There's ample precedent for female religious leaders, even within the bible. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 12/05/2011 07:13:47 AM
"It is better to marry than burn" is hardly a seal of approval.
For that matter, why are we letting women in the priesthood? We don't know if that's okay either. I mean, sure, we know they can be Christians, but are we sure it's okay for them to LEAD Christians? I personally am not convinced either way, and since I have trouble dealing with change I don't think anybody anywhere should take chances. Risk is just so un-Christian.
tl;dr Aren't you glad you're not a Presbyterian.
For that matter, why are we letting women in the priesthood? We don't know if that's okay either. I mean, sure, we know they can be Christians, but are we sure it's okay for them to LEAD Christians? I personally am not convinced either way, and since I have trouble dealing with change I don't think anybody anywhere should take chances. Risk is just so un-Christian.
tl;dr Aren't you glad you're not a Presbyterian.
Both in the Old and New Testaments, so Pauls particular hang ups don't bother me much, particularly given that he expressly says more than once in the NT that an opinion he's giving is just that: His opinion. That's a far cry from the consistent position throughout the text and Church history down to, what, like 10-20 years ago? forbidding practicing homosexuality. As for marriage in general, Levites were married, and saying bishops must be "the husband of only one wife" seems to make it pretty clear that they can marry at least once, even if it's open to debate whether that forbids them plural marriage, divorce and/or remarriage after their first wifes death. There's not even a scriptural suggestion priests can't marry. I've never been really clear where the prohibition came from in the Roman Catholic Church.
The cases you cite aren't nearly as ambiguous (and from the perspective of scripture, Church Fathers and historical Church practice "amibiguous" is generous when applied to practicing homosexuality). It's not a matter of simply saying "risk is un-Christian", it's a matter of a great weight of evidence arguing against the acceptable of practicing homosexuality vs. many scriptural arguments against it subjected to VERY novel and unprecedented interpretations, almost exclusively by people with a vested interest in the outcome. Generally speaking risk is fine, but when the risk offending God it's best avoided, and if a Church leader does something universally regarded as offensive to God until the last few decades s/he better have pretty solid evidence that the recent decades political decisions are more than that, and actually reflect Gods will.
TL;DR version: There are ample Old and New Testament precedents for both women Church leaders and married priests; there are none for practicing homosexual priests, and a great deal of evidence to the contrary, both of which have been reflected in Church writings and practices since. Even "it is better to marry than to burn" doesn't qualify because any homosexual couple seeking a Church marriage would've been dismissed out of hand in Moses' day, in Davids, in Pauls, in Augustines, in Aquinas' and even in C.S. Lewis'. I'm sure it would be very convenient for all of us to alter Gods will when it suits us, but that's not what Christ did in Gethsemane, is it? Whom is the Head of the Body of Christ?