Hi Jody.  A week ago, with regard to WO, you asked, 'what is it that causes someone to believe this or that interpretation, given that both are recognised as valid?'

Since then several of us have had a go at responding to this important question.  I am wondering, though, what thoughts you have in response to that query.

Cheers

Roger.

I've certainly heard of the practice, too: in my previous church (Reform-led), women leaders weren't allowed to lead the mixed teenage youth group, whereas they could lead mixed groups of younger kids - there were women leaders in the older ages, but in a subordinate position to the males. And certainly, no woman (in my memory) has ever preached from the pulpit there. I understand that this is commonplace in CE churches, and am somewhat surprised that Rosemary hasn't come across it before.

(Phil - it's my surname that's Morden: I live about 300 miles north of you! One day, coffee (or tea, which is God's Own Drink) shall be had... )

Thank you James for that excellent link.  However I don't see from it any sense of "Thou shalt not."  The word Gerald Bray uses is 'innapropriate' whereas the word I used was 'mistaken.' I've no doubt his is the more correct term.

Surely those who believe that anyone holding my point of view should have the 'integrity' to leave the church,  must now answer the questions I put to Jody.

May I continue to serve the church I belong to and love,  am I welcome?

Rosemary you say:

"I've never heard any of them say that Scripture 'forbids' women to exercise authority in ministry.  I've certainly never heard it in evangelical circles."

I think Ian is using "Scripture forbade women to exercise authority in ministry within the church" as shorthand for "Scripture forbade women to exercise authority in ministry over adult men within the church". There are certainly plenty of examples of that line being taken in the publications on women's ministry on the Reform web site. It is that argument too, as I understand it, which is the reason for some evangelicals objecting to women bishops.

So for one example among many, Gerald Bray in this article linked to from the Reform web site discusses the use of the Greek word kepahle and considers what the New Testament has to say about men and women before concluding "It is this aspect of the matter which makes it inappropriate for a woman to occupy a position in the church which by definition makes men subordinate to her."

For some reason [unknown] I have been unable to post here for a few days,  however after Ian Paul's comment I wrote this ..

Thank you Ian for that explanation.  It surprises me because I haven't personally come across it,  which doesn't mean it hasn't been said of course.  I know that my Anglo Catholic brothers and sisters [for whom it often IS a first order issue] have a 'conscience' problem that I don't have,  but I've never heard any of them say that Scripture 'forbids' women to exercise authority in ministry.  I've certainly never heard it in evangelical circles.  If I thought for a moment there was a "Thou shalt not" involved anywhere,  it would obviously be a different matter. 

As it is,  I think WO is mistaken,  but NOT a first order issue. 

The church in all denominations is under God's Judgement at the moment and we should all concentrate on the task Jesus gave us.  The trouble is that we may not be permitted to do so because feelings are running so high at the moment!

There are many women and men, both ordained and lay, in the CofE who are uneasy about a conscience clause that will demean the ministry of women. A clause that does not do this would be acceptable to most (but not all) of us.

UK evangelicals who go for the headship argument usually distinguish leadership in Church (not OK for women) from leadership in society (OK). Of course, this is illogical for many reasons, not least the the bSupreme Governor of the CofE is female!

wggrace (whoever you are--it really would be nice to know), these is not *my* argument (that WO is a first order issue since it overturns scripture) but an argument from the 'conservative' end that I have heard and am merely reporting.

Simon, I do think that either side could easily have a 'sudden revelation'. Dick France had it; others have had it too. But it is only possible if you start to engage with views different from your own and are open to listen. I have, in fact, significantly revised my position as a result of engaging with 'conservatives', and I think some of them have too. In fact, I think that there is in fact less difference in reality than people realise.

That is the main reason why I convened, with Justin Thacker of EA, a colloquium on the issue at St John's last September. Discussions are continuing, and I hope they will bear fruit. But it is amazing how little dialogue there is on the matter--both sides appear to think that they have their minds made up and have nothing more to learn, but it isn't the case. A whole generation of CU students are turning out 'conservative' on the matter, but only because that is the line they have been fed.

I am uneasy at Ian's arguments that WO transposes quite so easily into a first order issue. Just because I cannot see that there are persuasive arguments for something, just because I think that others are wholly wrong on an issue, does not make their view an issue of the authority of scripture. Only if I make the further claim that they come up with their unpersuasive arguments because they reject the authority of scripture can I make that transposition.

If we allow disagreement to transpose so easily, almost any issue becomes a first order issue. I cannot accept a typical Charismatic teaching that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is quite separate from conversion. To me, it is wholly unscriptural. But the fact remains many Christians do think like this. Am I really to claim that it is because they do not accept the authority of scripture and so disagree with me on a first order issue? And from that issue we could move onto other things, the real presence at communion, baptism of infants, premillenialism. The scope for making almost anything first order is endless.