The Most Rev Katherine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, also claimed those who believe women should not be religious leaders do not understand church history.
In a rare British interview, she accused the Church of England of taking far too long to modernise, just days after its governing body voted to ordain women as bishops with no compromise measures for traditionalists.
And she dismissed the threat of orthodox Anglicans who are planning to create a rival structure to her church because of its liberal stance on homosexuality.
With regard to comments, please note carefully: I am going to leave comments open initially, but will turn this thread quickly into email only submitted comments if it degenerates. Feelings are running high at the moment, I know, and I have no desire to add any fuel to that fire. Please focus on the arguments. Any comments which get overly personal or are judged incourteous will be swiftly edited and/or removed. Thanks–KSH.
A warning in advance from this elf. Please do not comment on the picture. It just will take us too far afield. Ok? Thanks.
“They may threaten but I don’t think there’s a real possibility. If they decide to leave I think they will end up like other groups who have left the Anglican Communion.” She’s right to suggest that there has been far more talk than action. This FiF’er, in particular, have got to leave, and soon.
While I think there is a reasonable debate about women as pastors based on New Testament writings, I don’t know of any NT passages putting women in that kind of leadership/shepherd role. If I’m correct, that means the only argument in favor is that of ‘equality’ and of breaking ‘stained glass ceilings’. These are reasons to change things in the business world; the Church is not the business world and so these are not reasons to make women bishops.
[edited]
Something is not right about this person who says one day “they will end up like other groups”, and then on ENS she noted that she was afraid that the North American bishops would be too daunting a presence at Lambeth. Something is not right.
[blockquote] “It’s personal antipathy, and it’s a misunderstanding of leadership in the early church. The early church had women in leadership roles.” [/blockquote]
I cite a direct quote because I know personally how inaccurate the MSM can be when paraphrasing a person’s position. So I will stick to this one thing they put in quotes.
While I appreciate Kendall’s caution about inappropriate comments, why post “fighting words” if you don’t want that kind of reaction? Really, how else to interpret this quote but, “If you disagree with me, it is some personal neurosis on your part – or else you are just ignorant.”
This is like posting a picture of someone flipping people the middle finger and then calling for sober comments. It just doesn’t make sense. Same goes for her “emissions” comment about GAFCON.
If you don’t want discourteous, petty comments – then don’t post discourteous, petty comments.
Or, if you are just trying to get the news out there, then by all means use the “comments by email only approach.” Nothing at all wrong with that, especially when the subject matter includes rank insults to the majority of your readers.
“But all will be well.” Like becoming the fastest declining denomination in America?
Of course, she misses the entire point of the debate. What the CoE was approve of women bishops [i]and[/i] completely renege on promises given to Anglo-catholics 14 years ago, telling to “Push off, mates.”
It disturbs me that a person in leadership in what is said to be a Christian denomination could be seemingly so callous in her disregard for the consciences of sincere people. It’s puzzling to me to see her becoming increasingly so insulting and demeaning toward others (viz her GAFCON ’emissions’ taunt). I wonder what this portends for the future?
Timothy
The reason Kendall+ asks for caution is because people tend to ‘jump the gun’ and take things out of context. For example, you quoted above, but neglected to put the first part of the quote:
“I think there’s a whole range of reasons why people aren’t comfortable with the idea.”
So personal antipathy is but one among several reasons.
Brian. Please. I’ve been a priest for 20 years. That’s 20 years of diocesan conventions not to mention everything else that goes with the “job.” You and I both know that the quote catches the main arguments – opponents of any “new thing” are neurotic or ignorant.
And then you jump in to suggest “and they can’t read.”
But let the comments be courteous, one and all.
But Brian, the first reason she lays out is the “personal anitipathy” angle. That is what she sees as most significant. The only other one she can come up with is “misunderstanding” of the early church. So we are left with psycholgical neurosis or ignorance to explain the vast majority of Anglicans’ rejection of women as bishop. I would also add the vast majority of Anlicans’ rejection of women as priests, if you include Anglicans in generations earlier than our present age, but I know that appeals to history of that sort are dismmissed out of hand.
Ruth Gledhill also wrote an article that said (in effect) that traditionalists will not really leave the Anglican Communion. And I believe that I have read that same assumption in at least one other article.
As I have read posted letters from Anglo-Catholic clergy in England, I think that is a correct assessment. It is quite a leap to make, especially as a group. I would guess that there will be a continuing struggle within the Anglican communion with the hope that the natural demographics of the Church will favor the traditionalists …. if they can just hang on long enough and not be forced out of the Church or be corrupted by liberal (religious)ideology.
Whether I am right or wrong about the future, I do think that it is a pretty safe bet that the threat of leaving was not taken very seriously by the liberals which is why the decisions were made in the way that they were.
[i]Deleted – elves. Sorry Chris, it’s not a bad or mean spirited comment, but it’s an avenue we don’t want this thread to go down (re: the picture). Thanks for understanding[/i]
This is the worst nightmare of the “progressives” – that we won’t leave, that we will find ways of working within the Communion and without them!
I don’t think ‘all will be well’, although I’m sure we all pray for a miracle. For an excellent ‘counter’ to this, please watch Hardtalks interview with Archbishop Greg Venables here .. [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00cl588?order=aztitle%3Aalphabetical&filter=channel%3Abbc_news24&scope=iplayerchannels&start=1&version_pid=b00cl54z]link[/url]
At the very least I think it can be justly said that she certainly has a tin ear.
Leaving aside the propriety of female bishops and the irony of KJS scolding another province given “polity’s” new idol status, I am very curious about the timing and context of these comments. Clearly, CoE is very divided at the moment (listen to the audio of the Synod while keeping in mind these folks are Brits), and Rowan Williams is double-tasked with (a) keeping his own Church together and (b) focusing on Lambeth. If anything, KJS’s comments will rub salt in the wounds of the anglo-catholics, chafe the evangelicals (even though many were pro-WB, they know their normal allies are hurt, angry, etc), and highlight to the progs that Williams presided over the delay. Certainly her PR instincts are bad (starting with “mother Jesus” and continuing through the recent presentments/inhibitions, the East letter, and the GAFCON comments) – but this has the feel of something else. Why would she antagonize or through RW under the bus? Particularly in the wake of comments expressing “concern” about all the US bishops dominating Lambeth conversations. Might be nothing, might be signalling that she wants more hardball and wants RW to understand who’s got game.
Even the new Pope has described Mary Magdalen as “the Apostle to the Apostles.” I think Christ was wise to choose only males as his closest disciples, because a mixture of males and females would have immediately drawn the accusations of obscenity. The real obstacles to women’s ordination and consecration aren’t based on the actions of Christ, but upon the hard-headed obstinacy of the church bureaucracy. (Very coincidentally, all of them seem to be men!!!)
#15, to myself I had already answered the insightful questions you raise, with the explanation that her urgency is driven by her paymasters. They evidently view the results of the Synod which favor their agenda as indicating they are gaining control of the overall process to force change.
People skills really aren’t on her list of qualifications, rather like her being the Dean of a School of Theology, remember?! She must really feel sure of her superiority in whatever it is she thinks she’s superior in to be telling the Brits they are too slow to modernise. Sure. They want to end up like the incredible shrinking ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC.
Remember, she’s ELECTED so the representative of the peoples, you know, the ugly americans.
I don’t know who’s responsible for the following incongruity the reporter, editor or KJS when I read;
[i] ..hardline Anglicans from around the world announced the formation of a new movement based on an orthodox interpretation of the Bible, and plan to create a new province in North America for those opposed to the liberal Episcopal church.[/i]
To which she responded;
[i]”They may threaten but I don’t think there’s a real possibility. If they decide to leave I think they will end up like other groups who have left the Anglican Communion.” [/i]
Does leaving TEC mean leaving the Anglican Communion? How or why would she come to that conclusion?
I keep thinking of the Evelyn Waugh quote, “In 1945, Miss Mitford voted the socialist ticket. Having done her best to make England uninhabitable, she went to France to live.”
Again 19, please go to the BBC link the elves corrected in number 13, Archbishop Greg answers that so well.
[deleted]
the first reason she lays out is the “personal anitipathy†angle. That is what she sees as most significant.
There are myriad reasons for why we believe anything. And indeed we only believe what we are comfortable with. She may see this as the number one reason and I would agree-certainly more than 50% of opponents of WO have a misogynystic component to their “conscience.” There are undoubtedly exceptions, but antipathy drives alot of what people believe.
Thank you Rosemary Behan. The link doesn’t seem to work for me right now but I’ll try again later.
Based on the quotations in the article, I think the Telegraph’s statement that “she accused the Church of England of taking far too long to modernise” is hard to justify. She said change looks slow from her point of view, but that’s hardly an “accusation” that it’s taking “far too long.”
Pity roman, but thanks for trying.
Brian [23] More than 50%??? What about we females? Are we misogynists too?
Actually Rosemary, the serious answer to that is that some females are misogynists. Certainly more than 50% of the population are self-loathing.
Katie Schlamori took an axe,
Killed her church with 40 whacks.
When she saw what she had done,
She killed The Church with 41.
-Shalom idiots.
So sit down, Rosemary, be quiet and let Brian sort out the [i]authentic[/i] women around here. Don’t be surprised when they all seem to agree with him, however. As Tom Sowell so acidly observed years ago, “diversity” is little more than ideological conformity hiding behind superficial differences.
Well said Jeffersonian,
Brian,
I’m waiting, what part of my “authentic” womanhood has gone wrong?
[deleted]
Why do you all have your knickers in a twist? Is there anything here she has said which is not wholly predictable? We would ordinarily say that she is gloating, in reality and she has good reason to do so, after all. Gafcon would be a blow to someone who has some imagination, for it suggests much for future change. We have seen often and so remarked that she is without imagination, so GAFCON does not present itself to her as a real threat because she cannot imagine a real threat to the liberal momentum. Accordingly, her comments are NOT gloating but what is for her a matter of fact statement. The CofE is doing what she knows it should and those who do not will be marginalized and dissolved. She sees this as black and white; the black has been routed horse and foot. This is a fact.
The rest of us, for whom the future is a roiling mix of potentials, a brew all stirred by what we can imagine, read her words and are either nonplussed, infuriated, or contemptuous. She cannot grasp this as a reality; we are simply not paying attention to the facts.
It is this facet of her character, which I have been studying from a distance with both amazement and contradiction, which most frightens me. There is something alien about this absence. I may say that I have never met anyone before with this “handicap” to such a pronounced degree. The picture says much: Even an peremptory glance shows someone strangely androgynous, neither fish nor fowl so to speak, and this sexlessness is consistent with the absence of imagination. What I really want to say, but hesitate to say, is that she seems not completely human, incomplete is better, as if some ontology has never fully completed its journey through the phyla.
Am I seeing things? Allowing my imagination to run amuck? I can only be certain that I have not seen her like, after all these years in education. Larry
+KJS should sue the Telegraph for leaving out the ® after TEC’s trademark, “All will be well.” Or has she not gotten to registering TEC for exclusive rights to its use yet? 😉
#32, did you mean “[i]ontogeny[/i] that has never fully completed its journey through the phyla/um” ? But no, you are not seeing things, and count yourself lucky you have not previously met anyone with such a “handicap” to this pronounced degree…..I have. They are not rare in governmental bureaucratic organizations nor in academia, and in bureaucracies are sometimes not avoidable (I stepped out of the way when such a confrontation occurred, which can temporarily set the attacker back). Life is a battleground for them, on which to prove to some unspecified detractor or persecutor, perhaps projected onto you, that they will prevail, no matter the cost (to others especially).
This was why from her earliest emergence into the HoB I discerned things in TEC would deteriorate faster, not slower. Part of such people’s effectiveness is their unexpected chutzpah-like boldness in asserting the correctness of their position and untenableness of others’, which unfortunately the MSM aids and abets as in this article. The videos (so unlike any MSM) available after her visit to South Carolina diocese documented this well, I thought. Miranda T-H quoted elsewhere today takes the same approach, though appears less, to use your word, ‘incomplete’ly human, and is therefore difficult to dismiss or ignore. This is what they bank on – ‘you can’t ignore me since I [i]seem[/i] normal – just like you!’ And on they press, hopeful of thus redefining ‘normal’ and altering society to fit their own image.
Campus cultures are particularly susceptible, since they are microcosms of society easily re-made within a short time-frame. Through the 1970s and 1980s I had a front-row seat for this process operating in 4 different campus ministries, and really it was only the repetition of the experience that made me slowly realize it was a political methodology, entirely different from an authentic move of the Spirit in the Church (guess I’m a bit dense!).
Am I the only one who is going to mention that in Romans 16:7 Paul calls Junia (am woman) an apostle? Of course there are some questions as far as translation goes…But come on!
Brian (#23),
Your statement, “we only believe what we are comfortable with,” is one you might wish to reconsider. Certainly there are believers all over the traditionalist-progressivist spectrum whose faith is at the Pauline can-only-take-milk stage, i.e., un-tested by life experience, prayerful reflection, etc. and supported perhaps more by group identity, caricatures of the “opposition,†and so on than by any “dark night†of faith. But serious meditation and reflection reveals much in the basic doctrines of Christianity (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, etc.) that is very uncomfortable. So too is living the Christian life.
As one who lives and breathes in the environment of Anglo-American academia – which I think most of us would agree is predominantly on the liberal side of most issues – I find that my beliefs make life very uncomfortable much of the time.
Frankly, I think there are a number of voices in the current controversy who would do well to reflect on Christianity’s paradox of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Some of the traditionalist voices as well as those of the KJS stamp might be uncomfortable with the current struggles (might be, though some of them seem to enjoy it all a tad, don’t you think?), but their underlying faith often sounds much too comfortable.
Kendall, Elves, this thread has devolved rather shockingly overnight. I encourage you to edit it thoroughly or close it down. Peace to all.
[i] Slightly edited by elf- including the entire thread. [/i]
I see in these remarks by Jefferts Schori a consistent outlook which we have had from reappraisers throughout these controversies. She is unable or unwilling to see that there is principled disagreement; she sees, rather, discomfort, antipathy, historical ignorance, or anything other than clear minds reviewing the issue and deciding against her point of view. I see it didn’t take too long for the “self-loathing” line to emerge in this comment thread, as it is implied in Jeffert Schori’s comments to the Telegraph.
As to her political sense, she has come as a guest to another Province in which just this week the leading bishops were dealt a stunning and humiliating defeat. She comes to cheer publicly for the side which defeated them. I don’t suppose they will appreciate this interference.
[blockquote]Brian from T19 wrote:
Actually Rosemary, the serious answer to that is that some females are misogynists. Certainly more than 50% of the population are self-loathing.[/blockquote]
Interesting logic. It seems to go something like this:
1. People who don’t believe that women can be ordained (as priests or bishops) are misogynistic: this includes many women, who are thus self-loathing.
2. How do we know which women are self-loathing?
3. Obvious: because they don’t believe that women can be ordained (as priests or bishops).
A pretty bit of circular reasoning here, I think – not so much begging the question as forming it into an entire mendicant order.
Or is Brian from T19 really unaware that there are, in fact, major theological reasons why those of us who don’t believe that one can ordain a woman any more than one could ordain my cat actually hold that view? Does [i]everything[/i] have to be consigned to ‘feelings’?
And just before Brian accuses me (in the standard move) of comparing females to cats: this is an [i]analogy[/i], which means that there is only [i]one[/i] point of comparison: the question at issue.
[deleted]
#35: Here’s what my Bible says, “Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” One of two ways to read this: either A and J are apostles who stand out among that group, or they are well known to the apostles.
If the former, would we not then have to assume everyone (or many of the people) Paul cites in chap 16 is an apostle? In this case, I’d suggest a differentiation between Apostle (taught by Christ, clearly proto-bishops, and all men) and apostle (faithful Christian of many kinds of ministry). A reading along these lines is consistent with Paul’s other writings, the Gospels treatment of the 12 and the 70 plus the Pentecost, avoids reading female names as male (as some do with Junia), and does not do violence to the powerful witness and ministry of women in the NT (last at the crucifixion, first at the tomb, etc).
If the latter, no big deal.
Mr. Hamilton in #37 has to dig pretty hard to find an insult in #22’s commentary. I think he fails as his is an obviously gross misinterpretation of the homosexuality/bestiality comparison. Nonetheless, he has a point that much of the foregoing commentary is disappointing in terms of civility. The problem is that Mrs. Jefforts Schori (I regret that like many who do not suffer from any dislike of women, I cannot consider her validly ordained into the Apostolic Succession because the Church has no authority to do so) in this piece is so remarkably uncivil. As seems usual for her, she demonstrates little or no understanding of 2000 years’ worth of Christian theology and appears to have no comprehension whatever of Catholic sacramental theology with its understanding of the seven sacraments (Anglo-Catholics accept seven and not just two) as being objective rather than subjective and belonging to Christ rather than the Church such that He defines them, not her.
For the record, a valid sacrament requires five things: proper form (the words Christ used in scripture), proper materials (those Christ used in scripture), a proper minister (acting as He indicates in scripture), a proper recipient (again following His scriptural example) and a proper intention on the part of the minister (he must intend to celebrate the sacrament as Christ established it). In the case of WO, women are not proper recipients because Christ chose no women to be Apostles in scripture and a bishop ordaining a woman cannot be celebrating the sacrament as Christ intends since Christ evidently does not intend women to be ordained into the Apostolic Succession.
Note that this understanding of the sacrament of Holy Orders is objective, not subjective. Validity of sacraments is not about how anybody feels. I personally feel that women, including my wife and daughters, are just peachy. They cannot, however, be validly ordained into the Apostolic Succession and nothing any of us can do can change this. It was Christ’s decision from the moment He breathed life into His Church and He has led her in 2000 years’ worth of unbroken practice in this regard, offering no correction (not one single prophetic voice calling for a change in practice in 2000 years) as He surely would were His will in this matter being thwarted.
Mrs. Schori appears to understand none of this, making only insulting and dismissive comments in this article and indicating that she is unserious about the Catholic Church and the traditions of the Christian faith. It should not be surprising that commenters in this space treat her as her words evidently deserve.
#41: Professor Bart Ehrman settles the Junia/Junias issue in his book “Misquoting Jesus.”
[deleted]
[blockquote]”…she accused the Church of England of taking far too long to modernise, just days after its governing body voted to ordain women as bishops with no compromise measures for traditionalists.”[/blockquote]
Implicit in this comment, and consistent with her world view, is that the Anglican faith of the CoE – up to last week – was inherently sinful and faulty for this failing. All of Christianity had it wrong until this innovation she espouses, which (surprisingly and, she would probably say, irrelevantly!) is consistent (or comfortable) with modern sensibilities.
I might suggest that she would consider the faith of the CoE still sinful or faulty today due to its failure publicly to embrace and bless SS behavior.
So the concept is that as we learn (from TV? magazines?) and delete these failings, we are progressing in our faith to a state of less sinfulness. We become more god-like.
Why indeed, from her view, should one make any accommodation, or pause, for those in the CoE clinging to a retrograde and lesser morality.
🙄
Schori’s lack of imagination is, I suggest, one reason why she is unable to view Christianity as living outside the visible, measurable world. We should not be surprised therefore that she is unable to envision heaven and hell, but continues to focus on social remedies in this world. Indeed, imagination is required to grasp the “worlds” Christ inhabits, yesterday and tomorrow.
Her matter of factness makes her a formidable opponent because she cannot envision failure and she therefore does not tremble at what-might-happen. Such confidence cannot readily be shaken. And this yields a strange confusion that she cannot see, that is, she cannot see that she is speaking the language of affect, not the language of cognition as she supposes.
What is needed then? A new leader who has what she does not have and who will stand in opposition to her by being incomprehensible to her. That is, a leader for whom past and future are living presences, worlds of sensuous realities, brightly colored and intensely alive. This will baffle the Gray Lady, nor she will know know how to deal with this. We have seen the inklings of such presences at GAFCON, and we have seen her reaction to these presences. Was it not clear that she was angry because baffled at the meetings sheer vitality? Larry
#43 Wolfstan, going to Bart Ehrman for your Bible interpretation and historical context is like goiing to Baghdad Bob for military intelligence. Bet you never bothered to investigate what the wide range of Bible scholars think of Ehrman’s “scholarship”.
But serious meditation and reflection reveals much in the basic doctrines of Christianity (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, etc.) that is very uncomfortable. So too is living the Christian life.
As one who lives and breathes in the environment of Anglo-American academia – which I think most of us would agree is predominantly on the liberal side of most issues – I find that my beliefs make life very uncomfortable much of the time.
If you had not come to some accommodation with the ideas, then you would not believe them. It is impossible for us to believe things that we have not made ourselves comfortable with.
[Deleted. Off topic]
Ex Anglican Sue
Of course there are theological reasons. There is no question, as I said in my previous posts and as I believe ++Katharine is saying here that people do not support WO.
Not all of those who support WO are misogynystic. My argument is that greater than 50% of those who do not support WO have misogyny as part of their reasoning. Indeed, a great portion of those who support WO may be misogynyst in other ways. Theological arguments are how we justify our being comfortable with different things. That is not to say they are incorrect, just that they help alleviate the stress.
As for self-loathing people, they are everywhere. Not all women who oppose WO are self-loathing and women who support WO may still be self-loathing.
[Off topic]
[Off topic]
[Off topic]
[Off topic]
[i] PLEASE, return to comments about the article posted by Kendall.[/i]
-Elf Lady
[i] Comment edited. Commenter is warned. [/i]
Good luck, Kendall. You’ve got your hands full with this lot! (And kudos to the Elves Working Overtime) Maybe the commenters in question haven’t seen the London Telegraph piece naming Kendall one of the 50-Most-Influential-Anglicans in part because:
[blockquote]Of all the many conservative Anglican blogs, Kendal Harmon’s ‘Titusonenine’ (from the biblical verse, “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message…”) is perhaps the least prone to flame wars.[/blockquote]
As for the article in question, it’s quintessential British press in action … and you and I have BOTH been burned by those who make the point of their story what they THINK we said rather than what came out of our mouths.
I found Jim Naughton’s exegesis clarifying:
[blockquote]a classic example of an ideologically-motivated newspaper writing conflict-mongering headlines that the text of the story cannot support.
The PB didn’t “wade in” to anything; she was asked a question and she answered. She didn’t say those who oppose having women as bishops “simply don’t like them,” she said that was among the issues for some opponents. And she doesn’t “accuse” the English Church of going too slow, as writer Martin Beckford has it. She said that the English way of proceeding on this issue looks slow to Americans.
Strip away the T’graph’s bluster. Read only the PB’s quotes. Then decide if you would characterize the interview as they did.[/blockquote]
And now I’m off to London.
Dear Elf Lady,
I second Susan Russell’s kudos to you, your fellow elves, and Kendall for working overtime. So I’m reluctant to raise this question. But is a post that ends with “I’ve yet to be convinced that KJS is able to live with the truly uncomfortable paradoxes of Christianity. She apparently sees everything with a clarity I find disturbing.” off-topic?
Concerning Susan Russell’s comment, she rightly warns us against inferring too much from KJS’s comments taken out of their fuller context. It’s all the more surprising, then, that Susan Russell infers a flame war from deleted comments she obvious lt can’t have read.
[i] Comments directed to other commenters or those addressing a removed comment will be deleted. The subtleties can be a nightmare. Also, any comment on WO will be deleted. [/i]
-Elf Lady
And Brian from T19, where do you come up with the 50% of all people being self-loathing? That is, frankly absurd. Speak for yourself. There are things about myself I dislike and for which I repent and pray for the grace to ammend, but “self-loathing?” I think not.
#43: I agree the bulk of the evidence (including most patristic commentary) suggests Junias was a woman, I just don’t think that necessitates WB. Citing Bart Ehrman is not compelling – there are some serious Greek scholars on both sides of the gender and relationship debates.
#48 and #50 – is all philosophical or theological argumentation merely a cover for underlying psychological phenomena?
60, nevertheless Paul did label Junia as not only an apostle but “well known”. Now this is not dispositive, but must be read together with the rest of the NT. And in so doing, if we have a presupposition that apostle=elder or overseer and that neither of these can be women, so then Junia could not have been that type of apostle, then we are using our presupposition to control our interpretation.
You have to be open to the idea that Paul used the word apostle the same way in all instances unless their is a good reason to think he meant something else. Here he names a male and a female and calls them apostles. I think that one is justified in arguing that they are both the same type of apostles. And, of course if they were both male no one would argue that the plain meaning of the word did not apply.
Re: #61, this is just plain silly; see:
http://trushare.com/70MAR01/MR01JUNI.htm
I am pleased to state (while on the subject of silliness) that Touchstone will in due course be publishing a review by Fr. Hunwick of *Junia: The First Woman Apostle* by Eldon J. Epp.
#61. Let’s lay this out logically. Here’s the argument.
1. Paul calls Junia an apostle
2. Junia is a woman
3. Therefore a woman can be an apostle
I think #2 is sound. #1 is problematic, and probably needs to be separated into 2 steps: 1a. Paul says Junia is prominent among the apostles 1b. Paul’s statement implies Junia is numbered among the apostles. So on point 1b, the plain meaning isn’t terribly helpful, since we need to understand what relationship is implied by Paul’s statement and the English translation carries less “information” with it than the underlying Greek. I am no Greek scholar, but my reading of various commentaries has convinced me that the most likely relationship implied does not make Junia an apostle (ie, premise 1b is false).
I am also a bit leary of the Paul’s usage of the term “apostle.” Is he saying she is one of those sent to carry the good news? Or in a narrow sense that she is an Apostle in same way as Peter, James, etc.? Not clear to me. Your thoughts?
Dr. Tighe, as you know Epp, Junia: The first woman Apostle has a different view.
#41,47,60-63 + wolfstan
Thanks for interacting. With all due respect to some detractors Bart Erhman, although often extreme, is surely a well respected scholar, enough to the point that it is somewhat juvenile to dismiss him just because he does not support tradition. ie-“He only says that because he’s a liberal” Indeed it would appear that none of us are greek scholars, and there are of course commentaries on both sides of the issue. So it becomes rather boring to say “my commentary says this” while “my commentary says that” The fact of the matter is there is enough evidence, supported by leading CONSERVATIVE scholars, to say, at the very least that Junia was likely an apostle. And I do not know where #41 gets the strange idea that an apostle was somewhat “taught by Christ” It appears that you have apostle and disciple mixed up. An apostle in the NT is anyone who has seen the risen Lord and testifies (hence “one who is sent out”) to his resurrection.
Just earlier in the chapter, by the way, we have Pheobe named among the deacons. Clearly a place of “ministry”
63, that is not what I am saying. I just am not will into tear that part of the Boble out as so many of you seem to want to do. I also said that it does not stand alone. I am suggesting that there is something going on here and we need to guard against our presuppositions controlling our reading of the text.
Ufortunately the feelings over WO run so deep that rational discussion is all but impossible. See Dr. Tighe’s response to what I thought was a suggestion for rational reasoned discussion.
Dr. Tighe
” is much the more fashionable translation at the moment. Of course , is has its problems. If Andronicus and Junia were ‘prominent’ members of the apostolic band it is odd that we hear nothing else about them; and odd that Paul, who is probably listing for the Roman Christians people who could put in a good word for him, didn’t give them a more prominent billing on the list. So ‘Apostles’ would have to mean a different, lesser category then the Twelve”
It is always boring to read theologians attempt to do exegesis. First off you mention a “number of recent studies” when in fact you mean this one study that you read.
Second, I for the love cannot fathom how you can what you do in the quoted text above. In 1 Cor 15 Paul says that there were “HUNDREDS OF APOSTLES” Why don’t we hear all their names? Yes, why didn’t Paul just drop a bunch of ‘prominent’ names as he ends a letter? I suppose because that is not what he wanted/intended to do. So with hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection of our Lord it is not at all odd that we do not hear all their names because it seems that the early Christians did not feel it necessary to create random lists of prominent names in order to help the traditionalists fight off the ‘feminists’. Feminists indeed!
I was always taught that “one verse does not a doctrine make”.
In other words, just because a concept or idea appears ONE TIME in the Bible it is not enough to make a complete theological point out of it. It could have been a one time occurance, an abberation or special circumstance, a special allowance granted by God for a specific time or event, etc.
I thought it needed to be corroborated by other verses or consistent church teaching to be considered valid teaching.
Thus Junia, in this ONE verse, even if the assumption that she was ‘numbered among the apostles’ is correct, it is not enough to make a full case among it, ESPECIALLY as there is disagreement over whether she WAS an apostle or simply KNOWN among (by) the apostles.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Wow, it seems that there is an epidemic of ‘keyboarditis’ going on here. Even in my post! 😉
” it is not enough to make a full case FROM it (for Women’s Ordination),”
my apologies for choppiness.
Jim Elliott <><
Jim and I am not saying that it does, but if apostles simply mean those who were witnesses to the resurrection then what is the big deal because we know that many women were witnesses. But if you turn around and use the same word in the same context as an argument for male only church leaders then you have a problem.
I would note that the translation of “among the apostles” or “known to the apostles” seems to depend on whether the translator thinks Junia is a male or female. In the absence of a female Junia the majority translation seems to be “among the apostles”. That indicates to me there is something going on here other the technicalities of translation.
Jim,
You are of course right, but we were discussing this one passage and not the entire corpus. Most of us have neither the time nor the energy to compile exhaustive exegetical essays on women in the NT for use in the response forum of a blog. It is also trite to just say that a verse needs to be harmonized. While that is true the fact is that the NT does not ever address “womens ordination” because there were no official orders of ordination in the early church. There was that seminary in Berea i guess 🙂 Just as it’s not enough to say that Jesus was pro-gay because he doesn’t talk about it, it is not enough to say that the NT is against WO because it doesn’t talk about it. It was just not a topic of discussion, not least because we are anochronistically reading our understanding of ordination back on to a time when there was no official standing order…”deacon, then priest, then bishop” You were an apostle if you had seen the risen Lord, and because it originated there Jerusalem leaders had a sort of primacy, but even there we should remember that Paul, because of his revelation of the Lord, did not feel it necessary to go and validate his message with the “Jerusalem hirearchy”
71, you have said what I have said before, just much better. We seem to become the most dogmatic where the Biblical data is least helpful or clear.
#66 – I understand you weren’t heading down the Greek scholarship route, but my experience (limited and subjective, admittedly) is that discussions over Junia usually boil down to two questions: man or woman? apostle or not? By framing it up logically, I was trying to give us something to discuss, premises to test, etc, as opposed to recycling opinion. I certainly do not want to tear that part of the Bible out, I want to understand it. To your point that is does not stand alone, I agree, and I wonder how Paul’s admonition about women and teaching authority fits in here. I also hope you won’t let a third party derail our exchange.
#65 – My formulation was clumsy, for which I apologize. What I am struggling to articulate is whether there is a difference between the Apostles/Disciples (sent by Christ, with authority and a special charism) and apostles in a general sense. Clearly, not all who saw the resurrected Christ and testified to it were Apostles/Disciples – his Mother, and Mary Magdalene, for example, would have seen Him and testified to his resurrection, but they were not present at Pentecost. So while they might be considered apostles, they were not Apostles in the sense of an office.
TWilson,
I still feel that your distinction between “office” is reading back a later understanding of ecclesial authority that simply was not black and white in the early church. As far as I can tell, when Paul, in drawing on his “apostolic” authority to correct churches it calling attention to the fact that he had started those churches and he, not them, had seen the risen Lord, and so they must submit their teachings to his testimony. I am open to being wrong if you can demonstrate, but again I see nothing to indicate there was a hierarchy of ‘apostle with teaching authority,’ ‘apostle without teaching authority,’ etc..
I don'[t think that we can assume, without more, that the disciples were men only. We know from Luke 8 that women disciples traveled with Jesus and that 12.
[blockquote]Luke 8:1-3 ESV Luke 8:1 Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them(1 )out of their means.[/blockquote]
Ben Wortherington suggsts that Joanna may actually be Junia and he suggests that Paul uses the word apostle in the same way that he applies it to himself; that is traveling missionaries. See Worthington, What have they done with Jesus, pp 16-20.
We also know that Paul admitted to being taught by at least one woman and her husband: Acts 18:26 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
The role of women in Jesus ministry is really extraordinary give the normal role and status of women in that culture.
In addidtion Acts does not necessarily limit Penticost to only the 12. The versee read: “Acts 2:1-2 ESV Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.” Teh text is not clear who the “all” are. Many to include the Chrysostom (who thought Junia was female) think that it was the 120 mentioned in Acts 1:15: “15 In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said,” And that number was probably comprised of those persons set oun in Acts 1:13-14: “Acts 1:13-14 13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.” The notes to the ESV indicate that the Greek adelphoi translated as brothers is often used to refer to min and women who are siblings that is brothers and sisters in Christ.
adhunt – Thanks for responding in good faith and keeping the heat level down. What I am getting at are the distinctive things Christ commands his Disciples or empowers them to do: formal sending and power to forgive/retain sins (John 20); promise of the paraclete (John 14); do this memory of me (Luke 22); the various healing powers; baptizing etc. Paul also takes pains to have his ministry considered apostolic (ie, approved by the other apostles and grounded in his witness to the risen Christ). The Twelve (and their successors such as Paul and Matthias) have more power and authority than the many others who accompanied Christ – including the women, who were often more faithful, but also folks like pre-elevation Matthias and Barsabas who according to Acts were with Christ from the beginning – and I think it’s clear Christ intended that power to last after his ascension until his return. This lasting power temporally necessistates a mechanism for succession – seen first in the case of Matthias (interestingly, the only 2 candidates considered were men).
Historically, I think the Presiding Bishop is right. What is interesting to me is how she sounds like she’s coming to the theological argument like a scientist, who has not been formed first by religious language. I imagine to many faithful, this sounds strange; but it is also refreshing to those who have found all religion, and religious people, to be oppressive, judgmental, bitter, vindictive and angry.
I do think its interesting that as the culture becomes more secular, we become less likely to kill each other over religious perspectives.
I admit, I don’t quite buy the argument that the NT had women “apostles.” I also don’t think that it matters: I’m not sure if it is logical to say that the cultural practices that the NT accepts normative are necessarily divine. A cultural practice then may not make much sense now. We have to argue it together.
thank you for posting this, Kendall
#75
So we’re to assume that we are more enlightened than the Church in its wisdom over the past 2,000 years? And this enlightenment just happened to occur in the west on the heels of the civil rights and women’s lib movements? Sorry, but I don’t buy it.
[i]The notes to the ESV indicate that the Greek adelphoi translated as brothers is often used to refer to m(e)n and women who are siblings that is brothers and sisters in Christ.[/i]
I looked it up, since it sounded like words were missing (keyboarditis!):
[blockquote]Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothersâ€) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God’s family, the church; also verse 15
I know that ‘adelphoi’ is not easily translatable into English, since Greek has no words for cousin, nephew, step-relations, etc.[/blockquote]
Much as I respect the ESV and its translators, they made a slight mistake here:
[blockquote]{the} word adelphos, which can mean “brother,†“cousin,†“kinsman,†“fellow believer,†or “fellow countryman,†is used consistently throughout the LXX, even when cousin or kinsman is clearly the relation described (such as in Genesis 14:14, 16; 29:12; Leviticus 25:49; Jeremiah 32:8, 9, 12; Tobit 7:2; etc.). Lot, for instance, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Genesis 11:27–31), is called his brother in Genesis 13:8 and 11:14–16. The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated “cousin†or “brotherâ€[/blockquote]
[url=http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9174.asp]Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America[/url]
Just thought I’d point it out. 🙂
Jim E. <><
76, I am not sure that you can say that. It is clear that there were more discples than just the 12. We don’t really know that Jesus did not commission women. We don’t know that women were not among the 70. And we do know that Jesus’s involvement of women in His ministry was scandalous for the times. Women didn’t travel with men, they just didn’t. And they wern’t tought, yet Jesus did just that.
I think we have to be careful in reading back church structures that developed as at later date into the beginnings. I must admit I do wish someone had kept minutes nad mimbership lists.
That last line in the first quote (I know that ‘adelphoi’ is not easily translatable into English, since Greek has no words for cousin, nephew, step-relations, etc.) should have been deleted out, but somehow wasn’t. The quote ends after the words “also verse 15”
Sorry
JE
Br. Michael,
They may have done so, but if they did were probably destroyed by one of the Emperor’s (Diocletian?) decrees along with the original autographs of the NT and other Christian writings.
JE <><
The BDAG Greek lexicon says “The pl. can also mean brothers and sisters (Eur., El.) LXX Greek is not necessarily controlling for NT Greek.
I lit the matches! 🙂
Let me also add that what I am looking for is a stable, consistent interpretation, not shopping for a way to limit women’s roles in the church or cut them out of Holy Spirit action. As 75 notes, it is easy to miss how radical Jesus was personally in his treatment of women (the woman at the well being a great example of smashing gender, cultural, and moral boundaries in a single story). And (as I noted above) women often took risks that most of the men declined to take (staying at the scene of the crucifixion, visiting the tomb). Other great examples: Mary at the annunciation, Elizabeth’s spirit-led perceptiveness (recognizing Mary’s child-to-be as her Lord), Lydia housing Paul despite his recent trouble-making,
we can go back and forth on [i]adelphoi[/i] all day long, your study notes vs mine, but the end result is I will win. 🙂 Of course.
One Catholic site puts it this way:
[blockquote]The word used in St. Mark 6:3 for “brethren” is adelphoi (Latin Vulgate: fratres). There is no question that in Greek, both classical Greek and Koine (biblical) Greek, adelphos (plural: adelphoi) can mean either a natural brother, or a relative but not a natural brother, or even a spiritual brother (as Christians among themselves).
It is known from St. John’s Gospel (19:25) that James and Joseph, mentioned in the quoted passage from St. Mark as adelphoi of Christ, were not natural brothers of Christ, but rather cousins. That is just one proof that adelphos cannot be taken invariably as meaning “natural brother” — and certainly not in this context. [/blockquote]
In this sense, Catholic Eastern and Russian Orthodox Christians agree. Adelphoi was NOT limited to physical blood brothers but also to extended family.
Anyway, that’s off topic. What did this have to do with the discussion? Oh, yes, those present at Pentecost included more than just the 12. I always assumed that it refered to the 120 mentioned earlier, as well, thus Peter’s statement:
This is a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel:
“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
Men and women are both included in who will receive the Gifts of the Spirit of God.
Peace
Jim Elliott
your [i]adelphoi[/i] in Christ
#80 – Clearly there are more than the 12 in the super-group, but where many of these commands/prerogatives are delivered the text is clear that the audience is the 12 (or 11). The point on Pentecost is interesting (not sure which poster made it), ie, a large group with women being present. It cuts in both directions, too – broader sharing of the general gifts of Pentecost, while making the exclusion of women from the Judas replacement process clearer (ie, they weren’t included even if they were present to be selected from).
I think I need to turn off the computer and spend some prayerful time with a nice old fashioned paper-text.
[i]I think I need to turn off the computer and spend some prayerful time with a nice old fashioned paper-text.[/i]
Ditto. My ‘contributions’ thus far have not been necessarily advancing the discussion into any ‘meaningful’ directions. So, I’m going to bow out as well.
Espcially as the weekend is almost here. (one more hour to go!!)
Peace to all here!
Jim Elliott <><
That is true, but if this selection determines gender why does it also not determine being an eye witness to the resurrection, being with Jesus from the beginning and being Jewish?
Anyway, good discussion. I too am signing off.
I may as well have one last go at it before I too sign off.
TWilson,
I want to note that I agree with you, many of those imperatives Jesus gave were to the 12, or 11. I still do not see that it is the transfer of an office (not least because that term is nowhere near the text). But more than that I, for my part, see the use of these Gospel texts for this purpose to be out of line because it uses the texts in a way that I do not believe they were designed to be used. That is to say I believe the Gospels to be about . . .the Gospel. About the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. mutatis mundasis, [not/i] about ecclesiology or church hierarchy. I know all about this having been raised Pentecostal. Look at the way that they use Acts!
Anyway, thanks everyone, brothers and [sisters/i] alike,
Tony
# 89 – I’m not sure if I’m reading you right, but I’ll give a shot. Matthias’ selection (the process, not the fact) selects for some visible/knowable characteristics, and leaves it up to God to judge the interior. I suspect the visible criteria echo Christ’s own: those who were with him the longest and witnessed him after the resurrection make sense, though it sounds in Acts like the candidates hadn’t seen Jesus post-resurrection and had to be “made” witnesses. The being Jewish part isn’t a differentiator among the group as all share it (and it gets obviated later in the circumcision discussion). The gender criterion also echoes Christ’s selection of his closest Disciples, and unlike being Jewish it is a differentiator among (a) those who been with Jesus from the beginning, (b) those who had witnessed him post-resurrection and (c) those who were physically present during the selection. Also, given Christ’s very radical attitude toward some traditional gender roles/rules, his use of them gets underscored even more (ie, if they weren’t important, he’d have ignored them).
I must admit I haven’t processed it very well, since it was only this thread that led me to re-read Matthias’ selection in this light. Even more than usual, I’m shooting from the hip, and I’d rather take some time to step back, pray, and reflect.
Post script,
I’m always happy to converse with people who step back, pray, and reflect. I certainly need to do so as well
So KJS refers to the *early church* as a reason for what she does. It would be mildly interesting and worth looking at if she *were* in the “early church”. She isn’t, never has been. Her mother was, and being a pretty well educated lady came to rather different conclusions about just about everything Katherine is addressing. Does KJS actually think the ECUSA of now has a shred of anything in common with Christians of centuries ago; abortion on demand being defended, the Creed dropped from the liturgy all over her church, the Ressurection denied by laity, clergy, bishops? There were people who were in the “early” church who folowed these ways of thinking, true, but they were anathematized. That part of the system is being missed. No one in ECUSA can be excommunicated for any thing, any belief or lack thereof. Period. Making Robinson a focal point of Lambeth is a smoke screen.
#57 – and when one is merely asked the question one nevertheless has to decide whether and to what extent to answer. She could have said, “Well I’d rather not say too much because this is not my province”. I dare suggest that if one “strips away the Telegraph’s bluster” and read only what the Presiding Bishop said… we still get wading in. And we still get words that by themselves (without the Telegraph) do little to foster (oh what’s that word she likes?) shalom.
#77 – thank you for putting it that way. My First Rule of Rhetoric states, “The best way to make a point is to have the other person make it for you”. Your moment of self-revelation is as refreshing as it is shocking.