ourselves from the entire idea of sacraments and the trappings of the word 'communion', what other distinctives would you name to favor the use of the term "Lord's Supper'?

As a side note, I've often wondered if it is as ordinary in other churches to see people declining from participating in the Lord's Supper due to unresolved sin in their lives or other reasons of conscience? I've noted this in Baptist churches and it seems to speak of a certain seriousness and reflectiveness in the Lord's Supper that is noticable. I think that 'communion' is more a matter of routine habit in other churches with virtually universal participation. Yet, Baptist churches I have attended are very serious about warning us not to participate if there are serious ongoing sin issues in our spiritual lives and it is presented to us as an opportunity to reflect and look hard at ourselves and our spiritual life and unresolved sins. Perhaps this is not quite so distinctive as I think though. Any opinions on that?

"Any opinions on that?"

What do you think? ;>)

I choose not to use "communion", since the observance is not a communion with Christ, but a remembrance of what He did to allow us to have continual communion with Him. In other words, we don't have communion with Him only while participating in "communion", our walk with Him should be in close communion at all times. Also, the word "communion" is so loaded with ritual baggage that I don't see the practice of "communion" having any Biblical resemblance to the Lord's Supper as practiced by Baptists.

As an aside, for the past 13 years, I have held a "Silent" Lord's Supper service on Christmas Eve. This is an idea that I "stole" from the church I attended while in seminary. When individuals enter the meeting place they are given a bulletin and reminded that there is to be no talking. The bulletin has Scripture readings and instructions, and we have the Lord's Supper accompanied by the playing of appropriate hymns. The whole service takes less than 20 minutes, and is conducted by candlelight. After the service we give each other a Christmas greeting at the door, and return to our homes. This has proved to be very meaningful to all involved, and has never grown old or stale, even though the service never changes.

I, for one, go to great pains to remind people of Paul's warnings in I Corinthians 11 prior to participating in the Lord's Supper. I stress that while the elements are nothing more than grape juice and bread, and have no mystical, magical, significance in and of themselves, the act of participating is a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, and should thus be taken seriously. I give folks plenty of time to "examine themselves" asking them to pray that the Holy Spirit would reveal to them any sin that they are not willing to forsake, and any relationship that they are not willing to reconcile. I tell them that they should not be concerned for anyone other than themselves during the observance, not wondering "why is that person participating", or, "why is that person not participating".

Very sound. I think this is uniform among Baptist churches. I've never heard anything about the Protestant demoninations doing this. Certainly, one cannot imagine the church of Rome telling their people about the perils of participating in the Lord's Supper with unresolved sin in their lives. They're too focused upon the whole magic cookie thing.

As far as those who decline, I think it does provide an indication to deacons and pastors that someone is struggling. They can then pray more on their behalf or try to make more opportunities to be available to that person if they want to discuss their spiritual struggles. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone ever being questioned about why they declined the Lord's Supper. I think this respect for privacy is pretty uniform. One might expect though that questions would be asked if a deacon or teacher or pastor didn't participate for six to twelve months.

I've noticed that Baptist churches that I've been in seem to be trending away from even a monthly observance. They might have the Lord's Supper once a month and alternating between morning and evening services or they may only offer it once every 2-3 months. Have you noticed this where you are? I'm somewhat split on this matter. We probably don't want to make the observance so routine that it is meaningless but one does have to consider if held too seldom that sickness or travel might leave some faithful people without opportunity to participate for many months at a time.

Of course, any brother (or sister) can hold a private Lord's Supper. I know evangelicals who do this occasionally when they have home prayer meetings or Bible study. Personally, I strongly prefer that the preacher should be involved but that is no bar to the liberties of Baptists in this matter. It may in fact be a good idea to have a sound brother conduct the Lord's Supper from time to time to demonstrate that we do not have a priesthood of any sort. I don't know if I could actually object to a woman serving the Lord's Supper if she didn't preach and followed the standard Baptist formula in reading the scripture. But I don't think I would have a scriptural basis to object providing the woman 'celebrant' did not offer instruction to the congregation but simply served and read the familiar scripture. It would be even harder for me to reject a woman 'celebrant' in a private setting, I think.

How about that? An interesting question about Christian liberty. What say you, based on scripture? (But I do still prefer to have an ordained man lead the service but that has more to do with personal consideration for the clergy and my insistence on male leadership of the church.)

Another observation on "Lord's Supper" vs. "communion": one does find that "communion" simply fits into speech easier than "Lord's Supper". I think that is why I sometimes use "communion" instead. It's easier to write sentences and to speak using it. But I generally assume that people know what a Baptist means when he uses either term. But you in the clergy probably have a strong point when you insist on the distinctive phrase. My background and outlook is simply so Baptist that I don't have the same sort of practical experience that undoubtedly causes our clergy to insist upon the distinctive phrase "Lord's Supper". I would say that RnMom did make your point for you a while back when she referred to "communion" as a sacrament. I'm sure that I'd be more strict in my language if I had the experience of a Baptist clergyman.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.