All:

E. L. Mascall wrote a wonderful mongraph on WO, compiling learned snippets
from Roman, Presbyterian (or perhaps some Continental variety of Reformed,
but with a presbyerian polity) and ANglican authors.  I shall try to find it
today and photocopy it for all who desire it.

There have been several Protestant attempts in the last few years to refute
the notion that women can be ordained.  I'll grant you that, say Baptist
ordination is a different animal from Catholic ordinations, but the insights
into how "headship" functions in a Christian community are pretty neat.

In a way, the Prot argument about headship is alot like the RC argument that
the priest functions as "alter Christus," that is, another Christ. (No, it's
not meant to suggest that Fr. Bob replaces Christ any more than the Prot
arguement means to suggest that Brother Bob replaces Christ as the head of
the Church.)  They both aim at two continuities: how a minister of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ is connected to Christ, and how he is connected to
the people he serves.

Lewis' argument in that gem of an essay (reprinted in "GOD IN THE DOCK" AND
OTHER ...") was that what the priest is is inseparable from what the people
worship--or at least from how they worship, which entails what they worship.
By "religion" he meant not simply doctrine, but what people do together as
they worship.  If that is changed, what is believed is inexorably changed,
too.

I would run his argument the other way round.  What the priest is is part of
the medium of Christ's self-expression to his people.  Part of the pastoral
care of him who is the true shepherd and bishop of souls is that he chose a
part of human nature that is given--not earned or won.  Maleness is not an
achievement: if it were, a certain part of Christ's presence to his people
would have to depend on his minister's moral worthiness.

Granted, the NT does not envision a gaggle of less-than-holy clergy as
usual.  And holiness and worthiness materialy impact a priest's work.  But
by choosing basic fitness rather than simply moral worthiness in male
Apostles, Christ made for himself the widest possible human means for the
expression of himself to his people--while at the same time keeping that
expression and the means therefor true to himself.

Sub conundrum,

Paul Blankinship+



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael L. Ward" <mward@...>
To: <faithandlife@...>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:00 AM
Subject: [FaithandLife] What be the church?


> Mark+
>
> Interesting question.  For what it's worth, CS Lewis -- self-admittedly
not
> a theologian -- argues in "Priestesses in the Church?" that to have a
female
> priest is to have a religion other than Christianity.  And,
interestingly --
> not from Lewis but from a Presby friend of mine (of all things) -- to have
> female clergy is to have paganism.  Both of those positions would fall
into
> the "subtractions" scheme, I'd think.
>
> Also, I know that the Orthodox simply don't view women clergy as anything
> other than lay-leaders.  For them, I would also say that they would
classify
> it as a subtraction: with a female priest, you simply are not having
church.
>
> My two cents on Friday morning.
>
> MLW+
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to
<faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>
>
>