A woman’s place
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland is the second biggest Protestant denomination on the island and the biggest in Northern Ireland. It is in some ways a coalition of different opinions. Some parts of it are quite liberal and even ecumenical represented by people like Rev. Ken Newell of Fitzroy and previously Rev. John Dunlop of Rosemary. Probably the majority of Presbyterianism is, however, more traditional, theologically conservative and in reality quite fundamentalist, certainly churches in the Coleraine Presbytery (which my church just sneaked into) were and that is probably the case with most of the country congregations.The two wings of the church coexist fairly amicably. The media tend to like to focus more on the liberals than strictly speaking their numbers probably deserve. This, however, suits the traditionalists quite well, as most of their ministers have no great love of the media spotlight. There have been a number of issues which have caused significant division such as the failed attempts by some of the liberals a number of years ago to get the PCI to join the world council of churches.
Recently, however, the issue of women ministers has come to the fore. Normally at Christmas it seems that two of the Armagh Presbyterian churches share their services with everyone going to one church and the other minister preaching. On this occasion, however, it appears that the Reverend Stafford Carson refused to allow Reverend Christina Bradley to preach in his church. Actually my understanding is that the kirk session would have had to agree with him but still she was not allowed to preach. Apparently the two ministers have subsequently met but the outcome has not become clear.
In a separate move one of the potential candidates for moderator of the General Assembly is a woman. The issue of women elders and ministers actually cuts across the liberal / conservative split in the church; I certainly know of otherwise liberals opposed to women elders and ministers and conservatives in favour of them.
The biblical basis for this comes down to the analysis of Paul’s letters and whether or not one takes them as referring to the particular churches to which he was writing or to all churches for all time.
The other more fundamentalist denominations are also not always as clear on this as one might expect. The Brethern have no women leaders and women usually are not permitted to speak in church. The Reformed and Free Presbyterians have no women elders, deacons, ministers etc. The Independent Methodists have no women ministers but do have women members of the committees which run the church, allow women to preach and pray in public and have women teaching adults; all of which some other fundamentalist churches would disagree with.
The outcome for the Presbyterians is a little unclear though I doubt they are about to elect a woman moderator but as one can see above it is a more complex issue than many outsiders appreciate.
Paul with all due respect, the number of contradictions in the gospels alone is quite staggering.
Below is a link to a mere 396 biblical contradictions:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
The bible is a very long way from being an infallible document, which is perhaps surprising given it’s relatively shadowy beginnings and opportunity for shall we say ‘selective revision.’
The Canon Liddon whom you mention is obviously an optimist, but the unfortunate fact is that much of the bible is incredibly vague and widely open to free interpretation. At times we have seemingly endless and largely pointless genealogies, whilst at others we have potentially earth-shattering events skimmed over in a few verses (dead bodies walking the streets at the exact point of Jesus death anyone?)
From a purely historical viewpoint, the gospels alone present a huge problem. Many of the events and characters portrayed in the gospels simply do not coincide with documented events by chroniclers of the time.
To put one’s faith in this compendium as being infallible literal truth is not only illogical, it flies in the face of what the biblical writers intended. It is patently obvious that the bible was written by fallible men — there is nothing in the bible to suggest the hand of an all-knowing divine being.
Roman Catholicism (which I am no cheer-leader for) does not regard the bible as being infallible and many Protestant denominations regard it as a historical document rather than a divinely inspired book. Many others (particularly the more recent ones) regard it as being the literal word of God. Who is to say who is right?
As I stated in my previous post, there is no logical reason, other than tribalism, to put one’s store in any particular branch of organised religion. You arrive in this world alone and you leave alone. Any relationship you have with God should be on a one-to-one basis rather than channeled through the dubious notions of one particular sect.
Paul P @ 12:36 PM:
Gosh, I never thought to see Henry Parry Liddon, that arch-AngloCatholic, held up for admiration here:
Might I also mention Thomas Huxley on Liddon in Science and Pseudo-Science?
After all, in passing, if we are basing our conclusions on mathematical probability, such calculation applies equally to creationism.
Gerry,
having a one to one relationship with a deity is fine. In my opinion, limiting spirituality to this has advantages and disadvantages.
I’m sure you are aware of the advantages.
I would suggest though, we also have to think in terms of community and progression, of teaching, transmission, deity intent, division of labour, having access to (and building on) great thinkers that went before us and claims and recordings of important events and their messages and interpretation amid the backgrounds of those events.
My personal thoughts would be to have both and accept some problems that go with it.
Of course it depends where you think the balance of positives lay. Many people will think the positives lay in rejecting both.
I also think to concentrate on where the hierarchical church goes wrong, and make that image the universal, and the norm and project it backwards into the past is not necessarily fair.
Also, one of the things the church is criticised for is that they don’t change things.
One of the ‘latest’ infallible statements from that hierachy was the immaculate conception proclamation in 1854 and there is still arguement with other churches about that, further blocking unity.
So i’d say being dependant on a decadent hierachy’s theological commands is not very accurate when the decadence, while always there to some extant, is not a fair description of the usual overall reality and that hierachy’s greatest role is to preserve rather than dictate.
Perhaps that’s why men are best at it – we are usually better at finding excuses not to do anything.
)
There is though, a difference between rare theological commands and constant theological interpretations (development) for consideration that may shape thinking.
Malcolms point here, on having access to women’s theological input is well made. My own church is not exactly overflowing with the historical theological insights from women and that is a fair criticism that should be addressed.
I would still not argue against the seperating of the roles of priest and theologian though, in order to address this.
But to be fair, in practise, up until now at least, the two have largely been intertwined and at least in name, the great theology discussions and thoughts have been attributed to men.
Historically most have been theological priests or theological consecrated brothers. I suppose there should be no real reason why more consecrated sisters cannot concentrate on theology also as well as women in the laity although of course anything based on the bible, that in non revelatory will involve much study first.
Sister Faustina, Sister Lucia, Mother Theresa and Mother Angelica’s founding of Catholic TV are some ‘recent’ important contributions.
While Christianity is flourishing in most of the world, the restructuring of the church in the west to further incude laity and women in particular, would be a good thing and help with renewal IMHO.
For me, the role of priest is not necessarily the same issue though.
Abucs I appreciate that you’re very much ‘into’ your church and I can respect that, but we’re patently on very different wavelengths.
Whilst all religious denominations deliberately seek to garnish the basic religious tenets with endless rituals and rules, we do have to suspect their motives. A quick skim through the early centuries of the Christian church provides chilling reading and it’s inarguable that the early church stifled free thought, murdered vast numbers of dissenters and set up an institution designed to both line their pockets and cement absolute power.
If everyone were to suddenly adopt the ‘one-to-one’ model I advocate, we would see an immediate drain of wealth, power and influence from the established religions. And that is after all why they were established in the first place.
The biblical figure of Jesus clearly had no interest in financial or earthly power, and his message was largely one of ‘be nice to people.’
This portrayal of Christ has been largely expunged by the established churches and replaced instead with diktats, ritual, persecution, sexual obsession, biblical nerdiness and criticism of free thinking.
I don’t think it’s too fanciful to suppose that God would be happy with someone who believes in him, communes with him and does no harm to other humans.
I do however think it fanciful to suppose that God would be displeased if you failed to say enough hail Mary’s or didn’t spot the supposedly mathematical code running through the bible.
Christ’s message was simple — it was intended for the common man and woman, and it was to them that he preached. To suppose that we need someone to explain that message and somehow have a special channel to the divine others don’t possess is ludicrous in my view.
As regards women in the church, my last word on the subject is simply that barring women from any office of any church is mysognyistic and all arguments advanced to the contrary are merely dogmatic babble.
OK Gerry. I wish you good luck.
Well one Presbytery did vote for Ruth Patterson tonight – leaving the other twenty to vote for men! They elected Rev Dr Donald Patton (11 votes) in case you were wondering!
Alan in Belfast @ 10:00 PM:
It’ll be hot times in the Randalstown O.C. (tea and choccy bickies?) tonight!
Could be double HobNobs!