I confess (again)- I can't find the rules for the all male priesthood, and non ordination of women in the bible. Doesn't mean it isn't there. I just can't find it on any manual concordance
on line condordance or the flip and land a thumb method.
Also, however, are not in the bible are the rules against not kicking your granny's cane to watch her fall and break a hip, not speaking with your mouth full, and not leaving your kids in a car
in 100 degree heat with the windows rolled up. Not everything is in the bible. There is something
called tradition, and that is distinguished from something called 'custom.' Both are maleable and
not dogma at times. Some things aren't there because they are so manifestly obvious no one needs to raise the point- it's an 'everyone knows' sort of thing. Only everyone doesn't know this one.
There are women Rabbis and women Episcopalian priests, women Presbyterian Ministers, women deacons of all protestant stripes and women missionaries everywhere.
I was told by the Dean of a Catholic Seminary that as a woman I could call myself a 'preacher' just not a 'homilest' and can't for the life of me tell you the difference. The Jesuit church I am part of once got in a spot of trouble for inviting a woman guest lutheran preacher woman. Head-scratchingly odd.
But why is this thing about non-ordination of women not in the bible? Should we look at
what is there which might touch on the point- we know that 'there is no male nor female' in Christ. We know that women and males are 'equal heirs' to the kingdom through Christ. We
know that he surrounded himself by supportive women in his ministry. We know some were
closer than the men; his mother, Mary Magdalene, and he enscripted evangelists and apostles;
the woman at the well was a believer and an evangelist, there are people like priscilla and Acquilla, and Junio an apostle, Lydia, and the others too numerous to mention who were helpful to Peter Paul and others.
So why does this non-ordination of women rank in such serious 'sin' that now it isauto-matically excommunicable for anyone to attempt it? (when not even pedofilia is auto-matically excommunicable?).
I confess. Again. Coming from traditions where we have been long comfortable with women deacons and ministers, this strikes me as just whacked. Not even a little sensible or correct. Just plain head -scratchingly wrong.
So I invite anyone to explain it to me- I'm not going to try it so don't start the excommunication proceedings- I just don't get it. I will sit in silence and wait for enlightenment. or another encyclical on the virtues of mysogeny.
off the wall.
Just my gut- so offensive in fact that I question the sanity of the old OP queens making the rules (don't get me wrong, I love all old OP queens equally).
That will get me in a lot of trouble. And that's what they are good at sometimes-just making
trouble without clear explanation.
Perhaps this is the reason: God was so reliant on human male sperm to reincarnate himself that he requires males sublimating their celibate sexuality to manifest himself on earth. Clearly WRONG. Mary was a Virgin- needed NO MAN of human form to manifest Jesus on earth.
This is the sort of stuff that makes people really not only scratch their heads in disbelief,
but flat out defect. Historically women have been ordained in the early church and there
is even rumored to be one female Pope (I wonder if she shaved her head and went around in drag.)
My suggestion; before the old OP Queens start lighting the pile fires for the burning at
the stake perhaps there could be a bit of public education concerning why this rule- and
what on earth they think it serves?
No comments:
Post a Comment