This blog is written by a Christian living in the Middle East. My desire is to discuss Islam and Christianity in ways that will be helpful for people of the other religion.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Albion of Anglican Continuum interviews Abu Daoud
Abu Daoud was recently interviewed by Albion Land, of the very popular blog, Anglican Continuum.
It's a fair question. But give me something to work with Anonymous! At least, "Why not Roman Catholicism?" or "Why not Methodism?" or "Why not One-ness Pentecostalism?"
I have not read the book by Witherington but have heard he is a good scholar. I'm not sure how I'm begging the question. Are you suggesting that Junia was of the same status as the Twelve?
Junia, Paul, etc., were obviously not members of the Twelve; however, the term "apostle" is used in the NT to describe persons other than the Twelve - Paul, of course, being the most prominent example, and there is nothing to suggest that Junia - or Paul for that matter - are anything less than full blown apostles on a par with the Twelve in that sense. So when I suggest there is question-begging here, the reasoning I infer is something like, "Junia is called an apostle; but Junia is a woman; therefore, she cannot be an apostle in the same way that Peter or Paul are". John Chrysostom himself, in mentioning that Junia is a woman, does not go there. In contrast, if Witherington is correct, and I think he is, women, at one place or time or another, exercised all ministries in the earliest Churches.
I believe that a woman can exercise any ministry (teaching, evangelism, pastoral care, etc), but that is not the same as saying a woman can enter Holy Orders (something I do not believe).
How do you square this position with Orthodoxy, which has always been strongly opposed to women in Holy Orders?
There's a reason for that (a couple actually; the other major reason is that we allow for married bishops).
In terms of mainstream Byzantine Orthodoxy, there have been a few voices who have spoken in favor of the ordination of women, including Metropolitan Anthony and Elizabeth Behr-Seigel. Kallistos Ware has stated he sees no theological reason not to ordain women (impliciting rejecting Rome's view on the subject). Thomas Hopko says that within Orthodoxy, "the question is not closed". There are also advocates of women's ordination in the Indian Orthodox Church.
Finally, let me note that exercising certain ministries in the Church requires being admitted to Holy Orders.
Ah yes, I see. Well, that does clarify the situation.
My sense is that the RC church has unequivocally and irrevocably decided that there is, for lack of a better expression, no such thing as WO.
I do want to hear more about your stattement that there are certain ministries that are connected with orders. What do you mean? I don't view oversight (episcope) as a type of ministry, so much as a role in the church. But I do want to hear your position.
Certainly those in Holy Orders are set apart for certain roles, but certain ministries, especially in the sacramental realm, are associated exclusively with said roles. The clearest example, of course, is presidency at the Eucharist, which is, as you know, (the views of Archbishop Jensen notwithstanding), reserved to those ordained as presbyters or bishops. Another would be the granting of sacramental absolution.
Regarding the Roman Church: it certainly was the intent, first of John Paul II and now, of Benedict, to permanently foreclose the possibility of WO within its ranks by, as you say, declaring it a literal impossibility. However, given the Scriptural and theological data, I think the reasoning behind these determinations is flawed and thus, the situation will eventually be reversed, should the parousia be delayed by some centuries.
10 comments:
Why Anglicanism?
It's a fair question. But give me something to work with Anonymous! At least, "Why not Roman Catholicism?" or "Why not Methodism?" or "Why not One-ness Pentecostalism?"
But the short answer:
Reformed AND Catholic.
Sacrament AND Scripture.
"The fact that there are two related but distinct meanings of the word apostle explains how Junia can be an apostle--she is a lay missioner..."
While you make many excellent points in the interview, doesn't the above kind of beg the question?
Have you read Ben Witherington's Women in the Earliest Churches?
Hello Fr Greg,
I have not read the book by Witherington but have heard he is a good scholar. I'm not sure how I'm begging the question. Are you suggesting that Junia was of the same status as the Twelve?
Abu Daoud:
Junia, Paul, etc., were obviously not members of the Twelve; however, the term "apostle" is used in the NT to describe persons other than the Twelve - Paul, of course, being the most prominent example, and there is nothing to suggest that Junia - or Paul for that matter - are anything less than full blown apostles on a par with the Twelve in that sense. So when I suggest there is question-begging here, the reasoning I infer is something like, "Junia is called an apostle; but Junia is a woman; therefore, she cannot be an apostle in the same way that Peter or Paul are". John Chrysostom himself, in mentioning that Junia is a woman, does not go there. In contrast, if Witherington is correct, and I think he is, women, at one place or time or another, exercised all ministries in the earliest Churches.
Hi Fr Greg,
I believe that a woman can exercise any ministry (teaching, evangelism, pastoral care, etc), but that is not the same as saying a woman can enter Holy Orders (something I do not believe).
How do you square this position with Orthodoxy, which has always been strongly opposed to women in Holy Orders?
Well...
You know that "Vagante" thing?
There's a reason for that (a couple actually; the other major reason is that we allow for married bishops).
In terms of mainstream Byzantine Orthodoxy, there have been a few voices who have spoken in favor of the ordination of women, including Metropolitan Anthony and Elizabeth Behr-Seigel. Kallistos Ware has stated he sees no theological reason not to ordain women (impliciting rejecting Rome's view on the subject). Thomas Hopko says that within Orthodoxy, "the question is not closed". There are also advocates of women's ordination in the Indian Orthodox Church.
Finally, let me note that exercising certain ministries in the Church requires being admitted to Holy Orders.
Ah yes, I see. Well, that does clarify the situation.
My sense is that the RC church has unequivocally and irrevocably decided that there is, for lack of a better expression, no such thing as WO.
I do want to hear more about your stattement that there are certain ministries that are connected with orders. What do you mean? I don't view oversight (episcope) as a type of ministry, so much as a role in the church. But I do want to hear your position.
Salaam.
Peace be with you, Abu Daoud:
Certainly those in Holy Orders are set apart for certain roles, but certain ministries, especially in the sacramental realm, are associated exclusively with said roles. The clearest example, of course, is presidency at the Eucharist, which is, as you know, (the views of Archbishop Jensen notwithstanding), reserved to those ordained as presbyters or bishops. Another would be the granting of sacramental absolution.
Regarding the Roman Church: it certainly was the intent, first of John Paul II and now, of Benedict, to permanently foreclose the possibility of WO within its ranks by, as you say, declaring it a literal impossibility. However, given the Scriptural and theological data, I think the reasoning behind these determinations is flawed and thus, the situation will eventually be reversed, should the parousia be delayed by some centuries.
Post a Comment