Reflections and Meditation On: Women’s Ordination – Power Principle

           Women’s ordination feels wrong on the face of it.  Part of that is my traditionalist bent, part is because I know it is a 20^th century trend, and finally because I know history.  This is all before we get to the very specific Biblical prohibitions to women leading or speaking in church. Along with this, discussing the nature of spirituality and how the power argument is not biblical, which to me seems like the strongest argument against it.

           The “It is 2020 (current year)” argument is popular right now, and directly tied to the power argument.  It relies on the claim that all historical people in the 1^st to 19^th century are bad to women, and that women need exact positional parity to men in everything as reparations. This is a leftist non-Christian argument, and it is wrong historically, ethically, and spiritually. Old is bad requires you to prove why it is evil (away from God) or does not work in a utilitarian way. Neither is often done here.  Power parity again, assumes our ultimate value as Christians is power, and not Holiness or closeness with God.

           The year argument itself is devoid of principle and is based on only social pressure.  This is tied wit the equal power argument, which materialist, utilitarian, and Marxist. None of these are spiritual.  The implication is that women cannot be equal in God’s spirituality or the church without having equal power, which is heresy.  Also, it puts social accusation of, “you will be a bad feminist if you resist” into play. The answer should be “So what? I am a Christian.”  There is only the ethic argument if the ethic is power equality, which is not itself a Christian argument, so it is invalid.

           Now does the history backup the story as feminist and equality-power people claim? No. Christianity and following Christ does more to free women than any movement in history.  Christianity was the only system of belief to ever encourage single spouse, no divorce marriage.  This elevated women from a transaction, to a full-time life partner that men would stay with.  This fundamentally changed sexual ethics.  Since the first century, they have been spiritually and practically equally able to experience Christ and experience the Holy Spirit.  Women could become equal or surpass men in Holiness, and sex was no barrier to this. See any list of martyrs or saints.  They could teach, lead people in spiritual closeness to God, and full members of their Church.  All they could not do is be a priest or a bishop.  Which was prohibited by tradition, and Paul’s letters, and has a basis in Jewish tradition.

           After writing this originally, I had an argument with a liberal Christian friend of mine.  The liberal argument is totally unconvincing.  It is 2-fold; “Why do you need a dick to be a priest?” and “all gender roles are a social construct” famous leftist power arguments.  The second is materialist, Anti-Christian, and historically disprovable.  It is tied to both women’s ability and desire to lead, linked with the actual reproductive roles men and women play in every society.  The first is a threat tactic to shock a prude, not in fact an argument.  All one needs to respond to the question is; how is that question relevant? Both are weak Christian arguments on the face of it but that is hard to see by someone in a leftist worldview.

This is before we get to Paul and scripture.  Why would that scripture be the only one we get to ignore? Can we have any parts we want now? What happens when we can ignore parts of Paul’s Epistles we do not like? There all Church organization and sin go out the window. We are now literally at gay marriage endorsement and pedophilia and all degeneracy.  My future thoughts on these Biblical arguments is to come. Stay tuned.

           Lord, help me pray for liberals.