This is a Christian society, established in Japan at Toyohashi in 2006, whose primary function is to enable both Christians and Non-Christians to study the Bible.

WHY NO WOMEN PRIESTS

Reverend I.P.S.G. COSBY



III. CHRISTIAN GOD/MAN RELATIONSHIP REVERSED

Both in the civilisation of the Bible, as well as that of the contemporary secular world, the term man or manhood and woman or womanhood are iconographic. For example, the phrase ‘women and children’ is still used as a reference to those most vulnerable in society and in need of protection. If one were to include the word ‘men’ the phrase would change its meaning to that of ‘All.’ In a world that does not countenance any distinction being made between men and women, the phrase becomes anachronistic as men are now as vulnerable as women. The Biblical phrase for the most vulnerable is widows and fatherless children.¹⁵⁾ The marriage of a man and woman reflects the contractual bond that exists between GOD and Man

1. Authority is Hierarchical
In the real world, where the phenomenon of authority is concerned, a sine qua non factor is hierarchy, a term which the ‘egalitarian’ world of Enlightened Humanism considers taboo. Yet, wherever there is the exercise of authority, there has to be hierarchy: viz those who are answerable for, and those who are answerable to. Such is the ‘enlightened’ world’s disapproval of hierarchy, it goes to great lengths to convey the notion that it is non-existent or not present.

The fact is that in the real world, if there is to be an orderly social infrastructure of any size, there has to be hierarchy of authority. What matters is not that it exists, but how that authority is handled. Anyone who has been subject to authority will recognize the rectitude of what Christ has to say on the subject.¹⁶⁾ Where Christian principles are upheld by society, particularly regarding the correct handling of Authority and its accompanying hierarchical order, it is an important reason for non-Christians to take Christianity seriously.

To the Biblical mind-set the concept of authority is both implicit and explicit. Almighty GOD is answerable for his Creation, and the Creation is answerable to Him. GOD is answerable for Man and Man is answerable to GOD, not vice versa. Christ is answerable for the Church, who is the Bride of Christ. In like manner in Christian marriage the husband is answerable for his wife and family, and his wife and children are answerable to him. At the most basic or primitive heterosexual level, a woman’s safety and wellbeing requires a man being answerable for it, not vice versa.

This is not acceptable in WEH. The woman in the real world is not to be blamed for not looking after herself. In a world where the humanistic understanding of equality applies, it is a woman’s own fault if she does not look after herself. The reality is that there is a world of difference between rape and seduction. If a man rapes or is seduced, both are his fault. Whatever the state of the relationship, a man is responsible for the safety of the woman. If he allows himself to be seduced, it is his own fault for not looking after himself. In WEH, the man has no responsibility for the safety of a woman.

★★★★★
15) 　c/f James 1: 27.
16) 　For example, see: John13: 4–17.



If a woman is contemplating marriage to a man and does not find it within herself to respect the authority of that man sufficiently to trust that her wellbeing is enhanced by placing herself under it, she should not be marrying him. The selfless giving of oneself requires trust. The initiative to place oneself under any authority anticipates that one will be honoured for who one is, and metaphorically invited to be seated at his side as a consort participating in his authority, not superseding it.

Because it is the woman who is undertaking to place herself under the authority of the man, explains why it is the convention for the man, not the woman, to ask for the woman’s hand in marriage, not vice versa. It explains why women expect and want to be asked. Because it is she who is taking the initiative to place herself under his authority, she has to be asked whether she wishes to commit herself or not. The manner in which he handles authority must not only be something she respects and values, but she does so because she trusts that she will be strengthened, built up by, and made secure in that authority.

In other words, the union will be As previously stated, if she does not have that respect, she should not be married to that man. The point is that all of Mankind, whether male or female, or grouped together in the family of the Church is iconic of what ultimately is Man’s relationship to GOD. In other words, all of mankind is feminine, in the sense of being ‘answerable to,’ in its relationship to GOD¹⁷⁾. In this most vital of relationships, the woman is the role model, not the man.

★★★★★　
17)　The afore mentioned does not mean that man is effeminate, the human nature implicit in womanhood, in his relationship to GOD, but that in his manhood he is answerable to a higher authority. Similarly, the Sergeant who is answerable to his commanding officer is not, and is not required to be, effeminate in character



Implicit in Womanhood, at its most primitive, is the willingness to give of oneself for another. In marriage, the most basic of human relationships, the manifestation of a woman’s love is the selfless giving of herself to her husband and for her children. There is no place for adultery by either party, but because of the foregoing adultery on the part of the husband understandably is, and used to be, regarded as being particularly dastardly. Hence, when English Law first permitted divorce, it did not permit men to divorce their wives. Only women could sue for divorce.

Womanhood, whether as a wife, or as a mother, is the iconic role model for all mankind to witness what is Man’s relationship to GOD. A mother has an umbilical-cord relationship with her children that can never be undone, and which the father does not have. Consequently, a man can never be a mother to his children. At its most primitive, the mother’s relationship is about nurturing. As soon as the child is born it gravitates back to its mother, who is the presiding/immediate authority over it. In a properly ordered Christian household, as the child widens its horizons within the family, it becomes aware that there is the more distant authority of the father, to whom its mother is in turn answerable. As the child matures further, it becomes aware that its father, in turn, is answerable to a yet higher authority, GOD.

The child witnesses this truth when it sees the father conducting family prayers on behalf of the whole family. In due course, an important aspect of maturing into adulthood is when the child, having reached the age of discretion, chooses to have its own direct relationship with GOD. Until the child reaches adulthood (the age of majority), that direct relationship with GOD does not in any way diminish its being answerable to Mother and Father within the family, as will be explained below. An important natural rite of passage, a part of adolescence maturing respectively into either manhood or womanhood, is when the father takes over primary responsibility from the mother as the child prepares to meet the real world beyond the family.

Comparable to nurturing being the primitive nature of motherhood, the father’s equivalent role is protection and provision. It is important for a mother to be in a position to say to her child, “You had better speak to your father about that.” and for it to have qualitative meaning. Clearly, there exists a subtle, usually unspoken, hierarchy of authority, which binds the family together into a properly functioning social unit that is a microcosm of the world beyond.

Wherever there is a properly functioning authority, a sine qua non factor must be the capacity for ‘Recourse’ That is to say, a subordinate at whatever level in the chain of hierarchy, must have meaningful recourse to the authority above the authority to which it is immediately answerable. To use Christian terminology: Owing to the fallenness of Man and his capacity to abuse authority vested in him, a subordinate must always have recourse to an authority which is answerable for the authority to which the subordinate in question is himself answerable, the ultimate authority being GOD. The duty of the immediately higher authority is to assess how his subordinate has exercised his authority, and either to correct, or to affirm his exercise of it. Because there must be the capacity to make further appeal to a yet higher authority in the chain of hierarchy, there must ultimately be, as a last resort, provision for direct access from the bottom to the highest level of authority, e.g. the President of the university, in government the Monarch or President (Note that even republics have to have a President.)

This principle is clearly understood, provided for, and demonstrated in Monarchy. All, regardless of status, are equally the subjects of the King. There is no intermediary between the King and his subject.¹⁸⁾ This principle is being played out when the King visits his people, gives audi ences, gives awards personally, when the crowds congregate to participate with the king in events of national significance, and when the public require the monarch’s presence in times of tragedy, as happened in the United Kingdom following the death of the then Diana, Princess of Wales. In a Constitutional Monarchy where democratic governments prevail, the principle is further manifested in direct universal suffrage.

Christ frequently refers to marriage in reference to the GOD/Man relationship. With good reason it is stressed in the Anglican Prayer Book service on what is the nature of marriage. I quote:

Marriage [which] is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocence, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church...and for the due ordering of families and households, that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy name. ¹⁹⁾

However, we are living in a largely humanistic world, which is dismissive of author ity, abhors the concept of hierarchy, and rejects the idea of being answerable to anyone. The result is that with the break-up of properly functioning families, those that find themselves in positions of authority, having never been brought up in an authoritative environment, invariably abuse their authority. The tendency is to use the opportunity it provides to dominate, instead of serving those for whom the person is responsible, which is the biblical position. Importantly, implicit in the term ‘subject’ is the sine qua non principle of ultimate recourse. Significantly, it is a term rejected by republicanism.

★★★★★

18) 　 The Emperor Franz-Josef of Austria-Hungary, would reserve the first 20 minutes of his working day to give an　audience to any one of his subjects that requested to speak with him.
19) 　See the Introductory Preamble for the Solemnization of Marriage, BCP 1662

NEXT is 　World-order in the Bible.