Girl Cooties

I shouldn't comment on the ducks on the other side of the pond, but CofE seems dead set on going to pieces over woemn bishops. Never mind that the Anglican Communion as a whole has decided that women as priests and bishops is not something to split up over, CofE wants to do just that, though I would think the Anglo-Catholics, Extreme Evangelicals and the Centrists and Liberals had more in common thna any of them have with the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), say. (It must noted that the acceptance maybe superficial, since many hold that the present split over known homosexuals as priests and bishops is just a way of objecting to women without the bad pr, since the Provinces that are involved in either are the same as those in the other. So, they can refuse to take communion with -- never mind from -- a woman Primate because she ordains gays, not because she is a woman. Handy.)

While I understand the worries of Evangelicals and Catholics about women as bishops, I think we all need to fall back on basic ecclesiology: the acts of the governing body of the church are the work of the Holy Ghost in today's context. Until proven otherwise ("Councils have erred" etc.). And the proof is a practical one, not a citing of texts or even precedents (all of which can be used to justify anything, as history shows painfully clearly). But, until then, they are to be followed by all the faithful (though they can also work to overthrow them and try to dodge them within the rules, while still being faithful members of the church).

As for the specific worries, a little discussion would show they are basically groundless (show to anyone not committed to the opposite conclusion, of course -- these points will change no minds).

While dating and attributing in Biblical research are thoroughly mixed with subjective factors, it is still the case that the consensus -- even the majority -- view among scholars is that the Pastoral Epistles are not by Paul, not even obviously Pauline School, and, like most of the New Testament, refer to specific problems in specific places and times. What the advice would be at different places and times has to be decided by the proper authorities at that place and time (see above). Loud gossiping women, drunken women talking back to the preacher, and women claiming to be bishops in some weird (even by Christian standards) sect aren't problems that should affect our practices today, where these are not problems (usually) and could be handled otherwise.

The Apostolic Succession is something else again. Assuming, against a fair amount of evidence, that the Apostles really did pass on something significant to certain other people and that these people have passed it on, generation after generation, to the present holders, who have delegated this power to current priests, what problems do women present to this? Well, the Apostles were all men (Junia to the side, for now) and they passed this something to men only (there are no ordination records from the first few centuries, so we have to take this on faith) and so on through the ages (known exceptions being ignored here). And, if there is any doubt, the Twelve were all men (though the angels were female, providing for the troop from their own resources). So a woman would break the chain and the something would not come down to those whom they ordained and thus apparent sacraments would not actually be sacraments and apparent priests and bishops would not actually be such. And those under their sway would thus not receive the means to salvation and be eternally damned. (I suppose something like this line of argument goes on for the Evangelicals as well, at least the last bit.)

So what is this something passed down and delegated? Well. it has something to do with what a friend of mine -- who failed her discernment interview on this occasion -- called "the magic cookie" and the right to speak authoritatively about the faith. And there are basically two view about what that is.

The first, the institutional story, is that all the rites involved are merely the church's way of solemnizing a person's passage into a position in the organization. The upper hierarchy and the people agreeing, the ordinand or whatever now becomes a person in that position. What is transmitted, if anything, is an appropriate part of the power of the church. S/he can now preach and consecrate with authority, subject to local rules. And can be kicked out, of course, and lapse into a peculiar state -- though not from this point of view.

For the state to be peculiar we need the other, spiritual, view, that what happens at ordination is a transference of a spiritual power, a link to God that others lack, and by virtue of which the person now gets power to do the magic cookie bit and have it count and to speak with some authority. But this transference is made only if the institutional requirements are met. So it remains the institution that determines who gets this power. And by the above basic principle, if all the requirements are met, then the Holy Ghost will see to it that the power is transferred, since it is always God (presumably the Holy Spirit) who attend to such matters. Thus a duly ordained person performs valid sacraments until deposed, regardless of personal flaws: if the sacrament offered by a serial pedophile, properly ordained, is valid, then so too is that of a properly ordained woman (the Italian Church has recently equated these two "flaws").

Resisting not only ignores the 39Articles, it denies the power of the Holy Ghost to do new things and all things well.