You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2008.
I raise this question only because in this day there are still those who wish to betray two-thousand years of Church History, a strong tradition of conservative theological interpretation, and an unwavering testimony of Sacred Scriptures affirming that women must not be ordained to the ministry of the gospel.
One historical dimension that came to my attention recently concerns the religious atmosphere of the first century. Historical records prove that the first century was replete with priestesses. Some–today– assert that if the cultural norms of the day were more favorable to women in places of authority–such as in our own day–then Jesus would have been more prone to ordaining women as apostles. However, Fr. Mateo dispels this historical myth by asserting:
It is unhistorical and simply false to say that in Jesus’ day priestesses would have been unacceptable to people at large. Our Lord never hesitated to violate cultural taboos (John 5:1-18). He spoke to women in public (John 4:4-42; 8:3-11). The first witnesses of his Resurrection were women (passim). Furthermore, the lands around the Mediterranean teemed with religions with priestesses. The famed Vestal Virgins of Rome were priestesses. There was a priestess functioning at Delphi. The Sybil was a priestess and the many temple prostitutes were priestesses.
Jesus would not have been the first to ordain women to places of authority in his ministry. However, he chose twelve male apostles. Jesus was a taboo breaker and it would have been a simple task for him to choose women who were among his followers. But the divine pattern prevailed; a pattern begun in the Older Covenant. Jesus shows that the nature of the church and the Scriptures is that the authority to administer word and meal be limited to men only.
Traveling again…be back on the 24th.
N.T. Wright writes a fine introduction on how Christians should view the saints that have departed. He shatters certain misconceptions that have plagued the Church for centuries. Among them, is the horrific doctrine of purgatory. As an able historian and exegete, Wright traces the central errors in this Roman Catholic doctrine as well as criticize his own Anglican tradition for attempting to restore this doctrine in a form of neo-purgatory.
According to Wright, churches have developed “fresh variations on the old theme of commemorating All Soul’s Day” (xiii) that are unbiblical and find no basis in church history. He is unwilling to compromise if this commemoration is unbiblical. He writes:“After attending several of these annual events, I got to the point a few years ago where I decided that, in conscience, I could do so no longer” (p. 47).
The common doctrine of purgatory teaches that by praying for dead in particular masses–loved ones gone before us–will reach heaven sooner. Wright disagrees with this doctrine and argues persuasively that the Catholic Church has erred greatly in this matter. In fact, even recent scholarship–including the work of Pope Benedict–turns away from this long held Catholic dogma. Perhaps the only well-known text used to defend purgatory is found in First Corinthians 3:10-15. But as Wright argues (p.25) the point of that text is not that some will have to pay for their lack of good works by being purged in purgatory, but rather, that those who are saved will be saved either completely or by the skin of their teeth (as Jude also implies).
In this treatise, Wright rejects universalism (p.42) and implicitly and explicitly condemns inclusivism. But beyond that, he boldly defends the bodily resurrection of all the saints (both alive and dead) in the blessed Second Coming of our Lord. Further, he chastises those who have adopted a subtle gnosticism in their hymnody. Wright delves deep into great hymns and pulls out the good , the bad, and the ugly, proving thus, that our music needs also to re-affirm a commitment to God’s reign and lordship over all things, including the body. But most significantly, Wright affirms the biblical doctrine that the saints gone before us await the same thing we wait: the day when our bodies will rise in glory.
I have been traveling the last week and am home for a couple of days before I hit the road again. As my licensure exam approaches I will need to spend more time in preparation.
While traveling, I was shocked to hear of the death of Tim Russert. One of my greatest joys on Monday morning was to upload the latest Meet the Press program. Russert was unrelenting in his questioning. Those who were interviewed by him had to encounter their past words and actions. Russert afforded no politician the right to be a politician; the right to be untruthful. Meet the Press will not be the same. Monday mornings will not be the same.
Contemporary services are filled with a delight for the somber. In particular, many come to the Lord’s Table without any expectation to be renewed by God’s grace. The table, to many, serve only as a post-liturgical stick note, rather than the Eucharistic means to receive the grace of God via bread and wine. Indeed it is impossible to come to the table with any joy if the table does not impart grace to the broken sinner. But if we restore the early church and reformational attitude towards the Eucharist, we will begin to see the Lord’s Supper as an essential, without which the liturgical service is incomplete. To begin we are to treat the Eucharist as what the Eucharist means: give thanks. We give thanks to the Lord for renewing us and we give thanks to our Lord for making resurrection life possible even now.
The Independent Institute’s Anthony Gregory explains why we’re libertarians.
Antiwar Radio: Anthony Gregory [36:57m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download
Recent Comments