Unpopular Opinion Of The Day

[kerravonsen]

Arguing about the ordination of women is like arguing about whether the fish's bicycle should be blue or pink.

Not that I'm against ordination. It's a perfectly okay method of determining whether someone has a pastoral vocation and training them in it. It's just that it isn't the only method of doing so, and it has an unnecessary mystique for something which was borrowed from the administrative practices of the Roman Empire. The Bird of Heaven will fly where it will, and nobody can put it into a cage.

I guess that means I don't believe in the Apostolic Succession.

Comments

[tptigger]

Um, can you put that int secular English? You totally lost me.

[deird1]

*nods* As someone who is very much priesthood-of-all-believers-y, I get slightly baffled by this debate.

[kerravonsen]

very much priesthood-of-all-believers-y

Exactly.
Which is partly why I'm not running around protesting the way it's done in so many churches, because being ordained doesn't mean that someone is less called to a pastoral role. Ordained minister is still a brother/sister in Christ, still one of the priesthood-of-all-believers, someone who is called, someone who has studied the Word. It's just that it isn't the only way of doing it; someone could be mentored and called by Elders, they could get a vision like Saint Paul did... and so on.

[kerravonsen]

Um. I'm not really sure where to start.

Here's a stab at it...

Historically, about the time when the Christian Church became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it was organized hierarchically, with bishops of a particular area overseeing priests in that area, in a similar way to the way the civil bureaucracy of the Roman Empire was organized. Since this was before the first schism (split) in the Church, a lot of the denominations since then inherited that system. Along with it came the idea of the "Apostolic Succession"; that the only "true" priests were those who could trace themselves back to the twelve apostles; sort of receiving a special blessing from those who had been commissioned directly by Christ to "build his church". There's a certain subset of denominations that believe in the Apostolic Succession (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican...) and according to them, you can only be a priest/minister/pastor (someone in charge of a congregation of Christians) if you have been "ordained" by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone.... who was ordained by one of the Apostles.

Added in to this is the controversy as to whether women should or shouldn't be allowed to be priests, due to differing in interpretation of one of the epistles of Paul about whether or not a woman can "be in authority over a man".

There is another school of thought which says that there isn't anything magical about having been blessed by one of the Apostles, because the Holy Spirit (which I was referring to as the "Bird of Heaven") is a gift to all believers, and the Holy Spirit can give gifts and call someone to ministry whether or not any particular group of old men says they can or not. That all believers are equal under Christ, that Christ is our High Priest, and that everyone is a priest under him (also known as "the priesthood of all believers").

I can't remember the biblical references for this, sorry.

Does that make it clearer?

[tptigger]

Somewhat. I'm not sure about the fish and the bicycle though. Maybe I'm just brain dead...

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see--your first sentence confused me mightily. :)

I am probably more in favor of your opinion than others, if only because I have been a member of several different churches with various takes on the subject (both of ordaining women, which I think is only sensible, and of what ordination or ministry leadership should look like at all).

[miamadwyn.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of the Apostolic Succession. In fact, I love the idea of it.

But I am a little confused by your opinion. Are you saying that you don't think women's ordination is a big deal, as in, whether or not they can be ordained is not one of the things you care about?

[kerravonsen]

(nods)
What unites us is more important than what divides us. I consider myself non-denominational because I don't think the differences in denominations are that important. And, yes, different denominations do things in different ways, and most of them work anyway.

[kerravonsen]

I don't think women's ordination is a big deal because I don't think ordination itself is a big deal.

Not that I think you're wrong for loving the idea of the Apostolic Succession; there's something comforting and awesome in the chain of history in it. But I feel that it's wrong to declare that ministers can ONLY be chosen that way; it's like telling God what He can and cannot do. God and the Spirit can do what they darn well please, which includes calling people who aren't part of the Apostolic Succession.

Does that make my position clearer?

[sixpence-jones.livejournal.com]

I don't think I have ever read such a neat summation of the discussion: taking in historical practices and theology in five sentences. Love it.

[kerravonsen]

Why, thank you, Ma'am.

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

Guess not.

[miamadwyn.livejournal.com]

Okay, so far so good. I guess this is the part I'm not sure of. Are you saying that women should or should not be ordained? I guess I'm aware of how many Anglicans still fall on the side of "men only" and that there is a strong contingent of that thought in Australia, so at first I thought you were saying, "It doesn't bother me that women can't be ordained because..."

When it seems to me the more logical extension of thought from what you're saying is, "Of course women can't be blocked from ordination because..."

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

We have a lot to "thank" the Romans for, two thousand years of patriarchal domination, for one.

Jesus had female Apostles, but the Church refuses to accept that.