Ship of Fools: Purg Thread about Giving Women More Authority in the Church Without Ordaining Them

Thread: Purg Thread about Giving Women More Authority in the Church Without Ordaining Them Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027544

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Hi Styxies,

I started a thread in purg called "'Equality Lite' for Women in the Church." The topic was what ways more authority can be given to women in denominations that do not ordain women but my hypothetical case for the Roman Catholic church dominated my OP and the thread was moved to Dead Horses. My OP was interminable as usual, and the thread hasn't had many replies.

My question for the Styx is, can there be a discussion in Purg about precisely this: allowing women to have greater authority within a Christian denomination without ordaining them? I don't want to discuss the merits of women's ordination. I think the topic is relevant because Pope Francis has been commenting on doing precisely this. Are all discussions about gender equality/inequality in the Church Dead Horse topics? I thought it was just women's ordination.

Maybe the confusion here is because in Catholicism and in some other denominations there is a division between ordained ministers and lay ministers. In other denominations, a minister is a minister and the issue of ordaining women is not so much an issue about the priesthood as it is about male headship and alleged Biblical proscriptions about allowing women to preach and teach, at least to men, in Church. I am not interested in discussing any of this. Rather, I wanted to discuss - for denominations there exists a concept of a priesthood distinct from the priesthood of all believers - what ways can more authority be granted to women if ordaining them is off-limits? Can a non-dead horse discussion be held about this?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

I'm not a host/admin, but my best guess is that Dead Horses is the correct place for it.

The exact wording of the Dead Horses rules says this (my highlighting of specifics and bolding)...

quote:
This board is dedicated to those topics that recur with tedious regularity on nearly every multi-denominational religious debate forum on the internet. Specifically: … the role of women in church and Christian households, … If you want to discuss any aspect of those subjects, post your thread here. Please go to the appropriate board if you want to talk about worship practices or seek support.

It also says

quote:
… Dead Horses is really an extension of Purgatory …

so it's not like you're being punished for wanting to talk about it, you're just being directed to the correct spot to do so and where others interested in discussing it know they'll be able to find your thread.

If you want to get a little extra attention to it, you could always post a link to the thread in your forum signature, maybe copy/paste this without the line breaks…

code:

[url=http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic
;f=7;t=000533]Join me to discuss the promotion of more non-ordained roles
for women in the [Roman Catholic] church.[/url]

[ 11. December 2013, 01:43: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

DH threads have equal authority with threads in Purgatory. DH is not a second class place for less equal threads. It's just a "different" place. Some threads cannot be ordained and allowed into Purg because they don't have the genitalia necessary to be in Purg. But they are equally valid threads. Equal but different. Hope that makes sense [Confused]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
DH threads have equal authority with threads in Purgatory. DH is not a second class place for less equal threads. It's just a "different" place. Some threads cannot be ordained and allowed into Purg because they don't have the genitalia necessary to be in Purg. But they are equally valid threads. Equal but different. Hope that makes sense

It doesn't make sense because half of it continues to be predicated on the basis that Purg is better than DH.

It's a category error. Is 'ordained' better than 'not ordained'? Of course it is if you want to be 'ordained'.

Is an apple better than a orange? That's rather more personal. But if we had a board specifically dedicated to discussion of citrus, no amount of argument would warrant keeping a discussion of oranges on the non-citrus board just because some Shipmates felt the non-citrus board had a higher status.

Categorization is not automatically value judgement. Any value judgements you bring to your reading of Purg and DH are entirely your own affair, but it's not the job of Hosts to reflect your value judgements. It's the job of hosts to place threads in the correct spot in accordance with the Ship's policies about the correct spot for different types of threads.

[ 11. December 2013, 05:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

[Roll Eyes]

Certain subjects have been designated as Dead Horses because here and on other Christian sites experience has shown that once one of them rears its head in any discussion whatever was originally being discussed usually gets subsumed by arguments about the DH subject. The powers-that-be have decided that in order to give other subjects room to breathe, the attention-hog DH subjects get to romp around in their own corral.

If this seems discriminatory to the poor oppressed DH subjects, sorry, but it seems to work. And the subjects themselves don't seem to mind, bless their hearts. They are all still going strong.

ETA: crosspost- obviously.

[ 11. December 2013, 06:05: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

stonespring

Quite a lot of the principles involved have been discussed in this very recent Styx thread.

Threads aren't demoted by being transferred, and as the giant cheeseburger points out, this move is well covered by the Dead Horse guidelines. From my perspective as a Host, these are routine housekeeping action which I'm required to do because we have demarcation lines for the various forums.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I think it's pertinent to add to my previous post, in response to Francophile, by observing that a key difference between 'ordained' and 'non-ordained' is that an ordained person can do things that a non-ordained person can't.

I can't think of any relevant thing that a Purg thread can do that a Dead Horses thread can't.

And that's why I think there's a basic category error involved in the attempted allusion.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Community discussion (second entry)
Purgatory
our space for serious discussion (yes, really)
"Purgatory is our serious discussion space – where theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues are discussed from a Christian perspective."

vs.

Special interest discussion (lowest entry)
Dead Horses
endless, no-resolution-ever discussion
"This is the place where all done to death threads get booted to, so that they can happily canter along with the other old nags."

Put DH up in Community discussion, change its name, subtitle and description to something less dismissive, and I will start believing that it is "equal but different" in the minds of those running this website. Not that it matters greatly to me, but if you wish to avoid the impression of a second class dump for toxic topics people unfortunately won't shut up about, then you will have to adjust the way DH is being presented.

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

IngoB: exactly right.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Some threads cannot be ordained and allowed into Purg because they don't have the genitalia necessary to be in Purg. But they are equally valid threads. Equal but different. Hope that makes sense

Absolute gold!

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

IngoB: spot on.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It wasn't that long ago that we moved Dead Horses into the special interest section, where it sits naturally with Kerygmania (that off-shoot of Purgatory dealing with discussion of Bible texts) and Ecclesiantics (that multi-origin board that includes some threads that at one stage would have been in Purgatory as well).

I seem to recall Ingo had suggested that move too.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I seem to recall Ingo had suggested that move too.

Me? IIRC, I was one of the first (if not the first) to suggest that posting new threads should be allowed in DH. Before that you could only post to existing threads, which got dumped there by hosts from other boards. I do not really recall discussing where DH should be situated. (It's possible I did though, but if so the my opinion clearly did not leave a lasting impression on me... [Biased]

)

Anyway, I don't have a big issue with this, as mentioned. Personally, I basically ignore DH anyway. My point was simply that the impression that DH is second class to Purg is hardly absurd, given the way it is currently being presented.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

It has been my observation that in DH, homosexuality threads usually get activity, and abortion from time to time, but women's ordination threads usually wither and die quickly unless they are about the politics of the Church of England and female bishops (and accomodating those C of E members who disapprove of female bishops). But I'm a relative newcomer to the ship.

I agree that the topics of headship of men in the Church and household, the tradition started by Christ only choosing men as Apostles, and the idea of men only being able to act in persona Christi in celebrating the Eucharist are definitely Dead Horses and belong on Dead Horses. But I don't think that having a female layperson as a Cardinal (which just means that she gets a red hat and can vote in a Papal Conclave), or as a Prefect or other top role of a department of the Roman Curia, or as the chancellor of a diocese with all administrative roles (now when women are chancellors of a RC diocese, certain administrative roles still have to be deferred to a priest that an ordained chancellor would not need to defer) - I think that this is a wholly different discussion than one about women's ordination.

In the Roman Catholic Church the theological mainstream doesn't discuss men having authority over their wives or women being covered and silent in Church anymore - these are largely Protestant issues (and ones for Traditionalist Catholic splinter groups like the Society of Saint Pius X). So giving women more authority in the Church without ordaining them is a completely different issue than women's ordination. It seems to me to be more of a pragmatic issue than one about interpreting scripture and Apotstolic Tradition - about church discipline rather than Church doctrine. I don't think it's a topic that has been driven into the ground. And I think it would get more of a discussion in Purgatory than on Dead Horses. But I defer to the wisdom of Ship administators.

If anyone wants to discuss this, please go to my thread in DH. Feel free to ignore my long, rambling OP - it's not that important.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It wasn't that long ago that we moved Dead Horses into the special interest section, where it sits naturally with Kerygmania (that off-shoot of Purgatory dealing with discussion of Bible texts) and Ecclesiantics (that multi-origin board that includes some threads that at one stage would have been in Purgatory as well).

I seem to recall Ingo had suggested that move too.

It was prior to my joining the ship, so at least 8 years ago or more.

[ 11. December 2013, 18:54: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

No, more recently than that. It was after a H&A day and was around the same time we introduced the Glory board.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

*slaps head* yes of course, I was reading that as the move away from community discussion - rather than when it was moved away from Limbo to sit in special interest.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

It happened somewhere between 7 May and 20 May 2011.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I've been trying to find the relevant threads in Oblivion (well, it sometimes works ...). The changes (position of Dead Horses in "special interest" and some revision to the guidelines) resulted from a Styx thread in March 2011. We spent some time discussing the merits of different changes, there's no reason to rush these things. But, I am a bit surprised it wasn't until May that we made those changes.

Now, if only I'd found those threads in Oblivion I'll be able to answer the question of who exactly had suggested the changes we made.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The powers-that-be have decided that in order to give other subjects room to breathe, the attention-hog DH subjects get to romp around in their own corral.

My italics. Perhaps we should call it Greedy Pigs instead of Dead Horses?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Alan Cresswell: But, I am a bit surprised it wasn't until May that we made those changes.

I think they came into effect after we had a H&A Day to celebrate Erin's birthday (in the beginning of May)?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Special interest discussion (lowest entry)
Dead Horses
endless, no-resolution-ever discussion
"This is the place where all done to death threads get booted to, so that they can happily canter along with the other old nags."

Put DH up in Community discussion, change its name, subtitle and description to something less dismissive, and I will start believing that it is "equal but different" in the minds of those running this website.

I'm genuinely curious as to which part of the description you don't think is descriptive.

Whether people decide to AVOID discussions that will never end and don't ultimately get anywhere is up to them, individually. Such people are given due warning.

But it's a personal value judgement. As far as I can see, the Ship is also chock full of people that will argue on a topic until the cows have come home and the horses have died, and not mind one bit.

I could start listing names, but that would be unkind.

[ 12. December 2013, 02:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm genuinely curious as to which part of the description you don't think is descriptive.

Have I said anywhere that it is not descriptive? It is descriptive, both of the board and the lesser status (if not outright contempt) it is held in. And my only issue with that is that certain people pretend that the the latter is not as obvious as the former, even to the point of calling the obvious truth that Purg is better than DH on these boards a category error.

It is one thing to create a board for "outcast" topics. It is another to say that they are equal but different. If that is your intention, then you will have to adjust the language in which you talk about the "different" board. People do pick up on verbal clues about value, and currently they all point one way. Down.

That's all.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

"Outcast" is at least as pejorative as anything you perceive in the intro, IngoB. The topics aren't outcast, they are corralled. That may, indeed statistically it does, reduce the numbers of participants in threads on these themes, but that is a Shipmates' choice. What it surely tells us is that many Shipmates, like you, do not want to participate in discussions where the level of polarisation is predictable from the start and many of the arguments around the polarising issues have been done to death.

But we are not all the same. Some Shipmates like to test out these themes. Sometimes a current issue illustrates them in a new way. Dead Horses can be both informative and lively for folks not used to the range of opinions on these polarised, much discussed themes. That was certainly true in my case when I joined the Ship.

Why cannot we cater for those different tastes? Both safeguard Purgatory from the intro of these themes into other general discussions and allow a playing field for those who want them discussed further, will risk the "old hat" and "done to death" aspects? How is that not "equal but different"?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm genuinely curious as to which part of the description you don't think is descriptive.
Have I said anywhere that it is not descriptive? It is descriptive, both of the board and the lesser status (if not outright contempt) it is held in.

Then tell me which words in the description indicate that it is of lesser status, if not held in outright contempt.

Some people rather LIKE old nags, you know. There are homes for retired animals the world over.

I maintain there is a category error involved in the comparison that Francophile attempted, because there is nothing at all that can be done in Purgatory threads that cannot be done in Dead Horse threads.

You might just as well argue that Hell is inferior because a lot of Shipmates don't wish to visit there.

[ 12. December 2013, 09:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Outcast" is at least as pejorative as anything you perceive in the intro, IngoB.

Indeed, and so to illustrate my point of what you are doing by virtue of the language used. This word in scare quotes was supposed to be contrasted with the other word in scare quotes ("different"), which is the sort of language you would have to use to indicate parity.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why cannot we cater for those different tastes? Both safeguard Purgatory from the intro of these themes into other general discussions and allow a playing field for those who want them discussed further, will risk the "old hat" and "done to death" aspects? How is that not "equal but different"?

You can do whatever the hell you please with that, and as mentioned, I actually don't particularly care. I'm just pointing out that if your intention is to signal "different but equal" here, then your choice of wording is not optimal. I'm sorry, but "done to death" just does not have the positive ring of say "serious discussion".

Let me provide examples of what I would consider somewhat more positive:

quote:

Holy Stand-off
where irresistible rhetoric meets immovable objections
Here you stand and can say no other? Well, so do they. Christ will be around shortly to decide between you, right after He brought peace to the Middle East. This is our board for the toughest of nuts and their cases that show no signs of cracking. Yet.

quote:

Thirty Years Wack
semper discutanda
We all must reform our ways. Or counter-reform them. Certainly we must be informed how to avoid deformation. So have at it, glory awaits the victor in this intense battle zone of faith and morals. Will you be my Wallenstein?

quote:

Ouroboros' Snack
after the discussion is before the discussion
This is our board for Purgatorial matters that bear repeating. Possibly until you are blue in your face, but we all need to release our inner smurf sometimes. If we all keep running in circles, then at least we can be sure that nobody will get away with it - until somebody makes the path straight. Will you be the one?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Ooh, those are good, IngoB. I especially like the first one, and I agree with you that the Dead Horses description lends it an air of being lower in the pecking order than Purgatory.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Doesn't different but equal sound like language used around apartheid?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yes, it does. But one context is human rights and the other is discussion demarcation. The different boards can be equal in status and support, but decidedly unequal in popularity and levels of participation. Shipmates' freedoms determine the latter two outcomes, and there is no way your freedoms to participate are affected by discussion demarcation lines. Where the discussion takes place is very much of secondary importance, compared to that freedom to participate in any discussion, no matter which board it is on.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

To be fair B62, if the descriptions and demarcation points were clear and defendable, this question wouldn't keep cropping up. Whilst most of us have a reasonable understanding of the purpose behind the segregation of the topics, this interminable discussion keeps reappearing, so something isn't quite right. I like IngoB's first definition - why not just (possibly rename and) shift DH into Community Discussion?

▲

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

What I find interesting about Dead Horses is that rather than be a place where die-hards argue until the end of time about the same old things like you see on other websites, it's rather quiet. It mostly consists of people who have the "liberal" opinion on homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, etc., making the occasional comment on news stories related to those topics. The occasional conservative will stumble in but whatever conversation results is a flash in the pan. I'm a die-hard liberal and I hate talking to an ideologue unwilling to have a real discussion (often found when dead horses are addressed on other websites) - but I find Dead Horses on the Ship also pretty disappointing. Does anyone else feel the same?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I forgot to add that many people, often seen on purg or elsewhere, with more diverse or nuanced opinions about Dead Horse topics than the frequent Dead Horse commenters often avoid Dead Horses - and for some of them, I suspect that it is not because they don't like to talk about Dead Horses but because they don't like to talk in Dead Horses. Does anyone else feel this way? I am not suggesting allowing Dead Horse topic discussion in Purg. I understand why Dead Horses exists. I do not know how to make the quality of debate (or to be honest, the existence of debate) in Dead Horses better.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
To be fair B62, if the descriptions and demarcation points were clear and defendable, this question wouldn't keep cropping up. Whilst most of us have a reasonable understanding of the purpose behind the segregation of the topics, this interminable discussion keeps reappearing, so something isn't quite right.

▲

On reflection, I'm inclined to agree. Part of the problem is that I've been around here for almost 9 years now, so I don't always see clearly the impact of some of our brief descriptions on the minds of others. "Getting" the ethos of this place is pretty instinctive for me now.

I think the demarcation description ("any aspect" et al) is pretty clear. The intro words were penned (mostly) at a time when this and other discussion forums had a problem with recurring themes. So DH was invented, and described with characteristic insouciance by our late and much missed editor. The purpose was clear enough; to stop the serious discussion being swamped by issues over which Christians seemed likely to argue about til doomsday. That purpose stands, I think, hence the old corral.

But I can see that the words and the good intention behind them can get a bit "lost in translation" these days. Particularly by new entrants. Things have moved on, we've modified the DH guidelines, and we've had the relative comfort of no swamping, at least in respect of the corralled issues.

Louise and TonyK should have a bigger say re the wording of the intro than I should. As DH Hosts, they have to live with it. As a Purg Host, I've just got to live with the demarcation. Which isn't all that difficult.

I'm a big supporter of the principle behind the DH corral. But I'm reasonably relaxed about some updating to the present intro words and can see the arguments for at least considering that. Mind you, it would be a shame to lose the reminders of Erin's policy-making and the characteristic way she expressed herself! That's probably just me being nostalgic, of course. My age you know (71 next week).

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
... this interminable discussion keeps reappearing...

Maybe it's a DH? [Biased]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[qb]Thirty Years Wack
semper discutanda
We all must reform our ways. Or counter-reform them. Certainly we must be informed how to avoid deformation. So have at it, glory awaits the victor in this intense battle zone of faith and morals. Will you be my Wallenstein?

Like Barnabas, I feel others would have a greater say in any rewrite. But I'm going to comment on this one, specifically.

While I can understand the basic intention of what you're trying to do, Ingo, this one is just bordering on incomprehensible. If you think you're going to get a Latin motto up here, think again.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thirty Years Wack
semper discutanda
We all must reform our ways. Or counter-reform them. Certainly we must be informed how to avoid deformation. So have at it, glory awaits the victor in this intense battle zone of faith and morals. Will you be my Wallenstein?

Oddly, this reads a lot like the idea behind that "duel board" idea that bombed a while back...

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
if the descriptions and demarcation points were clear and defendable, this question wouldn't keep cropping up.

We live in a world where boxes of toothpicks come with instructions. There are certainly other explanations for why the distinction of Dead Horses from Purgatory and Hell is occasional contested besides "the description is not perfectly clear".

And frankly, if anybody is confused by what goes where, feel free to breathe deeply into a paper bag until a handy Host comes by and puts things right.

If what people really mean to be saying is that they don't like Dead Horses, let me clap my hands with delight. Thank you for self-selecting to not drown us with your opinions about things you don't care enough to venture out of Purgatory for.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0