From: centaur@terminus.gatech.edu (Anthony G. Francis)
Subject: Re: Church of England & women priests
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:38:49 GMT

stabosz@chopin.udel.edu (Rae Stabosz) writes:
>In article <92Nov12.204608est.9084@rock.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) writes:
>>U14663@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>So my questions are these, to anyone who believes that God calls women
>to the priesthood.
>1) What radical signs do you see, signs "of the times", to persuade you
>that in this century God is making the divine Will known in ways that
>were not so in other centuries?  

This is the trickiest bit; the best example that I can come up with is the
discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, which predate the texts that make up the
current version of the Bible. Yes, the Church believes that public revelation
ended with the death of the last Apostle, but these are documents _from those
times_, and there are indications from the dribbling bits coming out of them
that they support fundamentally more egalitarian ideas about men and women
than the current edition of scripture.

Of course, these "original" texts may be forgeries, heresies, fictions,
or works of the devil, and the Church is free to reject them, as it did
many such works between 100 and 400AD. But what better way for God to get
his message across than for him to provide us with an updated version of 
His Word, as soon as our society is ready to receive it?

>2) Has there been a new consciousness about the status of women which
>is powerful enough to be the beginning of a new interpretation of God's
>revelation in Jesus, an interpretation which suggests that only in
>this century has it become clear that Jesus meant for the priesthood
>to be for both men and women?  What signs are there of this new
>consciousness?  

The movement for women's equality is stronger within this century than at
any other period of "Western" civilization (the original societal context of 
Christianity). There have been women of prominence before; history is full
of them. However, this century is the first in which there is a major push
to make women and men equal members of society, and to allow and promote
the ascension of women to any position held by a man. In any other century,
a woman professional --- for example, a female priest --- would be a rare 
exception, and her gender would form an active barrier to her service. In 
today's society, a woman priest would be the norm, and the barriers of
gender are rapidly falling away.

(This is a strong claim. If anyone can correct any portion of it, I would
welcome references. In particular, let me note in passing that professional
roles are not historically all-male; they are gender-segregated, with the
more powerful and prestigous roles (leaders, etc.) traditionally reserved
for men. This is why a male secretary can be as "shocking" as a female CEO;
the roles have been historically gender-segregated, although that is 
slowly ending.)

It is a matter of debate whether or not women's equality is religiously 
sound. I'm a cognitive scientist, so I recognize that both men and 
women are equally effective cognitive agents and can contribute equally
to our society. This in and of itself is not a religous statement, but it
coupled with the movement for women's equality pretty much qualifies as
a "new consciousness" about the status of women that calls for at least a
re-examination and _perhaps_ a re-interpretation of God's revelation.

>		How would the Church, having the power (as Jim McKintosh
>points out after reading the document on women and priesthood) to
>change its mind about this point, be brought to the understanding that
>this is God's will?

You and I are participating in this process. There are very sound arguments
in the Inter Insigniores against such reinterpretation, but in my opinion
Scripture allows us enough leeway to make such a decision. If the Church
is capable of retconning Genesis into some giant mythical metaphor, then
it is perfectly capable of judging that Paul's injunctions were reflections
of the times. Whether or not it would be correct to do so, or whether it
was correct in abandoning a literal interpretation in the first place, is
at the heart of this debate.

>3) Is the male-only priesthood a "big deal" or not?  I'm asking
>this because it seems like we all want to have it both ways.  a) It's
>not a big deal so why won't the Church allow women priests?  b) It's
>a big big deal so why won't the Church allow women priests?  I used
>to hold to position a), not I hold to b).  When I ask myself that
>question -- why WON'T the Church allow women priests?? -- I have
>to conclude that it won't because the evidence would have to be
>overwhelmingly evident that God willed this, in order for the Church
>to make this change.  Either gender is a big deal, or it is not.
>I used to think it was not, now I think it is.  

b) It's a big big deal so why won't the Church allow women priests? 

On a scientific level, women and men are on equal footing as rational agents.
On a religious level, women can do good works and bad just like men; they
can fall from grace and be redeemed just like men; they can be judged just
like men; they can spend eternity in heaven or hell just like men. If all
these things are equal, why _shouldn't_ they be allowed to preach and minister
just like men? Why _won't_ the Church not allow women to be priests?

Debarring women from the priesthood seems _incompatible_ with the Church's
stance on many other gender topics, as well as with the gains women have
made with our society. I cannot really see how we could have one without
the other --- and if the Church will not allow the one, is it courageous
enough to make a firm statement about the other?

>Probably nobody really wants to give me an argued reason in favor
>of women priests, based on the resources the Church turns to for any
>thought of change -- the gospels, interpreted by the Church over the
>centuries; tradition; the "sense of the Holy Spirit" or whatever signs
>it is which guide the Church in moving from one stance to another, or
>in developing its teachings.  I'm not quite sure what those last
>things are, those things which cause change or development in
>teaching.  But if somebody would like to, I would welcome the
>opportunity to hear clearly what it is that I am opposing, when I
>oppose women priests.  I would like to be persuaded that God is
>willing this, although I most strongly doubt that He is, through
>my own recent study and thought on the subject.
>Rae

You are opposing a societal movement that recognizes and is attempting to 
eliminate what appears to be gender prejudice in the Church, much as the
same societal movement has recognized and eliminated prejudice in many of
its own institutions. The Church claims that authority on religious
matters is its, and its alone; society claims _not_ that it has any
religious authority _but_ that the Church is tainted with a purely
_societal_ evil, which, partially through the _inspiration_ of the Church,
society is trying to solve. The Church claims that it has no room to move
on the matter; society claims that the Church has more than enough room,
and has in fact moved on such topics before.

You are opposing a body of believers within the Church who, inspired by
the movements within society, their own personal faith, and their own 
interpretation of Scripture, are at odds with the Hierarchy on a matter of
faith. The Church Hierarchy claims that its authority on religious matters
is absolute; the Faithful claim that the expression of that authority is
at odds with their personal understanding of the Faith (I am being 
charitable to some of the opposition here; some do not recognize the
Church's authority as absolute) and that the Church should change.

You are either opposing the will of God, or you are not. We'll all find 
out someday, but that future knowledge doesn't help us to decide now.

My stance on women priests is:
	1) I favor the ordination of women's priests, because I feel that
		it is (as a religous matter) the right thing to do.
	2) I consider some statements in Scripture an obstacle to this
		practice, much in the same way that Genesis presents an 
		obstacle to belief in evolution.
	3) In my science fiction, I depict a Church that ordains women 
		priests. I feel justified in doing so because the Church's
		reinterpretation of Genesis is a much wider-reaching
		reinterpretation than required to allow women priests,
		and if I can have life evolving on other worlds, I can
		have women priests too.
	4) I will support the decisions of the Church on this matter.
	5) If 4) does not match up with 1), then I expect
		God to explain it to me when I die.
	


--
Anthony G. Francis, Jr.  - Georgia Tech {Atl.,GA 30332}
Internet Mail Address: 	 - centaur@cc.gatech.edu
UUCP Address:		 - ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt4864b
-------------------------------Quote of the post------------------------------
"Those who do not understand {christianity/evolution/Star Trek/pick a topic} 
	are doomed to make fools of themselves criticizing it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU