From the ongoing battle of Christianity against egalitarianism . . . .
A friend referred me to an article where once again the familiar argument for women’s ordination had been made by what I referred to in my response to her on purely functionalist grounds: women can perform all the necessary actions of ordained ministry as well as men–a point fully agreed to by C. S. Lewis, by the way, in "Priestesses in the Church?"–so it is irrational to deny them ordination. What term, my friend asked, should we use as the orthodox antithesis to “functionalism,” particularly with regard to the preaching and teaching office we understand as peculiar to men?
There is a form of prophesying the New Testament shows to be among the gifts of women. What we are dealing with here is a distinctively male apostolic office that has to do primarily with authoritative teaching, from whatever platform. To refer to this is to refer to a tradition that reaches back to the Lord and his apostles. I have always believed it could have been otherwise, that these offices could have been chartered on the basis of the equality in Christ of men and women, and the exalted place–I do not hesitate to define it as sacerdotal, as the highest exemplar of the priestly office of women–of Mary as the principal (!) giver, under Christ himself, of the Lord to men, rather than along (equally valid) male-female hierarchical lines.
(I will say parenthetically here that Protestants who ascribe no authority to catholic tradition are throwing away the most decisive part of their panoply in the struggle against egalitarianism–a strong word about how the Church has traditionally interpreted the Bible. Of course this opens a floodgate of disturbing and potentially destructive questions about why, then, their denominations do not follow Tradition on other matters–but still, this point has to be made. It is this Lerintian Canon that needs to be placed down against the wildly improbable interpretations of the biblical seats of doctrine set forward by egalitarianism on the basis of a higher scholars' gnosis: What they are teaching is a novelty: no one except perhaps a few of the oddest sects believed or taught it until the recent egalitarian enlightenment. This places the burden of proof where it belongs.)
But to return: The Lord chose men only for these offices, and with this, I believe, presumptively validates many if not most of the reasons given, some of them by St. Paul, for their distinctive "maleness," and his choice along this line has been followed by the Church from the apostolic era forward. (As Fr. Reardon and others have demonstrated, the attempts to show otherwise have been boldly but less than ingeniously cut from whole cloth.) If the arguments that oppose women's ordination have been accepted, it follows that those which advocate it, as logically unexceptional as they may be from the standpoint of the (true) doctrine of women's equality with men, are to be rejected as, at the very least, irrelevant to the case.
One recalls the wording of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination upon women"– which does not indicate, as some believe, that such ordination is impossible and unnatural–only that authority for this change, authority, that is, to institute women's ordination to the offices of authority along lines of their equality with men–would have to come from Christ himself. I am among those who cannot see that this has happened, particularly in light of (1) the ecumenical rejection of the change, (2) its acceptance and promulgation by the most deracinated and heresy-addled segments of Christendom, (3) its advocacy in the latter by gross exegetical and historical dishonesty, and (4) the ecclesially destructive quality of the witness of its supporters–even if women more orthodox than the radical feminists are borne in the egalitarian train. This looks like the devil's work, not that of the Holy Spirit.
So, what opposes "pure functionalism" is an overriding dominical choice and the apostolic tradition that follows it–in brief, functionality is opposed by apostolicity. That women can function as well as men in the tasks of ordained office, reason can readily stipulate. That they have been chosen for it is what we doubt, and with this doubt goes acceptance of a pattern of reasoning that submits to the Lord’s choice and rejects all reasons proffered against it, as "reasonable" as they may appear. This includes the argument from functional parity.
Women cannot be priests because they cannot offer the sacrifice of the Mass which is the sacrifice of the Bridegroom for the Bride. The division into male and female is highly significant, and nowhere more so than in families and in the relation of Christ to the Church.
>Women cannot be priests because they cannot offer the sacrifice of the Mass which is the sacrifice of the Bridegroom for the Bride. The division into male and female is highly significant, and nowhere more so than in families and in the relation of Christ to the Church.
Women cannot be elders in the Church because God has said so.
Sorry to go lowbrow, but I’m just tired of women who have to grab every conceivable brass ring. Is there ANYTHING we can have the men do for the human race? Anything? Or do the ladies get all the perks and meaningfulness of their own sex plus that of the menfolk too?
The sad thing is how readily most men stand aside and let the women have at it… the usual fare in macho and primitive societies, actually. You girls get on with ensuring our survival, we’ll go make big talk under the shade tree or retire to the den and watch the mock warriors on the flat screen.
Brava, Margaret!
I think the reason men have laid down their arms on this is because, being men, they know they are not supposed to fight with women. Even if the women be heretical harridans.
Kamilla
It’s true, Kamilla, a gentleman does not hit a lady. This is one of our culture’s practical expressions of the rule that she is to be treated not as men treat other men, but honored as the “weaker vessel.” Whatever, precisely, this means, it is part of scriptural teaching.
This leaves–once again, practically–only one option for the men whose manhood is opposed by women: they must withdraw from them, and this, in turn, is rightly done only in two ways, first, by refusal to commune with them on any terms that require compromise of maleness, and, second, joining the fellowship and communion–in particular, that of marriage–of women who accept men as men. (There are many reasons, boys, why you should not marry an egalitarian: principle is one of them.)
The guilty weakness of men along these lines, I believe, is primarily in their willingness to develop and fructify relationships with women who hate and covet their maleness as Satan both hates and covets humanity. These women have, Lilith-like, desired the extinction of maleness in egalitarianism, and their judgment should be that its barrenness be given them.
For barrenness is the proper and inevitable fruit of sexual egalitarianism, that is, in present context, of the female refusal of the male as male (call it patriarchalism, subordinationism, or whatever–but at base it is refusal to accept the male as he was created to be). The Lord’s judgment upon the barrenness of that which should bear fruit (and here we are not speaking only of children, but of the many, varied fruits of male-female collaboration) is that it should be first given aid toward recovery, but finally, if there is no response, cut down and thrown into the fire.
This operation is not ours to perform, but the rule about hitting ladies does not apply to God.
Functionalism only justifies ordaining women here if the “functions” are limited to those having nothing to do with ontology. Only by deciding beforehand that sexual distinction makes no difference could you omit the one function that no women can properly perform: that is to be a man, a physical and iconic representation of the One Man through whom we are made whole and holy.
There are no such things as neuter human beings. We come in two sexes only, though we may be very broken examples of those sexes. Still, the brokeness is understood by the knowledge of the true. We all naturally know what is a man and what is a woman. Only a form of institutionalized psychosis can make us think the distinctions are irrelevant. By ordaining women the church has rejected sound Reason and embraced a form of madness and can only continue to justify that madness by further descents into irrationality.
So, what, precisely, are the characteristics of “maleness” that all women lack, besides the obvious external genitalia? Are these characteristics located on the Y chromosome or only in having external genitals? The only answers I ever get to my question of ‘define why men, whose only common trait are penises, represent Jesus?’ are woo-woo ambiguities about what everyone ‘naturally’ knows, but no one can ever specifically state. If you can’t define it, either it doesn’t exist or you’re ashamed to actually say what you think. Thus, we get the instruction for men to withdraw from women who ask questions, because if he’s not actually there he can’t be required to give an answer.
I want an answer: what do men have that women lack?
What do women lack? The Y chromozone specifically, and this entails all that comes with it, including the “obvious external”s. Now, as to the penis, one cannot tell just by looking at a priest if he has one but one should be able to tell whether it would be natural for him to have one.
Is your problem that you don’t know how to recognize a man and distinguish him from a woman? I admit that these days with our obsession with androgeny some men can sometimes look awfully feminine (or rather like masculine women), and some women look “manish” (like feminine men), but generally I have no problem recognizing a woman or a man as a woman or a man.
Dear Karen,
If you are one thing, you are consistent. Thank you so much for the object lesson in “mere functionalism”. In response to your, “you can’t define it” taunt, I can only say that, even if we did, you wouldn’t be satisfied. For, as soon as someone did give you the definition you so desperately seek, you’d triumphantly wave an exception crying, “HA! I HAVE you!!”
That sort of careful definition is what Chesterton would have called out as either logic of the morbid variety or as an example of decadence (which he explained as the art of being wrong but being carefully wrong). It is the sort of dreck you’d get from the kind of religious feminist whose books are flogged by “Christians” for Biblical Equality in their “Equality Depot”. It’s not the logic or philosophical theology which leads to wisdom. And you’re certainly not going to get it here from Steve Hutchens, Fr. Pat Reardon or Tony Esolen or from any of the wise commenters such as Christopher Hathaway and Rob Grano. And those are all men, I might note.
You may stomp your feet and demand an answer, but you’ve already had your answer. You simply don’t like it. What man has that woman lacks is the teaching of Holy Scripture, the practice of our Lord while He walked this earth and the record of His apostles on into the leaders of the early church who continued our Lord’s practice.
Even if that were all that differentiated man from woman, it would be enough.
Kamilla
Christopher,
I appreciate your first response above here because it touches on some concepts I have been trying to puzzle my way through. One religous feminist makes the point of arguing for equality on the basis of our shared ontology as human beings. But, as you point out, there is no “generic” human template. We are all either male or female.
What I have been trying to figure out is how ontology and teleology fit together here. I don’t want to take things too far off track so, if you wouldn’t mind discussing it, you could contact from through the name link.
Kamilla
>>I think the reason men have laid down their arms on this is because, being men, they know they are not supposed to fight with women. < <
Some of us want to fight for women, not with them, just as we might want to fight for the rights of slaves, even when we are not enslaved ourselves. When we fight for women, we fight for men too — that all of us, men and women alike, may have the blessing and the privilege of the God-given gifts of women priests. One of the priests at my church is a woman. She liberally exudes the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, and she causes these fruits to ripen in others. She is a true gift from God to our congregation. It would hurt the world if my daughter were not to follow her vocation as a spiritual leader. She is greatly gifted in ways that uplift others.
“… the blessing and the privilege of the God-given gifts of women priests …”
Say, rather, “Zeitgeist-given,” since the god of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the Father of Our Lord. God and Saviour Jesus Christ, never gave any such thing.
>> I want an answer: what do men have that women lack?
Satisfaction?
“I want an answer: what do men have that women lack?”
The divinely ordained and bestowed office and vocation of headship.
“What term, my friend asked, should we use as the orthodox antithesis to “functionalism,” particularly with regard to the preaching and teaching office we understand as peculiar to men?”
I suggest “essentialism” as the orthodox term.
What I have been trying to figure out is how ontology and teleology fit together here.
It’s a good question. If, as Scripture indicates, we are no longer going to marry in the Resurrection but will live “like the angels” how then will we be men and women?
We will not marry one another, but there will be a marriage, that of the Bridgroom and his Bride. All marraiges in this life bear witness to that marriage. It is one of the principal reasons marriage was created. I believe that we will continue to exist as male and female in Christ to affirm both parties in the divine marriage and we will each draw our identity from the great archetypes of our sex: Christ and Mary. Just as the Mosaic law was not abolished but rather fulfilled in Christ, so our sexed ontology will be fulfilled in him.
Let’s also remember that the priest/pastor stands as the visible/physical representation of the invisible Christ, who walked this earth as a male. In addition, a major responsibility of the priest/pastor is to self-sacrificially serve Christ’s lambs and sheep even as Christ did. So, females ought to revel in receiving that self-sacrificial service that God has instructed males in general and especially priests/pastors to perform.
Christopher,
I think that’s very good — except that where you say “sexed ontology”, I think teleology. The very nature, purpose and end of our being created male and female is where I think of teleology but our being created in the divine image is where I think ontology.
Does that make sense?
Kamilla
Women cannot be elders in the Church because God has said so.
No women priests I can understand, but what on earth is an “elder”? Is it merely “presbyteros” translated into English, or does the term have content? Clearly, if all that qualified one to be a presbyter was age, what’s to stop women being such?
Is there truly a conjugal/bridal relationship between an “elder” and the Church? That would truly put him (and it would then have to be a him) in persona Christi. That being the case, I reckon we might have to expand the definition of “elder” to the point where “priest” might be a more suitable term…
Karen, what men have that women do not is maleness. Why deny the gift God has given you, femaleness? We need both to fulfill the command of our God to dress and keep the earth, to bring it to fruition.
Women share in the priesthood of all believers. With Mary, you and only you can magnify the word of God which comes through the maleness of the liturgical and sacramental priesthood.
Egalitarianism always leads to heresy because it denies the essential hierarical structure of God and His creation.
>No women priests I can understand, but what on earth is an “elder”? Is it merely “presbyteros” translated into English, or does the term have content?
I don’t think this is a serious question. If it is please affirm your seriousness.
Also use a name like a real man or woman does.
essential hierarical structure of God and His creation
In the course of a recent meditation on the priestly character, Pope Benedict stressed that “hierarchy” is not to be considered as “sacred dominion” but rather “sacred origin” (presumably on the basis of the Greek arche, “principle”). Thus, maleness and femaleness have sacred origin. Vive la difference!
Paul himself indicated that the male/female “hierarchy” (understood in the above sense) mirrored the relationship of Christ and Church in a most profound way. Christ sacrifices for His Bride as the husband must for his wife. This is why offering sacrifice in persona Christi is fundamental to the priestly identity. “Elder” is an inadequate translation of presbyteros in this regard, just as “overseer” is inadequate to describe the episcopoi (like Timothy) that the apostle caused to succeed them by the laying on of hands.
David, how does one become an elder? By aging merely?
>David, how does one become an elder?
At the hands of the Session technically.
Who are you?
OK, so ordination (let’s call it that) is a corporate act, in your scheme of things.
What is the “elder” ordained to do? I submit that he is principally ordained to do that which no one can humanly do, viz., offer sacrifice in persona Christi. It is a “hierarchical” act (in the sense above), which is why it is not subject to ordinary expectations of capability. If the latter criterion is considered, women are qualified to do more than men.
By eliminating the specifically hierarchical, by “elderizing” the priest, I submit that you are weakening and emptying the role of its specifically sacred content. Thus, the “argument for women’s ordination” makes headway.
As to who I am, if it were not prudent for me to remain anonymous, I assure you I would not be coy. Other commenters here may have similar reasons for prudence. Don’t feel obliged to reply if you feel my anonymity is an unwarranted discourtesy. No offense is thereby intended.
Just to clarify, although Lewis does grant the perfectly rational, common-sense position that women are “functionally” able to be priests in his article “Priestesses in the Church?” (which is essentially the answer to the question “what do women lack?”) he points out that the question is irrelevant. Making women priests would be the rational, common-sense thing to do. Rational. But much less like Christianity.
Grant equality all day long, if you like; it is a non-sequitur to the argument. Equality does not mean “interchangeable”. And until we realize that sex itself is a divine metaphor–and that we all are in the decidedly feminine role in this courtship–we will not be able to grasp the true significance of the shift to neutral-gender priesthood (no one, after all, is arguing for Christian priestesses, but for female “priests”.) We have lost the idea of sex–of distinction–and in so doing, we have betrayed our neutered vision of the eternally Masculine.
I have always used the term “elder” in my writing as an intentional translation of presbyteros, from which “priest” is also derived, so as to avoid disputes among Christians as to the precise nature of the sacramental powers of the office. What orthodox Christians share in belief about the presbyterate suffices for these purposes. In the twenty-odd years my writings on women’s ordination have been extant, this is the first time the matter has come up, so I think my attempts to avoid unwanted controversy have been successful.
Disagreements here I see as “family business,” discussable among Christians, but since I do not regard egalitarians as Christians, as least so far as they are egalitarians, it is certainly not a subject I am willing to debate with them. Since we do not agree on the first-order matters, nothing but confusion could result. This is not an attempt to insult egalitarians, many of whom are decent, sincere, and immensely likable people. That they are not Christians I simply regard as a matter of fact that needs to be made plain, since so many of them insist upon presenting their new gospel as genuine.
Philip Rieff, whom I have quoted on this site, was a Jew, so had no dog in this particular fight, but still understood perfectly well, “Christ is male in his person. Deus homo refers to the maleness of Christ. The movement toward female clergy in the Christian churches is an anti-Christian movement.” (My Life Among the Deathworks, p. 86.) If he is right, and I think he is, it would be difficult to claim that the ideology which stands behind the movement is Christian.
I am uncomfortable, theologically, with saying taht egalitarians are not Christian merely for being egalitarians. I would like to credit some of them with being Christian ins spite of their egalitarianism, which I still judged to be an unChristin Philosophy. This is not just a generous spirit on my part but a self defense lest I be judged myself for being less than Christian in ways other than having sound theology. I believe that many otherwise conservative Christian whose theology is ridiculously compromized by egalitarianism may still be better Christians in some ways than others who have compromized themselves in non-theological areas, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
What makes one a Christian? Is it soundness of theology or faith in Jesus, even if that faith is a little fuzzy in some places? Must we have all our t’s crossed and i’s dotted theologically? More importantly, is it possible to be deceived on some importasnt areas and still be a Christian?
I believe it is. Perhaps I am too evangelical in this regard. But I think the addage, “hate the sin but love the sinner” can also be applied in this way, “condemn the heresy but not the heretic”. Not that we should be so charitable as to admit as Christians fools like Spong and the like, but I would hate to lump in with him those like Robert Duncan, the archbishop of ACNA, the conrservative Anglican resistance in America, who spports WO. Being right about who jesus is and what our responce to sin should be seems to me a more fundamental area of Christian belief than what we think about the priesthood or the sexes, no matter how important these issues are.
But I’m even willing to credit Ulfilas as a Christian.
Christopher,
At one level, I would agree with you that some are Christians *in spite* of their egalitarianism. However, Egalitarianism as espoused by Evangelicals of the CBE/CT/Bethel/Denver Seminary, etc. variety most definitely *is* a heresy. I write as one who has repented of that heresy.
I do not claim for myself perfection in every aspect of doctine, but in this I stand with the Church. I agree with Rome, that we simply do not have the authority to change the practice which was instituted by Christ and followed by his Disciples (the dominical practice). I agree with SMH that it might have been constituted differently, but it was not and we can’t change that.
However,I will still say that *in sofar as* they are Egalitarians, they are not Christians. Egalitarianism, among other things, is guilty of at least three forms of heresy: Anthropological Modalism, Ecclesial Deism and Gnosticism. All three of which, in their ancient forms, have been condemned by the Church.
As far as hating the sin, but loving the sinner, if that wasn’t driving me, I can guarantee you that I wouldn’t be enduring the thesaurus-emptying string of names I’ve been called in just the last few days. My heart is broken for those who are still trapped and are even now being newly sucked into that ugly, dark place.
Kamilla
Ultimately only God knows who are his; this, I believe, is what the Lord means when he says that we are to “judge not.” But no one who calls himself a Christian can escape the responsibility of judging what is Christian and what is not, beginning with what is Christian and what is not in himself, and acting accordingly.
Obviously clergy must do this all the time, but so must lay people, for example, when they are deciding what church they and their children will attend, that is, what teachings they will make themselves and those for whom they are responsible susceptible to.
Our souls live and die, my friend, by sound doctrine, just as our bodies live and die by judgment of what is true and false in the physical realm. God may save those who judge poorly, but that is not to say there is no difference between truth and untruth and that the stakes for bad judgment on these matters haven’t always been the Gerizim and Ebal of life and death. We accept the terrible truth when we hear that someone has died by driving into a bridge. The result, while tragic, is not mean or unfair, but according to the same laws which allowed the driver to exist as such in the first place. But then we turn right around, against the multitude of warnings in scripture, and treat errors in doctrine as unimportant, and accuse those who warn us against making them of evil intentions.
How about Unitarianism, my non-judgmental friend? Lots of nice people there, with high opinions of Jesus. But is what they teach Christianity? Would you think someone who concluded that Unitarianism was un-Christian was mean and sinfully judgmental because he thought that all those smiling, sincere people were not Christians, thought their services of worship blasphemous, and that they believed and taught lies?
There may be little difference between the multitude of our sins. The Unitarian may be morally better than the person who believes the ancient creeds. He may even be saved in the end when the person who believes the Christian doctrines turns out only to believe them in the same sense as the devils who tremble. But it is, from the only perspective we can have, his profession of what he believes (which includes his actions in accord or disaccord therewith), by which we can say he is a Christian or not (remembering that only God judges his soul), and by which we MUST act toward him unless we have lost grips with reality.
Now I believe that the egalitarian who believes all things that are necessary to egalitarianism is not a Christian, for reasons I have given in other places. This is because his egalitarian profession of faith excludes Christian doctrine from that of the Holy Trinity on down. He may be an inconsistent egalitarian who picks and chooses from the egalitarian creed and is not wrong about everything. But that only means he is inconsistent. “So far as he is an egalitarian” (and you will recall that this is normally how I put it), he is not a Christian. The judgment here is not a final disposition on the soul of the egalitarian, but it IS a judgment on the doctrine he professes to hold, the kind of judgment on teachings that we make, and must make, every day of our lives.
Mr. Hutchens,
I am NOT your “non-judgmental friend”. I hope that I may be your friend, but “non-judgmental” is the last thing that anyone who knows me would think to describe me. I make judgments quite merrily and brashly about a host of theological issues. And I am happy (that’s probably the wrong adjective) to say that Unitarians are not Christian (more on that later), but many of them might admit to as much.
I do question this statement:
Our souls live and die by sound doctrine.
In my understanding our souls live and die by Christ. Sound doctrine helps us stay in his grace and makes his grace more profitable to us. Sound doctrine enables us to defeat the deceptions of the Enemy and shows us more clearly who it is that saves us and how we are saved so that we do not walk off the path of righteousness and holiness.
But sound doctrine doesn’t save us and it doesn’t keep us alive. I have this on sound authority. St. James said as much. The demons’ theology is pretty orthodox, after all. They’re going to hell anyways.
There are certainly categories of beliefs though which I hold to be disqualifiers for being considered a Christian in the practical sense. They start with anything that denies Christ as Messiah and Lord. This excludes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Unitarians, etc., and their fellow travelers in otherwise orthodox churches. Next I would add anything that denies what Christ did and why. Those who deny the Atonement, the Resurection or the problem of sin are not Christian.
But I do not add to the list of disqualifiers those who misunderstand the Trinity or the Incarnation, which is why I could include Ulfilas. I don’t not add them because I think they are optional beliefs. They are central to Christian theology. but they are not central to the basic kerygma of salvation in Christ. I believe one can accept Christ as Lord and be saved without knowing how Christ is Lord. But it won’t matter a wit if someone understands and accepts the Trinity but doesn’t repent of his sins, or worse, who thinks his sins need no repentance. It wasn’t the Trinty that the apostles preached. It was something more basic. The Trinty is just the natural result of contemplating on the truths they did preached.
To say someone is a Christian while another isn’t is to make a judgment about minimal qualifications for being a Christian. You are doinf this. I do it as well. My standard is simply a bit lower than yours. But we do not differ on the substance of what beliefs are Christian and what aren’t. I hold that WO is a cancer that will slowly kill its host. But it doesn’t kill immediately like blessing homosexuality does. A church or person that embraces that has no Gospel to hold or preach. Until WO kills the church it will compromize its witness, but on a sacrammental level so does Baptist belief about the eucharist. Should we not call them Christian as well?
Now we might say the Baptists are wrong in their sacramental theology but they are wrong in good faith. They are good men who believe the truth about Christ but are a little off on one area. Let’s give them that one. And let’s say that egalitarians are way off in their area. I would still rather say they are bad Christians than no Christians at all. Otherwise I would have to say that I didn’t become a Christian until 5 or so years after I decided to become a Christian. I received the Christian faith in an egalitarian package. Christ accepted me anyways and worked with me. Some people may take longer to work on. I was still a Christian in those early years and my egalitarian friends, well some of them, are as well. But their egalitarian ideas aren’t. When they deny Christ, his divinity, resurrection, atonemment reign in heaven etc, or when they deny the basic Gospel message of repentance of sin, then I will concede them to be no longer Christian. Until then I am going to be charitable in crediting their desire to serve the Lord but ruthless in criticizing the purity of their doctrine.
I have to agree with Christopher, but for a different reason. I was under the impression that the bounds of necessary Christian belief were set by the creeds, therefore I can agree about the inappropriateness of WO, without labeling those who would tolerate it as unChristian (or even sinful, for I cannot label a distinctive as sinful simply because of my disagreement), just as I can tolerate any other difference of belief I have with those who share the same confession of faith.
I think this discussion of the word elder brings up a good point, this debate is precisely about the sacramental powers of the office, and their origen. Most protestant churches simply don’t believe any of the things about the function of their pastors that make it innapropriate for women to be priests. Try suggesting to a Baptist that the good reverend is the visible iconic image of the invisible Christ, or to a Lutheran that women can’t descend in succesion from the 12 male apostles, and you will see the problem.
“I was under the impression that the bounds of necessary Christian belief were set by the creeds”
Certainly not for Catholics, Orthodox and other Eastern Christians — and probably would not even count as “Mere Protestantism,” give the stance of many Missouri-Synod Lutherans on this matter (especially given that they, in common with Lutherans who are both more liberal and those who are more conservative than they are, permit “lay celebration” of the Eucharist, but do not permit layWOMEN to celebrate it — again, unlike more liberal Lutherans and also [given that the Wisconsin Synod has on occasion alowed laywomen to celebrate it for groups composed exclusively of women] some more conservative ones).
Any comment, Steve?
Baptists may not believe in apostolic succession, but they do believe the scriptures, which indicate the complementary nature of male and female, the goodness of the way the sexes were created, the headship of the male, and that men, not women, are to preside in church.
Mr. Hathaway says:
“But I do not add to the list of disqualifiers those who misunderstand the Trinity or the Incarnation, which is why I could include Ulfilas.”
And
“When they deny Christ, his divinity, resurrection, atonemment reign in heaven etc, or when they deny the basic Gospel message of repentance of sin, then I will concede them to be no longer Christian.”
The ancient Councils defended Christ’s divinity within the context of Trinitarian theology. Are you purposefully glossing over this connection? Because this isn’t difficult, and it certainly doesn’t require the kind of deliberation you’re going through.
Ulfila and his ilk (the Eunomians) were so beyond the pale of orthodox theology that they had to be re-baptized–compare this with the manner in which Arians were received back into the Church (by confession). How could they have a decent understanding of repentance, or the divinity of Christ, if they claimed to perfectly know the essence of God? Have you read the Cappadocians’ response to this issue?
In short, it doesn’t really matter what you’ve invented to be the standard of sound doctrine. The Fathers–the same ones who defended the divinity of Christ and the New Testament Canon–have spoken authoritatively about this.
Aleksei, perhaps my education has misled me, but I was under the impression that Ulfilas was an Arian, not a Eunomian. But regardless, I reject out of hand the kind of arrogant judgmentalism that assumes they could not “have a decent understanding of repentance, or the divinity of Christ, if they claimed to perfectly know the essence of God”. How could you possibly know this? And as for the Councils, well I ascribe to them the authority to define what is the orthodox truth about Christ and am more than willing to ascribe the name of heresy to any diviation (heresy hunting is a particular vocation of mine), but that does not mean that someone who misundestands or disagrees with their defintion of Christ’s divinity do not recognize his divinity in some way.
My basic point is that while I may be a stickler for what is “sound doctrine” about Christ I am willing to be more generous in accepting others as his followers, even if their following is flawed. My ascribing the name Christian to them does not mean that I would claim their faith acceptable. I am simply recognizing what good there is in their faith. “Those who are not against me are for me” seems to me in keeping with the spirit of mere Christianity in this regard.
But I respect others who hold a sterner line. As I began this thought, I said I was not “comfortable” declaring such people not Christian for being egalitarian. Mr. Hutchens did add a qualifier that he was assuming consistency and declared them unChristian “in sofar as” they were egalitarian. I generally notice human beings never to be consistent in anything. We are always mixed and compromized, in our faith and in our heresies. Perhaps I was simply assuming that egalitarians would be inconsistent in varying degrees. I myself am a habitual wretched sinner. But thank God I am not consistent in it.
“Aleksei, perhaps my education has misled me, but I was under the impression that Ulfilas was an Arian, not a Eunomian. But regardless, I reject out of hand the kind of arrogant judgmentalism that assumes they could not “have a decent understanding of repentance, or the divinity of Christ, if they claimed to perfectly know the essence of God”.
Perhaps. Auxentius was his close disciple, though, and he was certainly a Eunomian.
I’m sorry you reject this kind of “arrogant judgmentalism.” If you read the accounts of the Councils in your NPNF, you’ll find harsh polemics by the truckload. If you really need an explanation though, I’d ask you to consider this:
The Cappadocians, responding to the Eunomians, made it clear that complete knowledge of the essence of God belonged only to God Himself. Now here are the Eunomians, stating that they have complete and perfect knowledge of the essence of God. Within the doctrinal consciousness of the Church, the Eunomians were equating themselves with God. What, then, is the need for repentance? And what can you even say about Christ’s divinity? Is it unique in any way according to this version of “Christianity?”
The Church never expounded doctrine on her own or of her own desire. She merely defended the Christ that she knew as the Bridegroom from those who would sully his image, whether by good intentions, “sincere beliefs” or otherwise. To say otherwise is to relegate Arianism and other heresies to mere logomachi that “good Christians” can decided to disagree about, when, in fact, they are absolutely fundamental.
“Ulfila and his ilk (the Eunomians) … I was under the impression that Ulfilas was an Arian, not a Eunomian.”
R. P. C. Hanson, in his huge tome *The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: the Arian Controversy, 318-381* (1988) which I have been reading this summer, gives good and convincing reasons for characterizing Ulfilas as a “homoian” Arian, one of those who occupied the “broad middle ground of Arianism” between, on the right, the homoiousians (many of whom in the 360s/70s coalesced with the Nicene homoousians) and the Eunomians, or heterousians, as Hanson prefers to term them (rather than An(h)omoians).
I’ll be closing comments now, since we’re a bit off the track.