Women Catholic Priests

[NathanATX]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...women_priests/

wow...

[BruceChris]

Now I know that I'm not a Catholic, and I do not begin to understand the value that tradition has in the Catholic church. I very much appreciate the value of the Protestant reformation, but what I really want to see this time around is the Catholic reformation. It seems clear that the Roman Catholic church has an institutional inertia that is vast. What can we expect to see in the way of an American Catholic church, in the near future? Church heirarchy? "Whenever two or more of us"....... is all of the heirarchy that I need.

Women priests? Wonderful Idea. I think it's the men that I worry about more. And in Genesis 5 it clearly says that we are ALL created in God's image. That's all 6 billion of us, male, female, intersexed, gay and straight.

Peace and Love, Chris

[NathanATX]

These women are amazing... incredibly inspiring...

[Blossom]

I, too, would like to see the RCC ordain women (as well as allow their priests to marry), but I would hate to see them do this as a response to outside pressure to keep up with the modern world. I would like to see them dialogue with other churches that ordain women (as well as with their own membership who support women's ordination) and look at Scripture again to see if they have misinterpreted it. The RCC should only change their position if they see Scripture differently. But if they change their ordination practices only as a result of dismissing Scripture, then they will have quite a problem.

In Protestant denominations, women who want to follow God's call can leave their denomination and go to another that ordains women. Catholics, however, will have a tougher time since there is quite a gap between Catholic and Protestant belief in certain areas. For instance, a serious Roman Catholic would have a pretty tough time taking what they would consider to be a very watered-down form of the mass (no transubstantiantion!). It makes sense that the women in this article seem to be separating into their own revised Catholic church rather than moving to a Protestant denomination.

But even for Protestants, it is tough for women to find a denomination supportive of their calling without betraying other doctrines they hold as essential. This is especially so for women coming from the more fundamentalist denominations.

[BruceChris]

But if the change is embarrassing to some, they almost always say either that nothing has really changed, or that they had it planned that way all along, after the fact, of course. It was only 30 years ago that the original 11 women were ordained into the Episcopalian church, in a manner described as irregular by many of the mainstream bishops. By now, there ARE women bishops, in that church. Now and then, I kinda wish that I could be an Episcopalian, as well as UCC. There are all kinds of interesting things going on in THAT church. Check out their new lady bishop.

And those in power never allow change without some form of pressure. (Somebody here has a signature to that effect.) Certainly not Ratzinger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori

Peace and Love, BruceChris, a not-so-closet feminist

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

And those in power never allow change without some form of pressure.

Peace and Love, BruceChris, a not-so-closet feminist

That's true. Not too many people just wake up one day, have a cup of coffee, and think "Gee, I think I need to totally change the way I view such-and-such issue". It often takes pressure. There is a part of me that would like to be the person who pushes hard for change through almost any means possible. There is a zeolot within me...which isn't all bad! But the Methodist Church has helped to moderate me a bit...you know, valuing the quality of the process of change as well as the end result. And I remember one of the lessons that I learned in a Christian ethics class was that the oppressed can become the oppressors. This, of course, points out the need to be aware of in what way we become that change agent exerting pressure.

But back to the point that those in power rarely change without some form of pressure: in the Church, I would hope that they would not be influenced by the outside pressure of changing culture. Changing culture necessitates new forms of expressing our message, but the message itself does not change. Neither does the foundation change--which is God's will for humanity as revealed in Scripture. If a church changes their foundational beliefs just to keep up what is politically correct or perceived as culturally relevant, then they have failed in their calling. But if a church changes their practice because they believe they have come to undersand the Scriptures (Bible) more fully, then they are on the right track. Hope this is making sense. I am really just repeating my belief that change is needed regarding how many Christians view women in leadership/ministry, but I want the Church to change for the right reasons!

Most importantly, I want to believe that the leadership of all Christian denominations are open to the change agent of God's Spirit in correcting and redirecting. And to some degree, that is what has happened with women in ministry. As those who have stood against women in ministry begin to see God working through these women, change of heart occurs and they become willing to look at Scripture again to see if they have misinterpreted it.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Blossom

But even for Protestants, it is tough for women to find a denomination supportive of their calling without betraying other doctrines they hold as essential. This is especially so for women coming from the more fundamentalist denominations.

Are you aware, Blossom, that there are Fundamentalists who agree with all of Fundamentalist doctrine as taught, for instance, at Bob Jones University, but they disagree on one thing: they think their fellow Fundamentalists are wrong to interpret Scripture as opposing committed, same-gender relationships. Yes, indeed, there are some lesbian and gay congregations that are just like the Fundamentalists with the exception of their interpretation of Scriptural teaching on homosexuality.

I've had some brief conversations with a gay man who is a graduate of Bob Jones University. I asked him what he meant by his insistence that he was a Fundamentalist. Well, he believe the Five Fundamentals--he just doesn't believe the anti-gay interpretation of scripture. I didn't get into any arguments with him, but I have no doubt about his sincerity and commitment to the authority of the Scripture.

Steven E. Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Blossom

I, too, would like to see the RCC ordain women (as well as allow their priests to marry), but I would hate to see them do this as a response to outside pressure to keep up with the modern world. I would like to see them dialogue with other churches that ordain women (as well as with their own membership who support women's ordination) and look at Scripture again to see if they have misinterpreted it. The RCC should only change their position if they see Scripture differently. But if they change their ordination practices only as a result of dismissing Scripture, then they will have quite a problem.

Blossom, I agree with you! One reason I've just transferred my membership from one United Methodist Congregation to another is that I felt that the current preachers at my old congregation just don't preach biblically. They don't take Scripture seriously enough. And don't even get me started on what is called "the Contemporary Service" at my old church. Sometimes there was no scripture at all in those services.

I'm now a member of a "liberal" congregation where they follow the lectionary, read two or three of the scripture lessons from BOTH the Hebrew Testament and the New Testament and consistently use the Psalter. The pastor genuinely struggles with the scripture in every sermon. The scripture certainly is authoritative, it is never dismissed, but it is also examined critically (in the positive sense of that word).

Is that so different from your view of scripture?

I agree with you that there are "liberals" in the United Methodist Church that seem to "dismiss" the scriptures--I don't find them very interesting.

I would also hope that you consider the possibility that there are some lesbian and gay Christians who, like yourself, do not dismiss scripture, but simply interpret it differently.

Steven Webster

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Blossom, I agree with you!

...I agree with you that there are "liberals" in the United Methodist Church that seem to "dismiss" the scriptures--I don't find them very interesting.

I would also hope that you consider the possibility that there are some lesbian and gay Christians who, like yourself, do not dismiss scripture, but simply interpret it differently.

Steven Webster

Hi Steven,

I wanted to quote you saying you agree with me, just in case I don't get that opportunity again!

Yes, I can believe that there are gay Christians who interpret Scripture differently without working to dismiss it. I don't believe that I have had the opportunity on the UMC site of discussing the issue with someone supporting a change of our Discipline who actually views Scripture as the Word of God. I have enjoyed the discussions that I have had with these very liberal individuals, but because we do not operate out of the same foundation, it is difficult to come to any real conclusion.

So, of course, the book you mentioned which is written by an evangelical will obviously have more of a place in the debate than most books that you could quote. By the way, I don't consider myself a great debater in this issue. I haven't studied much about homosexuality and have never made it a life goal to spend time debating it. I believe it is a very important issue, but not exactly one that God has called me to devote my life to. However, there are others who would likely have a lot more study behind them to enable them to enter into a strong dialogue with you. However, I will work a while longer (in the absence of someone with greater skill and knowledge in this area) to discuss this issue from my conservative position.

Blossom

[BruceChris]

High, Guys. When it comes to this matter of finding different interpretations of scripture, you two may see this as the answer, or a necessary part of the answer. However, obviously, it is also the problem. Those who have an interpretation that opposes us, or oppresses us do so from an interpretation that we don't like. All too many people who believe in freedom of religion only believe in it for their religion.

The good news/bad news is that the Bible can be all things to all people. The Fundies are forever criticizing us for finding or creating interpretations that make us feel comfortabe.

There is also the point of view expressed by my church, the United Church if Christ, that God is Still Speaking. As the human race becomes more knowledgable, and in some ways more mature, new facets of the mind of God are revealed to us. Or very old sources, like the dead sea scrolls are found and translated. Of course, there are those like the Muslims or the Mormons who claim that they have been given whole new written works, and most of us accept them as religions that must be respected, but choose not to try to convert.

(edit) Except that some people who call themselves Christians have oppressed enough African-Americans so that many of them have converted.

There is another facet of the revealed word of God that people both accept in some ways, and reject in others. Science. Now I believe that knowledge that is gained from the study of the world around us, once it has been validated through repeated scientific investigation, is valid. In creating a universe based on complex, yet consistent laws and principals, God has given us a source of ongoing revealed truth. And of course, conservative Christians are forever claiming that science is "attacking" religion. I believe that within the findings of science, God is not lying to us. Or in the beliefs of some, "testing our faith"

I believe that it is necessary for all of us to place God's love for us, and our love for each other (and that includes the very uncomfortable task of loving our enemies) ahead of blind faith in scripture, which always ends up as some form of proof texting. The Bible is simply not consistent. Of course, the Bible tells us to do the above, in the Great Commandment. There is also that verse that tells us that if we don't have love, we are but clanging symbols, and a general pain in the fanny. You know the one I mean.

We must interpret scripture through our best understanding of God's love, not God's love from arbitrarily chosen pieces of scripture. Now I know that I am tweaking Blossom's nose just a bit by saying that (and maybe Steven's), but I believe that we can still respect each other.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[suzer1013]

An interesting news item popped up on Salon.com and I thought it seemed relevant to this thread. Read on....


Church Fires Teacher for Being Woman

- - - - - - - - - - - -


August 21,2006 | WATERTOWN, N.Y. -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on Aug. 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.


"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.

"If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."


Lambert has publicly criticized the decision, but the church did not publicly address the matter until Saturday, a day after its board met.

In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

[Blossom]

Bruce Chris,

I may sound odd here, but I do not expect that those who do not view Scripture as valid, true, and consistent to agree with my view of homosexuality. It is really those who are Christian that I expect to support the Scriptural view. You say that the Bible is not consistent, I would say that many people use the Bible inconsitently. The conservative view, which is obviously between the liberal and fundamentalist views can be more difficult to hold because we work from both the belief that Scripture is inspired by God, and that Scripture must be interpreted with a scholarly eye to historical context. Both liberals and fundies prooftext. Conservatives do sometimes as well! But we try not to! The goal for a conservative is to take the Bible as a whole as well as looking at each specific passage. And in truth, I see the Bible as a whole as undergirding those clearer statements regarding homosexuality of the New Testament. If you want to discuss the specific passages with me, I am open to that. But if you dismiss the passages in favor of others, or without at least working carefully with those passages, we really won't have much to say to each other, simply because we have completely different foundations that we work from.

Also, faith in Scripture need not be blind. Take a look at books such as "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel (as well as many more in that genre) to investigate the actual factors supporting the historicity of Scripture.

From what I read concerning your view of love, I believe that it would be good to talk about what we understand love to be. Must love support the actions of those with whom we disagree? That is what I hear you saying.

And by the way, as for your comment "Christianity has oppressed enough African-Americans..." True Christianity values all human life. It is people living a marred version of Christianity who have oppressed African-Americans. These people may have gone to church, may have even had some element of faith, but their actions towards other races were not Christian.

Blossom

[suzer1013]

Originally Posted by Blossom

I may sound odd here, but I do not expect that those who do not view Scripture as valid, true, and consistent to agree with my view of homosexuality. It is really those who are Christian that I expect to support the Scriptural view.

Blossom,

This statement confuses me. I am a Christian, but what is it you consider to be "the Scriptural view"? Whose scriptural view would that be? What I think you are saying (and I could be wrong), is that to be a Christian, one must believe Scripture to be "valid, true and consistent." Perhaps I'm reading more into what you've written than you intended.

Susan

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Bruce Chris,

I may sound odd here, but I do not expect that those who do not view Scripture as valid, true, and consistent to agree with my view of homosexuality. It is really those who are Christian that I expect to support the Scriptural view.

In other words, your view of the Scripture is the only valid one, so therefore your view of homosexuality is the only valid one.

Is that a correct summary of your quote?

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

Blossom,

This statement confuses me. I am a Christian, but what is it you consider to be "the Scriptural view"? Whose scriptural view would that be? What I think you are saying (and I could be wrong), is that to be a Christian, one must believe Scripture to be "valid, true and consistent." Perhaps I'm reading more into what you've written than you intended.

Susan

Hi Susan,

I believe that how we handle Scripture is extremely important. I believe that many people use Scripture very poorly (picking and choosing what to believe without going through proper interpretation methods)--does this mean that they are not Christian? No, I would not say that. I do struggle at times to find exactly what liberal and conservative Christians have in common. This is a painfully difficult issue. Being a Christian, of course, is not really about whether you have your name on a church role, but refers to following Jesus. Scripture reveals who Jesus is, what he said and did, his sacrificial love, and his resurrection. When liberals and conservatives disagree on some of the very fundamental assertions that Scripture makes concerning the person (and divine nature) of Jesus, I do struggle to find how exactly we are all following the same Jesus. But I will not say that because you disagree with me that you have not accepted the grace that Jesus offers. I will never say that it is O.K. that we all have different views of Jesus and that we find our own way. Of course, there will be some debate, but there comes a point in which views are so divergent that they no longer belong together. Despite the fact that I am very concerned with the way that liberals use Scripture, I will not deny that they love Jesus and have accepted his grace.

I hope this helps and am open to any further concerns on your part,

Blossom

[suzer1013]

[QUOTE=Blossom;11421]I believe that how we handle Scripture is extremely important. I believe that many people use Scripture very poorly (picking and choosing what to believe without going through proper interpretation methods)[/QOUTE]

I agree with this, but perhaps not in the way you mean it. Many people use scripture poorly, and often hurt their brothers and sisters in Christ when doing so. This is what leads me to try to see the bigger picture -- not to dismiss Scripture (which is what liberals are often accused of), but to see it's message in a larger way, to not try to box God or Jesus or Christianity into one way of thinking. I try, but probably fail at doing this at times as much as I believe fundamentalists do.

Originally Posted by Blossom

I do struggle at times to find exactly what liberal and conservative Christians have in common.

Let me be so bold as to suggest a few commonalities:

We love God.
We try our best to follow the teachings of Jesus, though we often come up short.
We help the poor and needy.
We comfort the sick.
We love and nurture children.
We give without asking.
We love our neighbor (alas, often not enough).
We sing praises to God.
We are thankful for the many blessings God has given us.
We try to be faithful stewards.
We feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
We visit and fellowship with those in prison.
We listen with healing love.
We struggle with faith.
We pray for peace.
We rejoice in the beauty of creation.

That's just a few -- I'm sure there are many more.


Does it really matter so much what we *believe* (for example, whether we agree with a literal corporeal resurrection), or is it more important that we are in relationship with one another, and can respect that although we have different viewpoints, we can still work together, without bashing one another over the head with one "sin" or another, to accomplish those things listed above that we do have in common?

Or is it more important that we all believe one thing, and if we cannot, then we cannot be at the same table? I would like to be at the same table with those who disagree, but at the same time, I do not wish to suffer spiritual abuse because of who I love. I wish we (in the larger sense, not just you and I) could find a way to disagree that would still allow us to love and respect one another, without hurting each other. Why is it so hard to do that? (and there is probably no answer to that question, at least none that I have discovered)

Blessings,

Susan

[suzer1013]

Whoopsie -- I screwed up the multi-quote feature. All this new-fangled technology stuff confuses me! I guess I'd better go read the directions!

Susan

[BruceChris]

Thank you for your response. Some of your criticisms are on target. I edited "Christianity has oppressed" - to - "people who call themselves Christians have oppressed". - Marked with an (edit), usually.

I edit a lot. Often, I don't quite say what I had meant to.

I am not a fan of Lee Strobel. Have you seen him on T.V.? I would describe him as overbearing.

Bishop Spong, and countless others have pointed out the inconsistances in the Bible. I am pretty much following their lead, and I do see many inconsistancies in the Biible, when taken literally. If you have read Spong's writings concerning translation and interpretation of the Bible, you will probably see why he says that it is possible to have so many different understandings of what the Bible says.

Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, in dealing with what she sees as a very patriachial Bible, says that she approaches the Bible with a hermaneutic of suspicion. I would hope to approach the Bible with a hermaneutic of God's love. If, when reading the Bible, I cannot see some aspect of God's love expressed in that part of the Bible I'm reading, I set it aside until I can, or someone can give me an explanation that is consistent with God's love. And this works a great deal better in the New Testament.

You suggest that I support the actions of those who disagree with me. I'm not sure where you got that, or what you mean by it. I support all people in that I try to respect all children of God, but if they do something I see as being disrespectful or oppressive, I will point that out, and take exception. This kind of puts me in the position of saying "Love the sinner, but hate the sin"(rather unpopular, in this forum) That is the sort of thing that a person should do only with the greatest thoughtfulness and humility.

And between fundamentalists and liberals, I do not wish to find conservatives so much as moderates.

I hope that I've helped us to communicate a little better.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Blossom]

Hi BruceChris,

Concerning Lee Strobel, there are others who can make the same points he makes if you do not personally like him. Strobel is confident. And part of his confidence comes from the fact that when he set out to disprove Christianity as an atheist, he actually found Christianity to make sense. I believe that you will find Strobel to deal with many of the red flags that people put up regarding the validity of Scripture.

I perceive that love is the way you determine which portions of Scripture are valid/worthwhile, but since Scripture teaches us who God is--that God is love--it makes sense that Scripture will also teach us what love is. Love is gentle, patient, kind, but love does not support every action and attitude. To love your enemy, must you agree with them? You are not my enemy BruceChris, but still we have significant differences of belief. I cannot support some of your beleifs. But I can love you. Do you believe this is possible?



Hi Susan,

You ask a question regarding sitting at the same table. Maybe we could see that there are several different tables in matters of faith. There is a general table for all those, for instance, who believe there is one God (Judaism, Islam, Christianity). There is a table for all who follow the revelation of God through the Old Testament (Judaism, Christianity). There is a table for all those who seek to feed the hungry and love the poor (now we add many who are not religious to this table). There are many commonalities we find between religious people, and with nonreligious people. There should be a place for fellowship among all these groups.

There are some Christians with whom I have many serious disagreements (Southern Baptists!), but I know that they genuinely love Jesus Christ, so how could I not stand with them in Christian fellowship? Then I look to liberal Christians I have known and see within them a love for Jesus Christ and an earnest desire to love fellow humanity. There are so many elements of fellowship that I can share with them, but there are other areas where there is a very big divide. Some of my Baptist friends (not all!) would deny my call by God to ministry, yet they share a value of God's self-revelation through Scripture. Although Baptists strongly deny the validy of creeds, their doctrine supports the creeds that Methodists recite weekly! So, then I wonder why so many in my own denomination reject aspects of the creeds. I think of the early Christians who gave their lives because they believed that Jesus was risen from the dead...Early Christians who wrote the New Testament with the resurrection of Jesus as absolutely foundational to their whole view of what Christianty is. If thinking out of the box causes me to deny the repeated affirmations made throughout Scripture, then I will stay in the box. (And trust me, I love creativity! I like out of the box thinking!) The orthodox Christian view is that God really has revealed himself through Scripture...and if God is still speaking, that word will be in line with what God has said in the past.

Think back to our tables of fellowship. There are many who respect the teachings of Jesus. There are many who profess love for Jesus. What makes one a Christian? Is it respect for Jesus? Love for Jesus? Or must one actually believe that Jesus is divine yet fully human, buried for three days and resurrected from the dead? Many who respect Jesus respect the human Jesus but have no room for a divine Jesus. Many who love Jesus find in him a love that is incomparable yet they do not accept what Scripture says about him. So, what is necessary for one to be a Christian? May one be a Christian if they are fan of Jesus? May one be a Christian if they believe in a spiritual Jesus/idea, but do not believe in the human Jesus? May one be a Christian if they love Jesus' ways, but not the New Testament?

I feel that I could quote Scripture references to answer some of these questions, but fear that they would have little place here. So, I am left without the ability to answer. Any thoughts on how I can retain Scripture as my foundation for understanding God and still be able to dialogue with you?


Sincerely,
Blossom

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by Blossom

I feel that I could quote Scripture references to answer some of these questions, but fear that they would have little place here. So, I am left without the ability to answer. Any thoughts on how I can retain Scripture as my foundation for understanding God and still be able to dialogue with you?

Hi Blossom,
I think it is important that you do share what scripture you are using as your foundation for understanding God.

In the dance of sharing your faith and belief.. and then listening... experiencing the faith and belief of others... I believe we truly become connected to one another.

It is more important for us to be in communion, in community... in unity with each other than it is for us to be uniform, believe the same, think the same.

I have been attending MCC Austin for about four years. It's very different than the kind of church I grew up in. The biggest difference would easily seem to be it's unconditional acceptance and welcome to gay & lesbian children of God, but I have found something even more transformational. Something so big that it has become one of the primary reasons I am intending to seek ordination in the MCC denomination.

It's that simple, yet profound, idea that Christians who believe differently can come together in a beautiful, vibrant community... and worship together, minister together, pray together... Unity is celebrated over Uniformity...

This principle has always been a part of MCC and I think it has been essential to accomplish the denomination's mission to reach all glbt Christians, but I believe this is really where the future of our denomination lies. Sexuality will be a non issue in the Church of the future. Love, integrity, family, health, outreach, social justice, etc., will be the focus of the Church. MCC is laying the groundwork for an end to creed wars, church splits, etc. We are showing the Church that we can be very different and still "love God and love our neighbors as we love ourselves"... together.

In "A New Christianity for a New World," Bishop Spong writes of a new kind of church community which he calls "Ecclesia" for lack of a better term.

So please do use scripture when sharing... but do it from a perspective of sharing yourself and not from a "my view is the only right view" perspective.

Peace,
Nate