´óÏó´«Ã½

If NI women actually cared and were smart, they could take a page out of Aristophanes' play Lysistrata and boycott Carson's ministry denying their husband's sex unless they switched to Bradley's. They could even picket his church before and during services as people are entering. Funny how quickly you can be put out of business when word gets out and the customers stop coming. But they probably won't....after all...they're just...weak stupid women :-)

This whole row shows the crisis caused by the lack of order within Presbyterianism and indeed some of the other reformed traditions.
The central authority within the Presbyterian Church needs to make a decision as to whether or not women can validly act as ministers within the Church, if they can, then they ought to be allowed to preach everywhere, if not, then the Church should stop calling women to the ministry.
It seems to me that, since the Presbyterian Church has deemed it appropriate for women to be in the ministry, those who disagree should leave the Presbyterian Church of Ireland and establish their own Church. This seems to be the only way forward for everyone to hold their integrity.

It's astounding that in this day and age a man could actually wreck a traditional community festival on the sole grounds that he thinks women are less than men and not feel ashamed.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson was on C-Span/BookTV this weekend discussing her book "Leading Ladies: American Trailbladers" in which she examines the crucial role women played in the creation and emergence of the United States of America.

Among her comments were de Toqueville's observation about the incredible power and strength of American women compared to the weakness and passiviity of their European counterparts. Senator Hutchinson's own ancestors were among those responsible for the war which liberated Texas from Mexico and the women in her family at that time played no small role.

We'll see just how much spine NI Presbyterian women have today by the way they react or fail to react to the way they are being treated by their church.

The condescending attitude displayed on Sundays programme towards the rank and file members of the Presbyterian Church shows a detachment and ignorance from the ordinary reformed believer and communicant member of the PCI and their beliefs. To suggest that the members of the Presbyterian Church are being led like the lost children of Israel in their Biblical doctrines shows ignorance on the part of Christina Bradley.

Those who voted during the 1970’s in error to allow women elders whether it be teaching or ruling are to blame for this ruling which is Biblically unsupported in Presbyterian Church government, by allowing women elders and at the same time allow those who disagree to be conscientious objectors even though they are holding views which are contrary to church law as it stands at present, the General Assembly are sending out the wrong message regarding this ruling to all those who are spectators.

The unequivocal teaching of the Bible is that women are not permitted to rule or to teach, this message may not be a sweet taste to those who hold unbiblical views regarding women elders because the Scriptures clearly teach that the office of the eldership is restricted to men (1 Tim.2:11-3:7)

1Ti 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
1Ti 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1Ti 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

To understand this fully one needs to have a sound grasp of God’s creation 1Tim.2:13 says, For Adam was formed first, then Eve; we are shown that the order of creation is the determining factor for the authority of church order, to suggest that we are not living in Bible times is a copout of believing what God’s infallible Word actually teaches about the eldership, and using today’s cultural attitudes to interpret the Bible will only cause chaos and disorder in the life of the Church which seems to have happened between the clergy in Portadown because one does not hold to Presbyterian orthodoxy.

Billy, I'm a little puzzled by your posting. Were those quotes from the Bible or the Koran?

I see she's gone for the old "hurt" line, which I always regard as the refuge of those who can't win arguments.

As for Moderator Finlay - you can't have it both ways - "unequivocal" support for women ministers and then freedom of conscience for those opposed. What does that mean?

"Smasher"- What does that mean? I think it means that the moderator doesn't want to impose his viewpoint unilaterally upon ministers who disagree. Personally, I think that ministers who disagree are theological dinosaurs and their positions sexist, but that's irrelevant, since I'm not in the habit of imposing my view upon everyone who disagrees with me, and I believe the moderator may occupy a similar position in this regard.

Billy- I'm sure you anticipated my disagreeing with you on this, but you are reading the bible incorrectly. The correct way in which to read the ancient texts that you cite is to understand that they were written in a specific time and place for a specific audience. Unfortunately you are reading the entire bible as though it is written to your church in the 21st century, and that is the error. (IMO. :-)

John Wright - my issue with the Moderator is his use of the word "uneqivocal". This Anglican type approach is a disaster and comes from not having a proper church authority. I guess that's what happens when you break away from the Catholic Church.

And there are good, sound, scripture and tradition based reasons for not having priestesses - just doesn't really matter in the case of presbyterians, since they don't have Holy Orders anyway.

Smasher- Since Presbyterians don't subscribe to Catholic beliefs about the order of the church.... er, never mind. But I'm not sure what you think is logically wrong with the statement that the moderator "unequivocally" supports women ministers while at the same time wishing to allow his fellow clergy to be as equivocal or unequivocal about the issue as they want.

John Wright

I know presbyterians don't subscribe to Catholic beliefs about orders - that's why I said "they don't have Holy Orders". The point is that Catholic arguments on ordination of women are different from presbyterian ones.

As regards the logic - the Moderator was trying to say on the one hand this, and on the other hand that which is fine - except you can't say the church is unequivocal on the one hand. If you're unequivocal there is only one hand so to speak.

Smasher- In the Catholic church I know the Pope is infallible; not so in Presbyterianism. Their 'pope' is a mere man, and his words represent only one possible opinion. On the subject of the ordination of female ministers, the moderator is saying that both the church (through its General Assembly) unequivocally supports the ordination of female clergy, and that he himself unequivocally supports the ordination of female clergy. That doesn't mean he should try to deny his fellow clergy the right to disagree, even if it were in his power to do so. Why must church policy be enacted unilaterally in any case? Why must church be a dictatorship?; its members have different thoughts on these issues and perhaps the best kind of church model is one which understands that and permits its members to conduct themselves in the way their understanding of theology suggests.

John- a free for all then? Of course you'll find it tends to only work in one direction and that is the liberal one. Liberals want to be able to do what they want and then completely deny the same rights to conservatives.

Smasher:

Why must you think in dichotomies? Why must it be dictatorship or else a free for all? The fact is churches have laws governing certain matters and its clergy cannot deviate. But it also has areas where it allows disagreement and difference of opinion. This applies equally to liberals and conservatives: both sides are free to disagree and practice those disagreements which are allowed in church law.

S.

Listen to the Rev Stafford Carson on the Sunday Morning Service on Radio Ulster directly after Sunday Sequence. No update about an interview William.

I think if he's not willing to be interviewed he should release a statement defending his position. Only weak positions cannot be defended, and only weak minded people refuse to defend themselves. Come on Mr Carson, where are you!?!?!?! Take a stand for what you believe in, it's starting to look bad!!

S.

I noticed with interest that the to be ordained as a Presbyterian minister in the P.C.I. the Rev Ruth Paterson has been nominated as a candidate in the forth coming election of Moderator she is one of seven candidates; the election will take place on Tuesday 5th February.