Archbishops of Canterbury and York on Women in Holy Orders - 1966

All theistic religions (that is to say, religions in which the God or Gods transcend the created order and stand behind nature and history, as well as acting in them, rather than being merged in a monistic or pantheistic unity) have male priesthoods. Female priesthoods belong to the nature religions in which human nature is sensed to be merely part of society, society part of nature, and nature itself Divine. The Christian Church, rooted in the biblical view of God and his relation to the world, has without question adopted a male priesthood. It is therefore pertinent to ask whether the feature of a male priesthood can be modified by the addition of a female priesthood without altering the essential character of the Christian ministry, and without affecting the human psyche at those deep levels at which it responds to religious symbolism.

Or, as C.S. Lewis put it in his essay, Priestesses in the Church?:

Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to "Our Mother which art in heaven" as to "Our Father". Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

Prophetic words, these, from some of the last orthodox thinkers in the Church of England.

What difference will women bishops make? Quite a lot, it seems...

Let God be a 'she', says Church of England women's group

Providing a bit of comic relief in response to this madness, Fr. Charles Nalls provides us with a photo of Libby Lane's new bishop's chair:

                       

Comments

[Ryan Clevenger]

Will Witt has an lengthy post on this that you may find interesting: http://willgwitt.org/theology/concerning-womens-ordination-a-presbytera-is-not-a-priestess-part-1/ .

[Embryo Parson]

Witt has looked in on this blog and commented before, is a Facebook friend, and has gone 'round with me a few times on certain Anglican pages at Facebook on the question of women's ordination. I am familiar with his theological work on this issue, and I categorically reject it as sophistical and uncatholic .

[Ryan Clevenger]

My intention with posting the link to his article wasn't to defend women's ordination but to see what arguments you might offer in defense the idea of the connection of priestess with the nature religions (your first quote) and C. S. Lewis' arguments against women's ordination (your second quote) which Dr. Witt argues against in the post I linked in my comment. I only had a little time to post my original comment, so I apologize for not asking directly how you would argue against Dr. Witt's arguments that address in some way the two quotes you have posted above.

Also—and this is just an aside— as someone who studies late antiquity (especially the intersection of rhetoric, philosophy, and theology), I cringe when I see the adjective "sophistical" thrown about in theological debate. I have read much of Dr. Witt's blog (he is one of the reasons why I became Anglican and not EO or RC), and I have never found his work to be sophistical. Political commentators are sophistical and deserve the moniker, but I just don't see how Dr. Witt's work is. Granted, maybe you are referring to your other conversations of which I am not privy, but it nonetheless smacks as a rather uncharitable charge.

[Embryo Parson]

I have no intention of engaging Witt's article here, since it is a closed case as far as I'm concerned, and there are better minds than mine in Roman Catholic, Orthodox and traditional Anglican circles doing yeoman's work as task theologians in addressing the challenge posed by the egalitarian and feminist pathogens at work in the case for women's ordination. On one occasion I explained to Dr. Witt how I predicted the traditionalist response to WO will shape up in Roman and Orthodox circles, and how some sort of official declaration will be issued, leaving conservative Anglicans who believe in WO with the decision as to whether they will or will not follow Catholic faith and order.

I will stand by my assessment of Witt's case as sophistical in addition to uncatholic. One example might be his argument that the president at the altar stands in persona ecclesiae rather than in persona Christi.

In persona Christi. Be sure to read the discussion in the comments as well.

[Ryan Clevenger]

Well, I also still stand by my comment. Perhaps we are equivocating on what sophistical means.

Thanks for the link. It looks like it will be helpful. Do you perhaps have a similar link in regards to the first quote (i.e, priestess and nature religions)?

Also, every time I comment I tick the "Notify me..." box but only receive an email about my comment being posted and never when you reply (hence a spike in views on this post! :) ). I've checked my spam and don't see anything there. Thought you might like to know.

[Embryo Parson]

Here's how I'm using the term, from Merriam-Webster online:

Definition of SOPHISTIC
1
: of or relating to sophists, sophistry, or the ancient Sophists <sophistic rhetoric> <sophistic subtleties>
2
: plausible but fallacious <sophistic reasoning>

Full Definition of SOPHISTRY
1
: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Thanks for making me aware of the notification issue. I'll see if there's some setting that addresses the issue.

[Ryan Clevenger]

If I had to choose from those definitions, I would say that I'm understanding sophistical in the sense o one, namely, the accusations leveled by Plato (and philosophers ever since) against the sophists for their (seeming) denial of truth whatsoever and using rhetoric for monetary or political (or any type of power) gain. One of the pitfalls of being a specialist in any area is you are never satisfied when people don't use words they way you think they should, and I need to learn—as my daughter likes to sing—to let it go. :)

If you mean the second definition—i.e., that his argument is fallacious in some sense—I would see your comment as not being so uncharitable as I originally read it (though I would still grumble about the value of using the word, especially if someone takes it as 3).

If you mean the third definition, I would then understand you to be saying that he is intentionally manipulating evidence that he knows not to be the case in order to mask a weak argument and trick unsuspecting readers into agreeing with him (n.b.– I don't mean "knows" as in "knows about alternative interpretations of evidence but remains unconvinced" but instead "knows that those alternative interpretations to his own are actually true"). It is this last one that concerns me for, as I have said, from all of his other essays that I have read on his blog (on topics that I am more familiar with), I have not noticed such a tendency.

Anyways, maybe this will clear up the confusion. I don't want to drag this on especially since this isn't directly related to the original post or my original comment and I don't want to be a that annoying internet commenter who nit-picks at everything. I do appreciate that you took the time to try and clear things up.

[Embryo Parson]

Thanks, Ryan. I don't mind fussy specialists. They keep us honest and on our toes.

Let me make one thing clear about Dr. Witt. I think he is a fine scholar, and I count him as a brother Anglican Christian. I'm sure he is one of the "go to" theologians for those in ACNA who hope things will go their way when the bishops declare on the issue of women's ordination.

However, like all of us, he has biases and presuppositions that affect how he processes the facts. Judging by some comments I've seen on his Facebook page and elsewhere, I know he is passionate about this issue. He has many female friends and colleagues who have been ordained to the priesthood. He surely wants his case to prevail, and he's doing a bang-up job of trying to persuade. If the decision of the bishops does not go his way, and should a schism result, his work and the work of many other egalitarian scholars will stand as the body of divinity that undergirds the decision to part ways with the traditionalists.

His is a tall order. Nary a word in the Bible in support of WO, and 2,000 years of tradition and the changeless stances of Rome and Orthodoxy to overcome, but by golly let's change Catholic order by employing an argument that just so happens to have originated in the Anglican church about the time feminism began making inroads. He certainly deserves an "A" for effort.