Madre's Missives

Inadvertent and Occasionally Intentional Thoughts

The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 09th, 2006 at 6:50 pm

Roman Catholic Womanpriests and womandeacons to be ordained by a womanbishop July 31, 2006 in Pittsburgh, PA.

I'm not even womensure what to womensay about this womengroup. So I'm just going to be womensilent and let you womenread for your womenselves.

By ordaining women, we are re-imagining, re-structuring, re-shaping the priesthood and therefore the church:

We believe that it is possible to live and build up a new model of priesthood: that in itself would bring amount to a new model of church. These are some of the ways in which we strive to avoid the trap of dualism and clericalism:

Among the womenpriests, priesthood is not part of a power structure. We try to see and live it as a ministry, of leadership certainly but not of domination or exclusion. We do not use the words "clerics" and "laity". In Europe, where we have the Core Group (Praesidium) because that is where it started, everyone is a member: no-one is excluded. Ordination gives one a different function but not more power. When we have a meeting, the bishops and priests do not have more say than anyone else, although Gisela and Christine do lead the meeting. Leadership is important, but in a model of shared power: Schüssler-Fiorenza's well-known, discipleship of equals".
We recognize the gifts and talents and responsibility of each person in a differentiation of ministries and live and work together as a community.
We do not have obligatory celibacy, in fact we do not link celibacy and priesthood. Our ordained women may be married or single, hetero- or homosexual, some are grandmothers, a few are divorced and have had their marriages annulled: we are in fact a cross-section of the Christian community in our lifestyles.
We do not promise obedience to the bishop(s). Among the men, obedience to the bishop is an essential part of the hierarchical structure within the church. Rather we try to live prophetic obedience: to find and walk together the 'holy road' along which we trust the Spirit is leading us.
A symbol of this attitude is that the bishops prefer it, during an ordination, if the layout can be such that the candidates do not kneel or prostrate in front of them but rather in front of the altar. The bishops and priests sit to the side if it is logistically possible.
We are worker-priests: we are financially independent of the Church and each earn our money in some other way. Financial dependence of priests on their bishop or their Order is a very strong aspect of the power-structure in the hierarchical church.
We use no titles: we have no equivalent to 'Father' once we are ordained, we do not even refer to ourselves or one another as 'Reverend'. We do not think we are more reverend than anyone else. Even our two bishops are simply referred to as Christine and Gisela.
Vestments, chalices, stoles are simple, rather than elaborate or expensive. The bishops do not wear the mitre or carry a crozier, which would make them look taller and more important than everyone else. Mitres, tiaras and elaborate vestments were for kings and emperors and from the time of Constantine, popes and prelates copied this, as power became more and more linked to the clerical caste.

Read the rest of the RC Womanpriests History - Ordination Conference Address HERE.

(Incidentally, the vested male - he's the bald one - is identified as "a Lutheran pastor" who is a friend of the womanbishop pictured.)

Edited on: July 10th, 2006 12:56 pm

Comments:

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 3:00 pm by anonymous
I guess Madre decided that Bloghardt's shameful comments calling these women a derogatory name for lesbians was not the side of the LCMS that she wanted to advertise on her blog, and that's why she removed them? I don't understand why. We all know there are no gay or lesbian people in the LCMS, so no one should be offended by them, right?

Oh right. Bigotry never appeals to young adults -- the targeted audience of this blog.

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with women are doing. "We recognize the gifts and talents and responsibility of each person in a differentiation of ministries and live and work together as a community." Yeah -- I can see how that is contrary to the gospel.

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 3:12 pm by Bloghardt

I guess Madre decided that Bloghardt's shameful comments calling these women a derogatory name for lesbians was not the side of the LCMS that she wanted to advertise on her blog, and that's why she removed them? I don't understand why. We all know there are no gay or lesbian people in the LCMS, so no one should be offended by them, right?

Oh right. Bigotry never appeals to young adults -- the targeted audience of this blog.

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with women are doing. "We recognize the gifts and talents and responsibility of each person in a differentiation of ministries and live and work together as a community." Yeah -- I can see how that is contrary to the gospel.

You've got me. The joke not only bombed, but was inappropriate. I'm sorry.

But the problem remains...

What to say when these women take upon themselves that which isn't given to them?

It is not Christian behavior to seize something that has been given to someone else.... There's a different name for that... that's called a "thief."

No bigotry there, but calling godlessness what it is...

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 3:27 pm by anonymous
Bloghardt writes:
"Now... the joke may have been inappropriate. You've got me. The joke not only bombed, but was inappropriate. I'm sorry."

I'll leave it to God to determine if your apology for sinning against these women comes from the bottom of your heart, Bloghardt. God's a better judge of that kind of thing than I am.

But I still have to wonder: are you sorry the joke bombed, or sorry that you bore false witness?

Also, I'd still like to see Madre keep her blog uncensored, though, so that those who read the postings here can decide for themselves if the people and pastors representing the LCMS on this blog are really spreading the message of the Gospel or not. It's much more honest to not censor postings after they have been labeled for what they are.

Bloghardt continues:
"What to say when these women take upon themselves that which isn't given to them? It is not Christian behavior to seize something that has been given to someone else.... There's a different name for that..."

And what is it that they've taken that doesn't belong to them? And what other names would you like to call these women?

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 4:03 pm by Madre
Bloghardt apologized, it is not your place to judge the sincerity of it but to put the best construction on his words and actions and forgive him. That is the Christian thing to do, is it not? And as I have been taught (by Bloghardt of all people - who is a sinner and blows it from time to time just like the rest of us), we get to be Christians even when we dont' think the other guy is.

No one here is representing the LCMS. Neither I, nor this blog, nor Higher Things are representative in any official way of the LCMS.

Now, I posted this site and information because I do, as you likely know, have a problem with women's ordination. Was there something you'd like to discuss on that issue?

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 4:22 pm by anonymous
Madre, you are right that it isn't my place to judge. Like I said in my posting: "I'll leave it to God to determine if your apology for sinning against these women comes from the bottom of your heart, Bloghardt. God's a better judge of that kind of thing than I am."

Sorry -- I'll try to be more clear next time I post.

Madre continues:
"No one here is representing the LCMS. Neither I, nor this blog, nor Higher Things are representative in any official way of the LCMS."

Semantics, Madre, semantics. Officially, you don't represent the LCMS. Unofficially, we all represent our respective churches of membership -- especially Bloghardt, as a pastor of the LCMS. So, it would be intellectually and spiritually honest of you to not censor a discussion taking place here. Let his actions and words stand as he has presented them, and let the reader decide for himself/herself whether this is a Gospel message or not.

Regarding womens' ordination: I'd still like to know what these women have taken that doesn't belong to them.

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 4:41 pm by Madre
No, you did not leave it to God. You raised the question whether his apology was sincere enough, thereby implying that it may not be. It's a fun passive-aggressive game to play with one another, but not on my blog and not before the Lord when we're pointing out the splinters in neighbor's eye. He asked for your forgiveness, the Christian thing to do is to give it and move on. Isn't it?

No, it is not a matter of semantics. If I wanted to play the semantics game, I could point out that as a layman, I am not even a member of the LCMS. Blogger Smiley

And it's my blog and I will censor it as I see fit. I'm not usually a fan of doing that sort of thing. But if you are unable to participate in a substantial discussion of the issue presented and instead continue to throw mud at someone who has confessed and apologized for his sin as though it were an invitation to bash him and/or the LCMS, it will not take place on this blog.

At HT, we prefer to discuss issues and doctrines rather than people or synods.

Well technically, they haven't taken anything. They are not ordained, they are not in any Office of Holy Ministry. They're just a bunch of gals who dress up in vestments and play church. That they deceive others into believing that they're ordained ministers is a problem though.

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 6:51 pm by anonymous
Madre writes:
"He asked for your forgiveness, the Christian thing to do is to give it and move on. Isn't it?"

Well, I'm not the one defamed by Pastor Bloghardt, so it wouldn't be right for him to apologize to me. Blogger Smiley

Actually, I'd be happy to move on, but only if we are going to be intellectually honest in this discussion, which is clearly not the case when you censor the discussion. Kinda like playing cards with a stacked deck, isn't it?

Madre continues:
"No, it is not a matter of semantics. If I wanted to play the semantics game, I could point out that as a layman, I am not even a member of the LCMS."

Semantically speaking, wouldn't you be a "layperson"? ;)

Madre:
"And it's my blog and I will censor it as I see fit. "

I have noticed that, and all I'm saying is that you are misrepresenting a viewpoint by removing it from public discussion. Although, I guess I could see why you would do that - the kind of posting that Pastor Bloghardt made could certainly come back to haunt him in any future career advancements he might want to make.

(I can't wait to see how long until this posting is removed as well, for even insinuating that Pastor Bloghardt did such a thing...)

Madre:
"But if you are unable to participate in a substantial discussion of the issue presented and instead continue to throw mud at someone who has confessed and apologized for his sin as though it were an invitation to bash him and/or the LCMS, it will not take place on this blog."

A bit defensive, aren't we Madre? I would be willing to participate in a true discussion of what has been posted on this thread. Unfortunately, you and Pastor Bloghardt do not appear to want to "play" fairly.

Madre:
"At HT, we prefer to discuss issues and doctrines rather than people or synods. "

I see. I guess, after reading your postings on June 19th ("Madre's Traveling Altar Guild") and May 20th ("A Place Of My Own"), I wasn't aware that we were limited to discussing "issues and doctrine" of your choice.

But, then again, I would guess that slander would be considered an "issue" which all should be concerned about.

Madre:
"Well technically, they haven't taken anything. They are not ordained, they are not in any Office of Holy Ministry. They're just a bunch of gals who dress up in vestments and play church. That they deceive others into believing that they're ordained ministers is a problem though. "

Exactly. In your limited theological worldview, that is all they are, so why do you feel the need to harp on it?

I really do miss the LCMS of my childhood - the one whose members were more concerned about the Gospel message than complaining about what other Christians are doing. Theology of the Cross vs. Theology of [my personal theological worldview's] Glory and all that. Where's Jesus in this posting, Madre?

When you and Pastor Bloghardt get to heaven, I'm convinced there will be a whole slew of women pastors waiting at those ol' Pearly Gates to welcome you into God's kingdom with a great big grace-filled hug. And, following them, you'll get a big ol' graceful smoochie from all those gay and lesbian Christians as well. Enjoy the moment! ;)

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 7:09 pm by Madre
Clearly, you're not interested in discussing anything substantive at all and just being a troll. As soon as anything was said about the matter, Pr. Bloghardt repented and apologized for his sin. You continue to harp on him for it. Where is your attitude of forgiveness? Where is Jesus in YOUR words? You expect an awful lot of "Christian" tolerance from others that you have demonstrated that you are not willing to show yourself.

It would appear that you have an axe to grind. Have at it.

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 7:57 pm by Bloghardt

When you and Pastor Bloghardt get to heaven, I'm convinced there will be a whole slew of women pastors waiting at those ol' Pearly Gates to welcome you into God's kingdom with a great big grace-filled hug. And, following them, you'll get a big ol' graceful smoochie from all those gay and lesbian Christians as well. Enjoy the moment! ;)

Holy cow... there's alot of judgment going on here - motives, feelings, and everything. You must think all of us to be quite evil.

I don't think there was really an opportunity to confess who is given to be in the Office of the Holy Ministry before you already had us pegged as being evil and unloving.

My suggestion is that you read Madre's paper http://www.ligw.org/images/Women&Scriptures.pdf

Read it and if you'd like to discuss, I'm sure there can be some discussion. If you'd like to simply recall my past sins and judge my motives, that job is already taken in my life. The devil, that old accuser of old, already does a really good job of that...

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 8:21 pm by anonymous
Oh, I don't consider either of you evil. I'm just disappointed in the lack of fairness in the guidelines for this forum.

Madre, I am not "harping on" Pastor Bloghardt - it is you that I am disappointed in. You are the one who is cutting off discussion through censorship. I have a lot of respect for you, for a number of reasons. I guess I just expected more from you than to stifle discussion by deleting postings from this thread. Like I said immediately following his apology, Pastor Bloghardt has said he is sorry, and it is up to God to judge his confession - not me. I don't know how much clearer I can be on that, and yet you continue to harp (troll?) on me about that.

It is to you, Madre, that I am expressing my disappointment. You will continue to have a closed discussion among your regulars when you censor a discussion. There is no point in discussing further because you clearly will not admit it is intellectually dishonest of you to cut out postings in a discussion.

I've read a number of Madre's writings, and I am impressed my her work, Pastor Bloghardt. Yes, I disagree on many issues with her, and I would be happy to discuss them, but I won't take part in a discussion group that is clearly stacked against fairness. And that is the forum Madre has set up here.

It's been interesting and enlightening. Enjoy preaching to the choir, folks. I'll be sure to greet you guys at the gates as well -- unless you'd prefer to not know that I am there with y'all.

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 8:25 pm by Bloghardt

I have noticed that, and all I'm saying is that you are misrepresenting a viewpoint by removing it from public discussion. Although, I guess I could see why you would do that - the kind of posting that Pastor Bloghardt made could certainly come back to haunt him in any future career advancements he might want to make.

Let's set aside the very obvious prohibitions of women holding the office and we can see what this is really all about...

Here is the very sad thing about this...

You've got the Office of the Holy Ministry completely backwards. This is not about advancement or moving up, the ministry is a step down. Those who are in the office are servants, slaves of Christ and slaves of those around them.

That begs the question then, why would a woman want to be a slave? She is a jewel of creation, creation isn't "very good" until she is created. Why would she do such a thing?

You hint at it: upward move and power.

Jesus didn't come for upward moves, He came to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.

The world sees the guy in the front as the big mover and shaker. Do you?

Jesus comes among us as one who serves...

I have no doubt that these women have far more talents than I will ever have. I will grant that whole heartedly. My faults - warts and all - are plain for all of us to see. What they don't have is the mandate to do what they are doing - not from Jesus' words and promises.

And if they take it for themselves and make themselves slaves, it's far worse and belittling than any reference to "embankments." That's pathetic, but this is far worse: Taking the mistress of the house, the queen of creation, and making her a slave. That's just sad....

But... you've got me. Thank God, now I get to cross "district president" off my possible "career advancement" stuff. I'm really going to lose sleep over that. That's not what this is about either...

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 10th, 2006 at 8:37 pm by Madre
The posts I removed had nothing to do with the discussion. Had I noticed it earlier, I would've removed it and called my friend to repentence privately. But your post did not permit me that opportunity. So I deleted them both and hoped we could move on from there. But you chose to take the occasion to bash him and the LCMS, refusing to forgive him for it and implying by your comments that it was less than sincere (as though it was only once we had repented sincerely enough, Christ died for us...).

That has not happened as I had hoped. Now I am the bad guy for "censoring" the "discussion" and trying to get it on track to talk about women's ordination and issues related to that. So be it. My motivations were not as you suggest. Intellectual dishonesty was not my intention at all, nor do I believe that the comments I deleted were terribly "intellectual" or helped to further any pertinent discussion. I don't know if I'd do it again, it was the first time I'd done it at all. What's done is done and cannot be undone.

I'm sorry that my decision has disappointed you, I am a sinner too. Please forgive me.

Re: The woman doth protest too much?

Posted On: July 15th, 2006 at 9:50 am by revcwirla
Great post, Mad. I recently read a quote from Amy Trask, the CEO of the Oakland Raiders and only woman in that position in the NFL. She abhors being called "the first woman CEO." She says, "What we all strive for is when the word 'woman' is no longer a part of that sentence."

If you have to stick the word "woman" in front of everything, you know something isn't right. Or perhaps the shoe doesn't fit on that foot - like "womandad."