|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ordaining women
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Our minister preached on 1 Tim 2 v 11-15 on Sunday - making the case for not having women in church leadership and authority.
This is probably a very old question.
Now, the question that Mrs Stoker and I have is that it is very clear if you accept the authority of the word (as the C of E or URC does), then it follows that women shouldn't be ordained as that puts them in a position of authority over a local congregation.
So what is the basis that women are ordained in the C of E for example? i.e: When this passage comes round on the liturgical calender, what would an ordained woman say from the pulpit?
[ 31. May 2011, 17:07: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) It might not be a dead horse but it's surely a very bored one.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Any time you begin a so-called conversation w/ other Christians on a point of disagreement w/ the line "I know we disagree but since the Scripture is very clear, why is it you don't believe the Bible?" we've got a problem.
If you really want to have a dialogue, you've got to change your assumptions about those who disagree with you. Ask us how we interpret 1 Tim. Don't assume, discuss.
If all you want is to harangue about some long-dead (yes, it is) issue in a lecturing monologue, there's another place for that.
[ 31. May 2011, 13:17: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
When this passage comes round on the liturgical calender, what would an ordained woman say from the pulpit?
Well, as it clearly states in the text, the ordained woman ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) should tell the childless women to get procreating or risk the fires of hell. It's there in black and white: procreate or incinerate.
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
If the rest of you want to be just as bored my answers to the OP are IN this post here about four years in to the "Priestly Genitalia" thread in Dead Horses, which is where I guess the OP ought to have gone.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
The male-only clergy is an Apollinarian heresy. Heresy trumps (interpretation of) Scripture.
Thus, the male-only clergy is in error.
(Well, you did ask.)
See you in DH!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 31. May 2011, 13:53: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Stoker, why don't you think it's a dead horse?
Things become dead horses when the arguments on both sides are sufficiently strong, and when they are so passionately held, that no resolution is possible.
You would think that the argument you put forth is a knock-down argument, to which no defense would be possible. But notice how it bounced right off... ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think there's a difference between the Evangelical objection - women should not be in authority over men - and the Catholic objection - women should not be priests, in that the things Evangelical women in the anti-OoW camp can't do are separate from the things Catholic women can't do.
Not sure if that's what Stoker was getting at.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
A local priest told my wife, the MD, during a meeting about pastoral care, that he could (just) understand that a woman could be a doctor, but that he simply could not see how a woman could be a priest. Fortunately, there were enough other people there that he didn't end up being flattened by the Christian Tough Love that she was tempted to apply.
(His church went from prosperous to marginal during his tenure, FWIW)
The world has moved on since the edicts of insecure males of the second century mattered.
If you want proof texts, I'm sure you can find lots that prove the opposite to your assumption in the OP. Try Acts.
And, no, Jesus did not appoint ANY priests, so that won't fly.
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
it is very clear if you accept the authority of the word (as the C of E or URC does), then it follows that women shouldn't be ordained as that puts them in a position of authority over a local congregation. [/QB]
Bullshit. Fuck this idea and the dead horse it rode in on. "It's very clear" is a non-starter. It's only clear if you know what you want the text to say before you open the book.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
The only solid reason why women could not be ordained is that they are spiritually profoundly different from men, and in such a way that would make them unfit for priesthood.
I haven't come across any proof of this.
But it reminds me of another song I often hear: I used to be a pilot. If I had a penny for every time someone comment on the "strangeness" of this exotic condition, I'd be rich. My answer to these profound comment has always been: "well, you see, the aeroplane actually doesn't care who flies it".
And I somehow think that God really does not care whether His priest is male or female. Asked about the topic, Jesus would have come up with anothher one of his paraboles as an elegant way to tell his listeners to stop fussing and get on with The Good Life in His following.
The whole issue is cultural.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Interesting that no one answers the OP's question.
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Interesting that no one answers the OP's question.
I did. And I think I answered it clearly and conclusively. But as I have already written my answer down I just linked to the place it can be read.
quote:
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
There must be some subtle hidden meaning. If only we could interpret it!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
Presumably because a kindly host has not yet had the opportunity to apply the humane killer. meanwhile I call bullshit on all those who have tried to resurrect dead horse material under the cover of this thread. You know who you all are.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
Presumably because a kindly host has not yet had the opportunity to apply the humane killer. meanwhile I call bullshit on all those who have tried to resurrect dead horse material under the cover of this thread. You know who you all are.
Isn't this called "junior hosting"? Geez, I call bullshit!
(I think what's happening here is known as "fooling around." Everybody already acknowledges that the thread is going to be moved, after all...)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
Stoker, if you are a biblical literalist then you have to also take into account Galatians 3:28... in the Christian community there is no superiority or insubordination... neither slave nor free etc.
If you are a linguist you have to take into account that the words 'man' and 'wife' in this pairing in the original Greek also mean 'man' and 'wife'.
If you are an evangelical with a thing about women speaking in church then you have to ignore all the women who pray, speak and teach in church, out loud -or admit that it might be fine if they have 'authority' on their heads.
If its a problem with 'headship' women over men... then you have to take issue also with all female headteachers, female managers, mothers with sons over the age of about 13, and in any situation at all where they might ever exercise authority over any male. You also have to object to all the Abbesses of history, the deacons who lead services and baptise in Anglicanism and many different denominations- including some of the Orthodox, and ladies of the Bible like Lydia who traded in purple cloth. And our Sovereign Lady -Queen Elizabeth.
Also you then have to start insisting on short hair for all men (coz Paul recognises it might offend some.
If you still deny the Holy Spirit is working within female priests... Then don't even begin to look at all the other sinners and reprobates He's managing to redeem and work through! xx
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why is this thread still here? It is a dead horse.
Presumably because a kindly host has not yet had the opportunity to apply the humane killer. meanwhile I call bullshit on all those who have tried to resurrect dead horse material under the cover of this thread. You know who you all are.
Isn't this called "junior hosting"? Geez, I call bullshit!
(I think what's happening here is known as "fooling around." Everybody already acknowledges that the thread is going to be moved, after all...)
Not intended that way, TM, though if it does then so does yours (and RuthW's).
I was one of the original supporters of the DH board. It stops the constant re-emergence of things already discussed in detail and forces people to post their thoughts where others have done so before. I don't believe that most people were fooling around - most replies look pretty serious to me (maybe yours wasn't).
If people can't control their verbal diarrhoea on DH topics then a call of bullshit seems overdue to me. The hosting decision is already made in regard of subject matter and I would net dream of questioning it. Those who have violated it (from Stoker on down) have done so. Number yourself amongst them if you have the courage.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Sign --
The role of women in the church is explicitly listed as one of the topics to be discussed in Dead Horses. That includes the Ordination of WOmen.
On the Ship, declaring a topic a Dead Horse means that it is a subject endlessly debated, with entrenched positions on either (or all) sides and no prospect of a resolution this side of the apocalypse.
Debate on topics in Dead Horses is just as valuable and welcome as debate on topics in Purgatory -- it just takes place somewehere else.
And this thread is going somewhere else. Keep up the discussion, by all means. Please don't stop. But that discussion will take place in another place than Purgatory.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There's sufficient doubt that Paul wrote the letter and contradictions to other letters like in Gal 3:28 that it is probably best to simply ignore the provocative nature of the topic, its misogyny and move along. I guess we don't get a vote in terms of moving to dead horses.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
What's the proof-text for the ordination of gay female creationist dead horses? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Honest Ron Bacardi: quote:
If people can't control their verbal diarrhoea on DH topics then a call of bullshit seems overdue to me. The hosting decision is already made in regard of subject matter and I would net dream of questioning it. Those who have violated it (from Stoker on down) have done so. Number yourself amongst them if you have the courage.
Oh, please. Courage?
The subject presented itself thanks to ol' Stoker, who probably was just challenging the Ship's norms for his own pleasure. At that point, everyone pretty well knew the thread would be moved to DH where discussion could continue. So what was the harm in continuing rather jocularly in the mean time? I think Purg and DH will survive without you guarding the ramparts.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Lyda Rose wrote: quote:
The subject presented itself thanks to ol' Stoker, who probably was just challenging the Ship's norms for his own pleasure. At that point, everyone pretty well knew the thread would be moved to DH where discussion could continue. So what was the harm in continuing rather jocularly in the mean time? I think Purg and DH will survive without you guarding the ramparts.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The idea was to face (pseudo-)serious posts with a similar challenge. If Stoker bust the rules then so did those who used his/her post to post a rebuttal of the subject matter. Sauce for the goose etc. I do have a short fuse for this sort of thing it's true, but people do habitually do it.
Well, there is a certain symmetry I guess. No matter as this is where it always belonged.
But in passing a point arose I would be interested in following up. TubaMirum wrote: quote:
The male-only clergy is an Apollinarian heresy. Heresy trumps (interpretation of) Scripture.
Thus, the male-only clergy is in error.
If serious (I think you have posted similar elsewhere so there may be a serious point in here) can you pls. explain? Do you mean some other heresy? - I don't follow how you get Appolinarianism out of this one. If just a jest - no worries.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by joan knox:
quote:
What's the proof-text for the ordination of gay female creationist dead horses?
Genesis 1 v 2? In the amplified version of course, so that it might read something like......' ....and the Spirit which is sometimes described as a feminine form and possibly relating to the Wisdom of God and therefore shows God as male and female, which is really a bit confused (possibly gay reference), was hovering over the waters (definitely a feminist creationist theme about the birthing of creation through the breaking of waters, like the white horse on a rough sea, not to be confused with dead horses.)'
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Or one could work something up out of the whole Mary and Martha situation. Whilat saying "they also serve who stand and wait", Jesus did not disdain the woman who didn't.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But in passing a point arose I would be interested in following up. TubaMirum wrote: quote:
The male-only clergy is an Apollinarian heresy. Heresy trumps (interpretation of) Scripture.
Thus, the male-only clergy is in error.
If serious (I think you have posted similar elsewhere so there may be a serious point in here) can you pls. explain? Do you mean some other heresy? - I don't follow how you get Appolinarianism out of this one. If just a jest - no worries.
Sorry, Honest Ron. I didn't see this earlier.
The issue revolves around Gregory Nazianzus' "That which is not assumed is not redeemed," during the Apollinarian controversy of the 4th century.
The point is a simple one: that Christ assumed "the whole of human nature," not just "male nature"; if this weren't true, then women could not be saved. Here's a post with a more extensive explanation, said better than I will.
So, not a "jest" - but said in a lighthearted way above, while we were waiting for the thread to be moved.
[ 06. June 2011, 15:07: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is a simple one: that Christ assumed "the whole of human nature," not just "male nature"; if this weren't true, then women could not be saved. Here's a post with a more extensive explanation, said better than I will.
(Actually, I personally think this is better looked at in another way: that there is no real distinction in Christ between male and female, just as St. Paul wrote. IOW, it's not so much that "Christ assumed the whole of human nature" - but that "human nature" is not in actuality divided by a bright line between male and female. That gender is something of an "accident" (if I've got my terminology right - and I may definitely not have!).
This is exactly what were discussing on the "Gender identity" thread in Purgatory recently, in fact. I can't, myself, think of anything too crucial about the human condition that can be divided up along gender lines, anyway.
IOW, I think that Paul knew more than even he knew when writing to the Galatians that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is more than just a statement of the unity of believers; it's an objective fact about human beings.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... there is no real distinction in Christ between male and female, just as St. Paul wrote.
...
I can't, myself, think of anything too crucial about the human condition that can be divided up along gender lines, anyway.
IOW, I think that Paul knew more than even he knew when writing to the Galatians that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is more than just a statement of the unity of believers; it's an objective fact about human beings.)
How about these references to the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women?:
‘...the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband...’ (1 Cor 11:3)
‘For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.’ (1 Cor 11:7-8)
‘For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.’ (Eph 5:23-24)
‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor’ (1 Tim 2:13)
(All quotations from the ESV.)
I find it very remarkable that one verse of Paul’s writing should be taken as the most sublime piece of revelation, a veritable ubertext that overrides everything else written on the subject of the relationship between men and women, while other elements of NT writing that express a different emphasis that would modify or delimit the application of Gal 3:28 are marginalised, ignored, or invalidated. Doing that seems to me to be far too predeterminedly selective.
To return to the OP, anyone who was preparing to speak on 1 Tim 2:9-15 would be very well advised to read the book: Women in the Church : An analysis and application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Edited by Andreas J Kostenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner. 2nd ed. Baker Academic, 2005. (More info at Amazon)
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
The issue is cultural and situation-based.
The book of Deuteronomy sets forth procedures for burying your excrement. I would not expect a minister to preach on this, but I would certainly call him on it if he were to choose another verse from the Bible about which to be literal without taking situation into account.
This is not a matter of the 'authority of the word.' I have met not one minister who follows every word of the Bible literally. The question becomes, "At which point does one draw the line?" This goes back to culture, yet again, only now we are talking about the culture of the one who receives the word and attempts to make meaning of it.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
How do you read scripture Stoker? Do you eat only Kosher meat as required by the first council of Jerusalem in Acts? As far as I can tell that has never been rescinded although Paul had some further debate on that. Taking meat without the blood is a sign of the sanctity of life. That is from the Bible too, the Old Testament see Genesis 9:4.
You will probably argue that that is cultural, but what makes the decision of a council of the church cultural and the writing of one man to another not? In other words why are we free to write off a decision of the Church Council recorded in the Bible as due to culture and not that of an individual. Why do you appear to believe the inspiration of an individual who is not Christ is higher than the inspiration of a group of individuals and to be taken more seriously?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
How about these references to the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women?:
‘...the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband...’ (1 Cor 11:3)
‘For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man.’ (1 Cor 11:7-8)
‘For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.’ (Eph 5:23-24)
‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor’ (1 Tim 2:13)
(All quotations from the ESV.)
I find it very remarkable that one verse of Paul’s writing should be taken as the most sublime piece of revelation, a veritable ubertext that overrides everything else written on the subject of the relationship between men and women, while other elements of NT writing that express a different emphasis that would modify or delimit the application of Gal 3:28 are marginalised, ignored, or invalidated. Doing that seems to me to be far too predeterminedly selective.
Please read what's actually written, if you are going to comment on it. I wrote this: "IOW, I think that Paul knew more than even he knew when writing to the Galatians that 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is more than just a statement of the unity of believers; it's an objective fact about human beings.'"
You apparently think I was prooftexting, as you are doing; I wasn't, though. I don't tend to do that.
So: I quoted a piece of Scripture to point out the particular idea contained within it - and noted that I think Paul was saying something he wasn't consciously aware of. I don't really see the problem.
Paul lived in a patriarchal society, and may have had ideas he couldn't shake. Although I would point out that the Pastorals are "disputed letters," so may not even be Paul's. In any case, I wouldn't exactly call I Corinthians 11 a marvel of reason, for many reasons; lots of folks agree that it makes little sense as a whole. I have my own ideas about it.
But, since you're disputing it: yes, some ideas are more important than others. This IS one of those thoughts - and when taken side by side with Paul's actions and other writings (he refers to women who "prophesy" and to others in their roles as Deacons), it's not really even a close call.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(BTW, how do you account for that Galatians quote?
Since you brought this up, that is....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Our minister preached on 1 Tim 2 v 11-15 on Sunday - making the case for not having women in church leadership and authority.
This is probably a very old question.
Well, yes, it is, I'm afraid. Maybe this is a new one. Why was your Minister making the case for not having women in church leadership and authority from the pulpit?
If your church (or denomination) has women in these positions, does he often preach against church policy?
If your church is debating this issue, is the sermon the appropriate place for this debate (rather than, say, the vestry meeting/church council/whatever)?
If your church does not have and is not considering having women in these positions, why did he need to say anything at all?
Unless he was preaching one of those "thank you Lord that we are not like those (insert target denomination of choice) with their (women bishops/ prayers for the dead/ proof-texting and selective reading of the Bible/ other heretical error* and that we - alone of all those who claim your name - are DOING IT RIGHT™)" sermons.
Since you ask, this ordained woman tries to avoid that sort of sermon. She's got a vague memory of something to do with motes and beams. In fact she's still wondering about how that parable applies to this response as she presses 'add reply'.
anne
*for "heretical error" read "thing that we don't do"
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(It's interesting, too, BTW, that most of the justifications given for "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women" - whatever is meant by this phrase used above - rely on Genesis, and a creation myth.
IOW, the argument has as its basis something that isn't based in reality. All of which would be fine - except that the church doesn't let it rest there, instead attempting to base real law on an unreality. No wonder it's coming apart at the seams.
It would be interesting to imagine what Genesis might look like from the excluded female point of view, in fact....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(It's interesting, too, BTW, that most of the justifications given for "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women" - whatever is meant by this phrase used above - rely on Genesis, and a creation myth.
IOW, the argument has as its basis something that isn't based in reality. All of which would be fine - except that the church doesn't let it rest there, instead attempting to base real law on an unreality. No wonder it's coming apart at the seams.
Ummm, that's what religion does. That's the whole reason to have religion in the first place, so you don't have to answer to mere "reality".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ummm, that's what religion does. That's the whole reason to have religion in the first place, so you don't have to answer to mere "reality".
Not at all (although I knew you'd be along to say so!).
It simply isn't true that any old thing is acceptable in religion; if some aspect of religious belief is clearly not in accord with the reality of the world, the problem is with that belief - not with the facts of the world. This is the very clear lesson of the Church vs. Galileo, and of the geocentric view of the universe; nobody argues this anymore, and of course nobody ever will again.
The story of the Garden is about something that is alleged to have happened in God's interaction with the world. However, most Christians realize and accept at this point that this story (along with most of Genesis) is not meant to be taken literally (although probably many people have over the course of time). It is contradicted by what we know of the natural history of the world. God did not, in fact, create two human beings named Adam and Eve.
So it's only a story - and one told from only a certain point of view. Almost everybody knows and accepts this now; we realize this is an old etiological tale about how evil came into the world, and about the separation between human beings and God.
There are other things it purports to explain as well - but none of those things have anything to do with the "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." So the inferences being drawn here are wrong, even if you think the Bible is inerrant.
I personally can't make heads nor tails of Genesis, which is one reason I like it a lot. It's full of all kinds of very old, sometimes fragmentary tales; often (as in the Genesis story) a tale is told twice, or several times, from different viewpoints. These were obviously attempts to gather various sources together, and mostly there's no real attempt to harmonize them. Genesis is fantastic (in all senses of the word) - and I don't think it very often purports to be a guide for living. These are a bunch of old, old stories gathered together - stories that people told precisely to make sense of the world.
Religion actually goes to great lengths to make sense, and to explain things properly; it isn't true that it "doesn't have to deal with reality." It most certainly does, or it wouldn't be worth much of anything at all.
I do realize that I didn't spell all this out above, so perhaps I didn't make myself clear on this point. Does this make more sense to you?
[ 27. July 2011, 01:01: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
("Adam," BTW, means "man" in Hebrew. God creates Adam - a man - out of dust, "adamah.")
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ummm, that's what religion does. That's the whole reason to have religion in the first place, so you don't have to answer to mere "reality".
Not at all (although I knew you'd be along to say so!).
Always happy to oblige!
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It simply isn't true that any old thing is acceptable in religion; if some aspect of religious belief is clearly not in accord with the reality of the world, the problem is with that belief - not with the facts of the world. This is the very clear lesson of the Church vs. Galileo, and of the geocentric view of the universe; nobody argues this anymore, and of course nobody ever will again.
Beliefs like that die hard. Your assertion about not rejecting reality on religious grounds would be a lot more convincing in a world that didn't contain a whole lot of young earth creationists. Enough to fund the construction of a fairly large and expensive fake "museum" to showcase their rejection of reality.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There are other things it purports to explain as well - but none of those things have anything to do with the "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." So the inferences being drawn here are wrong, even if you think the Bible is inerrant.
quote:
To the woman he said,
"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
I may be just a simple atheist, but that seems like it has something to do with "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." (There's also a bit about "the inter-relationship of and distinction between snakes and women", but as far as I know there's no one clamoring for the ordination of snakes.)
At any rate, the fact that most Western societies have rejected the notion that men have a divine mandate to "rule over" women (or, at the very least, the women they're married to) doesn't mean that Genesis isn't making that assertion rather clearly.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There are other things it purports to explain as well - but none of those things have anything to do with the "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." So the inferences being drawn here are wrong, even if you think the Bible is inerrant.
quote:
To the woman he said,
"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
I may be just a simple atheist, but that seems like it has something to do with "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women." (There's also a bit about "the inter-relationship of and distinction between snakes and women", but as far as I know there's no one clamoring for the ordination of snakes.)
At any rate, the fact that most Western societies have rejected the notion that men have a divine mandate to "rule over" women (or, at the very least, the women they're married to) doesn't mean that Genesis isn't making that assertion rather clearly.
There really aren't that many YECccies, I don't think. They are desperate for a literal reading of the Bible - but most young Evangelicals accept evolution as a fact these days. That whole thing is dying out now.
And way more people believe in astrology, so....
It is true, what you say about the childbirth thing. Also true, about the man being stronger than the woman, and able to rule by brute strength over her. Those are simple facts of reality, though - every woman is aware of them - and more etiology, I'd say.
In any case, male "rule" over women hasn't exactly been unheard of in other parts of the world or in other religions or cultures. It's been by far the rule rather than the exception. It's an "is" rather than an "ought."
If male "rule" over woman is something that A. Pilgrim believes important in explaining "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women," I'd sure like to hear him argue it!
I very much doubt he'd go there - which means that he recognizes that it's not what's being argued at all.
So I'm still not buying it....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There really aren't that many YECccies, I don't think. They are desperate for a literal reading of the Bible - but most young Evangelicals accept evolution as a fact these days. That whole thing is dying out now.
I'm reluctant to accept a "there aren't that many" argument about a group that can pull together twenty-seven million dollars to indulge their delusion, and still have enough money and clout to fleece the government of Kentucky for subsidies for their expansion project.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And way more people believe in astrology, so....
. . . so given that Sumerian religious lore is still considered valid we should expect to see a "Creationism" section in whatever's replaced newspapers four thousand years from now? That's not exactly encouraging!
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It is true, what you say about the childbirth thing. Also true, about the man being stronger than the woman, and able to rule by brute strength over her. Those are simple facts of reality, though - every woman is aware of them - and more etiology, I'd say.
In any case, male "rule" over women hasn't exactly been unheard of in other parts of the world or in other religions or cultures. It's been by far the rule rather than the exception. It's an "is" rather than an "ought."
If male "rule" over woman is something that A. Pilgrim believes important in explaining "the inter-relationship of and distinction between men and women," I'd sure like to hear him argue it!
I very much doubt he'd go there - which means that he recognizes that it's not what's being argued at all.
So I'm still not buying it....
I'm not particularly selling it, except to note that it is a plausible interpretation of Genesis. In fact, given how pervasive the assumption of patriarchy is in the rest of Genesis (and the rest of the Bible, for that matter) it seems a lot more plausible to argue, if one believes the Bible to God's guidelines for life, that male-dominated societies are God's intended and preferred social structure. One is certainly hard pressed to find an hint of a gender-egalitarian society depicted in the Bible, even among the early Christians depicted in Acts.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not particularly selling it, except to note that it is a plausible interpretation of Genesis. In fact, given how pervasive the assumption of patriarchy is in the rest of Genesis (and the rest of the Bible, for that matter) it seems a lot more plausible to argue, if one believes the Bible to God's guidelines for life, that male-dominated societies are God's intended and preferred social structure. One is certainly hard pressed to find an hint of a gender-egalitarian society depicted in the Bible, even among the early Christians depicted in Acts.
We'll have to disagree on YECism; I have no numbers (just the same as you!), although I do exist within the Christian world and can pretty confidently claim it's a (very) fringe view. It's not accepted by the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox, or Anglicans, or mainstream Protestantism, or most evangelicals. And that's almost everybody, I'm afraid! And $27 million could be coming from one crackpot, after all!
As for the rest: we've said many times that polygamy is a perfectly respectable Biblical option as well; all the big boys did it - all of them. So people who claim to be arguing "the sanctity of marriage" (for instance) from Scripture today aren't really, either. All those arguments tend to reach back into Genesis at this point, too, BTW, precisely for this reason.
But when one of Genesis' just-so stories is so wildly off base, it simply can't be taken as a guide for living - or, at least, conclusions need to be drawn that don't depend on erroneous data. IOW, you've got to leave out the stuff about "what God meant us to know when he created these two original beings" if the "two original beings" clause is an absurdity to start with.
I think it would be an interesting study to look at other religions and cultures to see what they have to say on this topic. Male-dominated societies have been the rule everywhere; it's not something peculiar to the Judeo-Christian take on the world.
So one could ask, at that point: well, what makes Christianity (for instance) so specially wonderful, then, anyway? And the answer is: nothing, really - if you take gender inequality as one of the eternal precepts of the religion. Ho-hum.
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
My main point, though, is that "because God said so" can be used to justify just about anything, particularly when using as wide-ranging a document as the Christian Bible to represent what God said. Pretending to have a clear and unambiguous line to God isn't convincing to anyone who doesn't share your interpretation, let alone your God.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
My main point, though, is that "because God said so" can be used to justify just about anything, particularly when using as wide-ranging a document as the Christian Bible to represent what God said. Pretending to have a clear and unambiguous line to God isn't convincing to anyone who doesn't share your interpretation, let alone your God.
Well, what's happening in Acts is taking place immediately after the Crucifixion, well before that phrase was written. But, yes: culture trumps faith quite often - and it especially trumps new ideas. Film at 11.
I'm not sure who is claiming to have "a clear and unambiguous line to God" here, though. I don't think I'm doing that, am I? I wouldn't have thought so, because for me part of the fun of looking at the Bible is in its very obscurity. It seems so strange and foreign in so many ways; I like that stuff.
I do think, though, the Bible has some very strong and undeniable themes - and that one would be hard-pressed to argue against them. "Care for widows and orphans" and the poor would be one of these throughout the Old Testament; the pacificism of Jesus is a strong theme in the New. There are others as well.
What's interesting to me lately is this: in the New Testament era and just before, I believer, there were people who were sort of "Judeophiles." People fascinated by Judaism who weren't actually Jews (although I believe there was some conversion at that time, too). They were attracted to the Jewish God found in Scripture, apparently, because they found something there that didn't exist in any of the other local religions. This is going to be my next area of research, I think; I'd like to know exactly what this all was about....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I'm not sure who is claiming to have "a clear and unambiguous line to God" here, though.
Well, that's the basis most people cite for forbidding/permitting the ordination of women as priests. Basically both sides claim to have the backing of a source who is infinitely wise and completely unreachable for comment.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What's interesting to me lately is this: in the New Testament era and just before, I believer, there were people who were sort of "Judeophiles." People fascinated by Judaism who weren't actually Jews (although I believe there was some conversion at that time, too). They were attracted to the Jewish God found in Scripture, apparently, because they found something there that didn't exist in any of the other local religions. This is going to be my next area of research, I think; I'd like to know exactly what this all was about....
There was a spike in interest in exotic Eastern religions in the Hellenistic/Roman world around that time, and Judaism was among the most exotic belief systems known in the Mediterranean back then. Other Eastern imports that got a good grip on the late Roman Republic/early Roman Empire include Mithraism and Isis worship.
There's a story (possibly apocryphal) of Pompey the Great's taking of Jerusalem and visiting the famous temple. (This was prior to Herod's remodelling, but the site was still famous.) In a bit of arrogant Roman sacrilege, Pompey (allegedly) pulled aside the veil to look at the Holy of Holies, where most religions keep an idol of their god. The fact that this most sacred chamber had no idol was said to have completely freaked Pompey out.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Love the Pompey story!
As I said, it may be apocryphal. Pompey's fellow triumvir Crassus also visited the Jerusalem temple at a later date, on his ill-fated expedition against the Parthians. No one tells any stories about whether or not Crassus took a peek a the Holy of Holies as well, but if he did he can't have been that impressed. Unlike Pompey, Crassus looted the Temple treasury to pay his troops.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Unlike Pompey, Crassus looted the Temple treasury to pay his troops.
And look what happened to him! Let that be a lesson to them!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Eh? What about Acts chapter 6 then? Isn't that the start of them realising that the leadership needs to be widened?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Eh? What about Acts chapter 6 then? Isn't that the start of them realising that the leadership needs to be widened?
What about it? You'll notice that "widening the leadership" still doesn't include any women.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But when you get "there is no Jew or Greek, no male nor female, no slave nor free" - well, then the religion becomes something worth paying attention to....
And yet whenever there was a leadership vacancy in Acts, the person selected was always an ethnically Jewish man.
Eh? What about Acts chapter 6 then? Isn't that the start of them realising that the leadership needs to be widened?
What about it? You'll notice that "widening the leadership" still doesn't include any women.
So what? The early church can decide that the ministry needs to be widened, but we can't? What is the definitive cutoff for changes? 300AD? 500AD? 1054? 1518? 1570?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
So what? The early church can decide that the ministry needs to be widened, but we can't? What is the definitive cutoff for changes? 300AD? 500AD? 1054? 1518? 1570?
Good question. It's my understanding that the basic premise of Christianity is that its moral and ethical precepts are based on divine revelation from God Himself in the first century. As such, you'd expect God, and those he spoke with personally, to be the ones who were clearest on What It's All About. That's one of the weaknesses of institutions founded on revelation by a supposedly all-knowing Being, reform implies that He didn't know what he was doing the first time around.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
