National Apostasy by John Keble

Today’s saint from our homily was John Keble, whose sermon on the relationship between the church and the state in 1833 is honored to this day by the Church of England.  Here is a link to an online version of that sermon.  The lessons and the saint are not strongly related today so we will deal with them separately.

The sermon by Keble needs to be put in historical context, denominational and doctrinal context and redemptive historical context.  First, the year 1833 is important from the perspective of the relationship between the monarchy and parliament as well as the Church of England and government.  This was very much a transition period in English government with a further loss of power of the monarchy to Parliament causing a concomitant loss of influence of the Church.  In fact, there was a good deal of secular and even atheistic backlash against the Church.  Second, this is the Church of England which is a Sacerdotal model, believing that priests act as mediators between God and the laity, so that some of the categories for consideration are different.  Whether or not a true two kingdom doctrine existed in early nineteenth century England is beyond my ability to check.  If the current evidence is to be believed, the answer is no, but that is not fair given the doctrinal erosion of the last 60 years.  Finally, this is pre-1948 by a century.  The Holocaust and the post-War establishment of a Jewish state were not even dreamed of being possible considerations by the most premillennial theologian of that day.  Therefore, the specific arguments that are made concerning the treatment of the Old Testament, while interesting, may not reflect current tensions, nor truly reformed categories.

Having said that, after bemoaning the decay not only of the civic moral standard, but also of the doctrinal sophistication of the laity, Keble poses two questions.  First, he asks if a theocracy is necessarily desirable.  This is an interesting question considering all of the historical issues and the title of the sermon.  But a question that bears a look.  Using reformed categories, this is a very simple discussion.  In a two kingdom model with Christians being members in both kingdoms, it is clear that government, being in the Present Age, the Kingdom of this world, is not subject to the Laws of God, but rather to the laws of man.  This in no way lessens the Christian’s obligation to participate in this realm, bringing to bear any and all principles he holds dear, including Christian ethics, such as they are.  It is important, though, to have both a clear Law and Gospel distinction and a two kingdom model with its categories before determining how to impose Law in civic decision making.  Still, as an institution, there is no particular interest of the church in the affairs of state, except in specific issues in which the Law is clearly at question.  There is a great danger for the church being draw into pietistic missions that can run contrary to the Great Commission, which is the true mission of the church.  The Oxford movement seems to have been grounded in this distinction, whether or not the reformed categories existed within the movement.

Secondly, he asks how an individual placed in a position of civic responsibility who is also a Christian should behave in issues where civic interest are in conflict with Law.  Again, this seems to be a discussion greatly helped by the reformed categories and the two kingdom model.  The number of potential conflicts is greatly reduced after sifting through much of the pietistic baggage and reevaluating in light of Law and Gospel distinction, Christian liberty and the reformed categories of justification and sanctification.  In issues that still seem to present a dilemma to the Christian, Keble encourages Englishmen to stick to their principles, regardless of the odds.  I would maintain that no issue of this present age in terms of civic righteousness is sufficient to sacrifice a belief based on the knowledge of Jesus’ redemptive work on the Cross as revealed by scripture.

The relationship between the Episcopal Church USA and the federal government is well documented.  However, it has been a great violation of two kingdom thinking that allowed this to persevere.  The mission of the church has nothing to do with the national government of any nation, including Israel.  The theocracy known as Israel was destroyed utterly in 70 A.D.  The current state of Israel is a geopolitical entity created by man, not by an edict of God, and is not in any Covenant relationship with God.  The juxtaposition of the US flag and the cross in many Episcopal churches is a clear intrusion of this present age in the one place where the Age to Come is supposed to be most visibly intruding into this present Age.  This is man intruding into God’s space, God’s sovereign ground.  Whether symbolically, or in terms of actual corporate influence, this situation should be remedied and viewed as anathema.

Totally switching gears, the messages for today are listed on this website for your perusal.  It is an interesting group of readings.  This is clearly one of those lists that we get because it is almost always Lent for this feast.  All of the passages are Law passages.  Surprisingly, it is the Psalter that gives the best glimpse of redemptive history of the lot.  The Matthew passage stops too soon and Romans 12 without Romans 1-11 is similarly Law without being anchored by the indicatives.  I’ve railed on about his Law-Gospel distinction plenty of times, so I will let it go for tonight.

--Ogre--

St. Patrick's Day thoughts

Not for the first time, our Tuesday homily was about a saint, this time about the patron saint of Ireland, St. Patrick.  We learned some very interesting facts about Patrick.  To begin, Patrick wasn't Irish.  It seems that he was abducted from England by Irish raiders while a young teen and help captive in Ireland for six years until making his escape at the age of about 20.  But I do not wish to focus on Patrick.  His parents are far more interesting.


The history of the church in the British Isles is germaine to all Anglicans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, as we trace our roots back to those islands.  Patrick was Roman.  His parents were Romans sent to England to deal with the Pelagian heresy by the church in Rome.  This is all taking place in the fifth century.  The great debate between Augustine and Pelagius and its aftermath subsequent to Pelagius' death was burning strongly in Rome.  The fact that Patrick's parents were sent to England for this reason speaks to just how widespread this problem had become for the church.  This heresy that infests the protestant churches of our time was the reason for Patrick's presence in Ireland in the first place.  It is shameful that we have come to the point that history has erased the most important legacy of Patrick's family, that of putting down the Pelagian heresy.


Happy St. Patrick's Day.  Isn't it nice to know that God chose you?

--Ogre--

Worth dying?

This morning, the question that was raised concerning certain Christian martyrs was: what exactly is it that would be worth your life?  I want to build up the idea from scratch until it reaches a minimum threshold to be worth my life.

The starting point was faith.  Is faith worth my life?  Well, faith in what?  Is all faith the same?  The word faith in the Bible has a very specific meaning, but that word has been usurped by the culture and stripped of its textual richness, made bland by liberals and ecumenical movements.  What faith means now is belief in something, anything.  That something could be a naturalistic view of spirituality, where divinity resides in all things, including rocks and air.  That faith could be in humanity in general or the self specifically.  The word has lost its Biblical context.  No, I would not die for faith.

Faith needs an object, so it would seem.  Let’s try this one:  Faith in Jesus.  I have faith in Jesus…to do what?  To just be there for me?  To make the sun rise?  To endow me with blessings in this world?  To be my own personal advisor?  I’m sorry, but none of those things are big enough for my life.  Jesus has to do a whole lot more than be my own personal counselor, advisor, physician and spiritual mentor.  I can get all of those things without going to Jesus; therefore, this faith in Jesus is not enough for my life.

What if Jesus were the Son of God?  I’ve read in the Bible, in the synoptics in fact, that demons and the devil himself know that Jesus is the Son of God, the second part of the Holy Trinity.  This knowledge does not seem to alter their behavior.  Is this enough to alter mine?  Let’s assume that this is true.  So, what does this mean to me?  Is this fact worth my life?  No, not yet, but at least you have my attention.

What if Jesus was the Son of God who died, was buried, and on the third day, rose from the dead, and is seated at the Right hand of the Father, reigning in heaven?  OK, that’s spectacular news.  What does it have to do with me?

What if Jesus died to save sinners?  If He died, how did He save anyone?  Is Jesus a great example that I’m supposed to follow?  Do I have to die a martyrs death for salvation?  No, I’m not buying that one either.  Christianity wouldn’t have survived for 2000 years if the only road to salvation was martyrdom.  Perhaps there is a connection between this death and resurrection of Jesus and my own salvation.

What if Jesus died for me, as a sacrifice on my behalf to a justly angry and Divine God, to expiate my sins, to reconcile me to the God of the Universe, to provide for me righteousness so that I may join Him justly on the Last Day?  What if the Holy Spirit gave me the knowledge of this transaction through the testimony of witnesses to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as recorded in scripture, and the belief that this account was True?  What if I had faith, or belief, in this knowledge of Christ’s work on the Cross for me as revealed in the Bible, with knowledge also of all of the richness, fullness and nuance of this transaction, would that be enough for my life?  Would that be enough for your life?

Jesus is the Son of God, the second part of the Holy Trinity.  He did condescend to temporarily leave His heavenly throne and become incarnate as both fully God and fully man, thereby taking on the burden of the Law, so that He could fulfill the Law as no other man had done, and no other man could do since the fall of Adam.  By fulfilling the Law, He became a worthy sacrifice to a just God, Himself, being all parts of the drama for us.  He was the priest who made the sacrifice.  He was the sacrifice.  He was God to whom the sacrifice was made.  He sent the third part of the Holy Trinity afterwards, to reveal to His elect, to those who would belief, the truth of the knowledge contained in the scripture, the knowledge of the work of Jesus on the Cross.  He has ascended back to heaven, where He sits until He comes again in Glory to judge the living and the dead.  The only hope of me or any man for salvation is faith, faith in all of this and more as revealed in the Bible.

Yes, that is enough.  For that truth, for that faith, I would become a martyr.  When we take the shorthand instead of spelling out the whole formula, it is important that at least we know that it is shorthand, and that we know for what the word is shorthand as well.  Is this enough for you?

--Ogre--

The Rock

…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This phrase appears in Matthew twice, in 16:19 and 18:18.  The context of each passage is very different, but it is Jesus speaking both times.  Let us look at the first passage concerning Peter.  We’ll look at other Biblical references, at theories of the rock, and at the perspective of redemptive history.  We will likewise examine the second passage concerning the resolution of disputes.  We’ll look at the same three categories with this verse.  Finally, after taking a step back, with the backdrop of redemptive history in mind, we will examine this phrase in the larger context of Jesus’ work on the cross.  The idea of the Two Kingdoms will be used as a tool for understanding redemptive history.

In the first Matthew passage, Jesus is revealing part of his role in redemptive history.  The Son of Man is an OT name for the messiah.  While the phrase has a different meaning in Ezekiel, Daniel begins to change the meaning of the phrase in chapters 7 and 8.  It has eschatological meaning as the messiah from those passages.  Jesus always refers to himself as the Son of Man, using this messianic declaration.  Because it can also be viewed as a general reference to humanity, there can be confusion over the meaning.  In Matthew 16:16, Peter makes this direct link between the Son of Man and Jesus, and that He is the Christ, the messiah. 

It is interesting that there is actually discussion of the word rock after Jesus renames Simon as Peter or rock.  Many view this passage as stating that the church is built upon Peter specifically.  If Peter is the rock, specifically, why does Jesus undress him so severely in the same discussion in Matthew 16:23.  Others will say that the rock is the pronouncement by Peter that Jesus is the messiah.  Still others will refer to passages about the chief cornerstone, which are referenced in all of the Synoptics, and say that Jesus is referring to himself in this passage.  Let us stay with Peter for a moment, or perhaps Peter’s proclamation of Jesus, and continue onward.

The next verse starts with the reference to keys of the gates of heaven.  Who is receiving these keys?  It seems clear that this is initially granted to Peter.  The Roman Catholics use this verse as the grounds for Peter being the first Pope.  Peter is the first Apostle to preach to the Jews after Pentecost in Acts 2.  Peter is the first to preach to the Samaritans in Acts 8.  Peter is the first to preach to the Gentiles in Acts 10.  But Peter continues to report back to the Jerusalem council.  In fact, it seems in Acts 15 that James has the last word at that council.  Furthermore, in Ephesians 2:20, Paul is fleshing out this foundation idea with Jesus as the cornerstone and all of the Apostles and prophets forming the foundation.  Therefore, this office of preaching or proclaiming of the Gospel has been delegated to all of the Apostles early on in Acts, and eventually is delegated to others because the Apostles will certainly and eventually die.

Now there is a second aspect of the keys of heaven.  The Pharisees were in the habit of locking everyone out of the Holy of Holies, but Peter is charged with binding only some.  Those who he binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Clearly, this is an office that must be passed onward as well as preaching.  Whether Jesus intended this to mean that Peter is in charge of church discipline or rather in the role of excommunication is difficult to ascertain from this passage alone.  In Galatians, Paul pronounced preachers of false gospel as accursed.  We will return to that passage later.  But let’s now go on to the other place that this first phrase appears, Matthew 18.

In Matthew 18, we are in a section concerning the resolution of disputes between Christians.  In this section, there is a discussion of witnesses and so forth.  Notice carefully the use of the word church in verse 17. 

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Therefore, when we arrive at verse 18, the antecedent of the pronoun you has become the church.  We all become responsible for the discipline of our brothers in Christ.  This is part of the Ministry of Reconciliation of which Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 5.  Not only are we to preach the Gospel, to teach about Christ’s reconciling us to Him by His work on the cross, but in doing so, we will also minister to each other in the church as part of the fruits of the Spirit.  We will help each other walk the walk.  These works are not works towards our justification.  These works are the necessary result of a people who recognize their sinful nature in Adam, but also know that through faith we are reconciled to Christ.

Notice John 20:23.  This occurs after Jesus reappears to the Apostles.  Whether or not Peter is the first to preach, it is clear that the office is given to all of the Apostles, and by extension, to all who are called to preach the Word and to give Absolution.  Two of the most important portions of the Sunday service are the Confession of sins and the  Absolution pronounced by the priest or pastor, parts of the service that are nonexistent in many Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.  Whether we look at these events as the actual loosening of these people in absolution for their sins, or as a mini drama of repentance and absolution through the justification provided by Jesus’ work on the cross, which occurs next in the service, it is important that God’s people are reminded each week that through faith in Jesus, we are justified, reconciled, offered atonement and propitiation, sanctified and saved.  Jesus was pretty busy on Easter.

How does a reformed person, of Covenant theology and Amillennial eschatology apply the concepts of the Two Kingdoms to these passages?  In Matthew 16, this is an eschatological passage, as Jesus is referring to himself as the Son of Man, a messianic title.  Therefore, this passage should be interpreted in terms of the Age to Come, or the Kingdom of Heaven.  The question here is whether verse 19 implies that Peter will pass judgment on individual men in terms of salvation.  Rome clearly reads this passage in that the Church and, more specifically, the Papacy, as the direct theological descendent of Peter, have this office.  The Reformation view does not agree.  The argument here is that Peter first, and then all of the Apostles, as per Ephesians 2:20 and John 20:23, are given the office of preacher, by which they spread the Word to the world, making salvation possible by the hearing of the Word and the movement of the Holy Spirit in elect hearers of this preaching.  The binding is not so much in terms of the denial of salvation, but rather in the correction of members of the church.  But this office of correction is not only given to the Apostles, and their preacher descendants, but to the church as a whole, as per Matthew 18:17.

And now, tying this into Matthew 18:18, a passage that is clearly about this Age and this world, Jesus here is discussing the settling of disputes on this earth.  He gives this authority to the church.  In this case, binding again becomes a question considering the action of making the offender be as a Gentile or tax collector.  Jesus used these same examples in Chapter 5 in a similar context.  It must be remembered that at this point in redemptive history, Jesus and the Apostles are preaching to Jews.  Therefore, these two groups represent outcasts, those considered unsaved under the Old Covenant.  One has to be careful in over reading Jesus’ intension in this section considering the company he keeps, the role of the tax collector in Luke 18, the ministry that comes first from Peter to the Gentiles, and the previous occupation of the Apostle Matthew (tax collector.) Still, the implication of discipline remains.

Therefore, in summary, we can say that this phrase

…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

is a complex phrase in the Gospel of Matthew.  The interpretation can seem to mean several things.  What it is important to keep in mind are basic principles, particularly the Sovereignty of God.  Salvation is not an issue for man to determine.  Salvation is of God, by God, through God and at the whim of God.  This binding may be a delegation of some level of authority concerning the disciplining of the church membership, but it cannot mean a delegation of the determination of Salvation.  Even with Paul’s remarks in Galatians, let him be accursed is more of an expectation of an adverse judgment rather than actually rendering that judgment upon the false teachers.  The difference is huge.  And so, in the Age to Come, that began on Pentecost and will be fully realized on the Last Day, the Apostles and those that serve in the office of preacher are empowered to deliver the Word of God to the ends of the earth.  And in the Present Age, on this world, the church is charged with the discipline of its own membership.  Remember also that the church is charged with the teaching of Christ’s Ministry of Reconciliation, so that with discipline, we offer repentance and then receive reconciliation.

--Troll--

Let Go and Let God

In just two months, I have learned that blogs take on a life of their own.  Also, I have learned to be careful whom I quote, they might read it.  This post is a response to a query at this morning’s homily.

The readings for this week were from the Episcopal Liturgical Cycle, Year A, Eighth Sunday after Epiphany.  The Epistle is 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 and the Gospel is Matthew 6:24-34.  For completeness, the OT reading is Isaiah 49:8-16a.  Actually, as the Liturgy is rather reformed in its construction, let’s start with the OT reading as it is important.  In part one, then, I am going to lay out the significance of the prophesy in Isaiah 49 in terms of redemptive history.  In part 2, we will revisit the Sermon on the Mount once again, comparing Jesus' remarks with those of Paul in 1 Corinthians.

In Isaiah, we find the Israelites in captivity in Babylon, the temple destroyed.  This is important to understand in on a number of levels.  To begin, it can be argued that this period in time is clear evidence that the theocracy of national and ethnic Israel has violated the terms of the Sinai covenant.  The punishment aspects of Sinai have been enforced.  Israel is out of the land, scattered and in captivity; the temple has been destroyed.  And yet, in God’s infinite Grace, Isaiah tells of God’s plans to return to Zion and rebuild the temple.

This is a very important shift in redemptive history, easily overlooked, and yet crucial to the understanding of eschatology.  God is promising not to forget Zion.  This is a key moment.  Israel self identifies with Zion, but it is important to understand the difference between what Israel represents and what Zion represents.  There are several ways to set up the two types of covenants in the Bible.  Isaiah is pointing to the symbolism of two mountains: Sinai and Zion.  Through Sinai, Israel received the Law and the Mosaic Covenant.  Israel was intended to be a worldly demonstration of the Kingdom.  Through Zion, the heavenly mount, Israel will receive Salvation.  At this point in redemptive history, God’s ultimate plan has not been revealed, but Isaiah is starting to tell the tale.

Therefore, this discussion of Zion rather than Israel is a direct reference to ultimate Salvation for the people of God.  Now, in verses 11-12, God talks about gathering His people from all corners of the world.  The question is who are His people?  Israel has clearly broken the Sinai covenant, and so it can be argued that Isaiah is foreshadowing a much grander redemptive plan than just national and ethnic Israel.  God will rebuild his temple in Jerusalem one last time, as discussed in Daniel.  But the purpose of Jerusalem this last time will be to play a role in the life and death of Jesus.  This is not so much a renewal of Sinai as an introduction of the Covenant of Grace.  In order to fully understand Grace, the Law must stand in juxtaposition.  And still, it is Zion, not Israel and not Sinai, that God upholds in this passage.

In 1 Corinthians 4:1-5, Paul is discussing the particular role of the Apostle.  He describes the Apostles as servants of Jesus and stewards of God’s mysteries.  Without dwelling for now on the translation of servant, nor on the content of these mysteries, I want to focus on the issue of verse 5.  This is a passage that is a clear reference to judgment on the Last Day.  Paul refers to Jesus revealing what is in the heart, and judgment being based on this and on the works of each person.  This is a LAW passage.  All men in Adam will be judged justly and righteously under the LAW.  It is only through the penal substitution and propitiation of Christ through His death and resurrection that anyone of us can stand judgment in confidence, clothed not in our own self-righteousness, but clothed instead in the true Righteousness of Christ Jesus.  In the absence of the Great Mediator and Advocate, any man will face judgment with no hope of salvation.  

Finally, we return yet again to the Sermon on the Mount.  In our last two trips to this passage, we looked at Matthew 5:17-20 and 5:48.  Reminding you of those points, and here, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law; he came to fulfill the Law.  The standard for fulfilling the Law is perfection.  With that in mind, let’s look at 6:24-34.

Starting with verse 24, we cannot serve two masters.  Either we serve God or we serve sin.  This takes us back to the issue of the translation of the word servant, where the idea is more probably slave.  The relationship between slave and master is what is being referenced here.  In Adam, all men are slaves to sin.  This has been Jesus’ point throughout this sermon.  He is saying, once again, that no man truly serves God.  Note the similarity to Paul in Romans 3:1-20.  And since no man truly serves God, man is in a pickle.  What does Jesus say about this dilemma?

Consider the lily.  Consider the birds.  God provides for them.  Are not men more valued than animals and plants?  Surely God will provide for man.  This is not just a superficial look at food and clothing; this is a snapshot of God’s redemptive plan.  God will provide.  God will do all of the work for us in our Salvation.  God will justify us.  God will sanctify us.  God will do all of this for His people.  This is our first glimpse of Christian liberty.  Don’t sweat the details of this life.  Jesus has you covered for the Age to Come.

And finally, we come to application.  Is Jesus suggesting that we let go and trust God for food, clothing and shelter?  Not at all.  Jesus has much bigger fish to fry.  Jesus is concerned for the Salvation of His Elect.  James says this about this topic: What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.  The point is not to live irresponsibly in this world; the point is that the Age to Come is a much larger issue.  That is the Kingdom of Eternity.  That is where our concerns should lie.  Verse 33:  But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.  So, if we have trust in Jesus, we have no need for concern.  He has us covered.

The question that was asked this week was this: based on these passages, should we let go and let God?  Or rather, should we continue to be good stewards of this world?  Are they mutually exclusive or simultaneously true?  My answer is that they are descriptions of our actions in terms of the Two Kingdoms.  In terms of the Kingdom of God, let go and let God.  He has already done the work.  We have nothing to contribute to our own salvation.  In that very important, most important venue, we must Let Go and Let God.  In terms of this world, obey the Law: Love God and Love your neighbor.  You will fail from time to time.  Paul describes the Christian conundrum in Romans 6-8.  You accept justification by faith alone, but then you find yourself still in Adam and still unable to keep the Law.  You are distressed and turn back to Jesus.  You are reassured and are confident once again.  This cycle continues until your death or the Second Coming, whichever comes first.  The problem with most discussion of Matthew 5-7 is that people are still looking for a cookbook, seven steps for success, the path to salvation.  Jesus tells the crowd that we are missing the point.  We are all doomed under the Law.  Only through Him will we find salvation.  Remember this exchange between Jesus and Peter at the end of John 6:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

--Ogre--

St. Brigid of Kildare

Last week, I listened to a homily concerning the second of the three patron saints of Ireland.  As this was given by an American Episcopal priest, the undercurrent of this discussion is about as obvious as Pinocchio’s nose.  After a brief rendering of all of the groups over which she is the patron saint, it was mentioned that St. Brigid was consecrated as bishop, and she was indeed the only woman to hold that title in the church until recently.  This enticed me to look into this matter and here is what I discovered.

St. Brigid of Kildare

There are a number of interesting facts about St. Brigid.  First, she very well may have been raised in a druid household although her mother had her Baptized.  Her mother may have been a slave of her father who sold her just before she was born to a Druid.  This is not the only story of her birth I found, but there does seem to be some druid connection to her upbringing.  It is thought that she heard St. Patrick preach and that she may actually have met him while she was young.  She became a nun at a young age.  The legend is that St. Maccaille was bishop and was going to refuse her and seven of her friends due to their young age, but then when they were presented at church, a column of fire seemed to appear and stand on Brigid’s head.  Afterwards, all eight of the girls were accepted as nuns.

Her final vows were given by St. Mel of Ardagh, who was a nephew of St. Patrick.  After much traveling and establishing of numerous convents over many years, she settled finally in what is now Kildare.  The community that she founded was unusual in that it consisted of a combination of nuns and monks.  This meant that there needed to be both and abbess and a bishop, as only a bishop could ordain priests.  The legend is that St. Mel was elderly and a “bit doddery” so that when he was pronouncing her for abbess, he inadvertently read the orders for bishop.  The other version is that he had a divine vision concerning making her bishop.  Whichever was true, she remained bishop in authority if not in title even after the first male bishop of Kildare was consecrated. 

The point of this is that St. Brigid really was consecrated with the orders of bishop.  Whether this was intentional or accidental by St. Mel, it is clear that he did it on his own, without the approval of Rome.  It is also clear that the sort of micromanagement of ordination that is possible today was not possible in that era; therefore, it is unlikely that many outside of Ireland were aware of the issue for years.  All this is to say that, while it is true that St. Brigid was a bishop, begging the question of Biblical instruction concerning the ordination and consecration of women, in regards to passages like these in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and Titus, is probably not in order.  Clearly there are examples of extraordinary women in the history of the Church.  I am not sure that the evidence of this one case justifies the practice as it is now held in a number of denominations.  This is also not intended to defend either side of the debate, but rather to throw a wet blanket on St. Brigid as an example that holds much theological capital.  Let's remember that St. Brigid was a remarkable Christian woman and perhaps focus a little less on the peculiar nature of her installment as abbess and bishop.

--Ogre--