ἀναστόμωσις

Trigger warning: this blog contains personal reflections and NOT endorsements, recommendations, advertisements, advice, criticism, admonitions, or censures. It is part of a personal activity of "thinking-through." All representations are merely provisional and are mine and mine alone. Its subject is 'Anglican patrimony'. (N. B. Many of the posts are quotations or re-posts, as clearly indicated by the hyperlink.)

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Cart before horse

Within this current debate, what many people appear to have missed is that the challenge to the supporters of women in priesthood that I am presenting is rooted in a rejection of the pictures that govern their notions of what priestly leadership is. Most of the debates about women in the priesthood presume that we always know what priesthood is, the only question is whether women are permitted to exercise it. My argument cuts across this, claiming that the debate is generally operating in terms of a radically distorted notion of priesthood and that women are not able to exercise priesthood in the same manner as men—it isn’t just a matter of permission.

The same holds true in the marriage debate: marriage and holy orders are something mystical (which is why they must be considered sacraments). Who presumes to say they understand them completely?
David Sullivan at 11:35 AM
Share

No comments:

Post a Comment

‹
›
Home
View web version
Powered by Blogger.