Women in positions of leadership in Church; ie Pastors and Priests - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 132 Old 12-13-2010, 08:47 AM - Thread Starter
 
genifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a land, far far away...
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I did a search on the topic here and only one thread came up and it was pretty old. I was wondering what christians thought about this subject. Im sure there will be varying interpretations of the verses on this subject. I was curious what others thought.

 

tia.

genifer is offline  
#2 of 132 Old 12-13-2010, 12:06 PM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I absolutely support women in Church leadership.  I grew up in the Presbyterian church, with a young husband-and-wife as our pastors, and as a young adult I worshipped in a parish with a female associate pastor.  My mom's church has had two successive female pastors in the past eight or so years.

 

I'm Roman Catholic now, and I fully support a female priesthood.  It isn't my calling, though!  I'm involved in other areas of leadership.


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#3 of 132 Old 12-13-2010, 12:10 PM
 
freestylemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 504
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Both of our pastors are women (and one is a lesbian).  I think it's wonderful. 

 

 

We're UCC, but I was raised Catholic.  The Catholic church's positions on women's rights are largely why I'm raising my child UCC.


Healthcare is a human right!
freestylemama is offline  
#4 of 132 Old 12-13-2010, 01:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
genifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a land, far far away...
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thanks for taking the time to respond, but I was wondering what people's opinion of the verses regarding women in leadership. Verses like 1 Timothy 2

 

 

Quote:
 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
genifer is offline  
#5 of 132 Old 12-13-2010, 02:14 PM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Paul was ministering to a specific culture, during a specific time, where/when women were basically property of men and viewed as absolutely inferior to men.

 

Personally, I think that Paul missed the mark in general with his teaching about women.  Jesus Christ certainly did not teach these things, He treated women as equals and called them to minister alongside Him.  Even Proverbs 31, written LONG before, seems totally out of sync with Paul's teachings.

 

edited, because I meant Proverbs, not Psalms.  Brain fart.


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#6 of 132 Old 12-13-2010, 04:15 PM
 
la mamita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the dark side of the moon.
Posts: 2,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just read an interesting PDF talking about the history of women in leadership in the Catholic Church. It's definitely pro-female-priests, but I thought the historical references were interesting and something I am going to read up on further. I know the Church's stance is no way, no how.

Personally I don't have a position on it at the moment--generally, I like the idea of females in leadership roles in the Church, but I don't have much experience with it (my church experience being Catholic, where women are not priests, and Quaker, where there is no leadership at all and rule is by consensus). I do think that running a parish is a huge undertaking, so I could imagine either doing away with the rule on women in the priesthood OR the rule on celibacy, but not both, and I think giving up celibacy would actually have a way bigger impact on the Church as a whole (running a parish IS like having a family, a HUGE family, to take care of). I also think it's unlikely that either will change in my lifetime, so this is pretty theoretical.

Oh, and, Catholics don't read the Bible literally, so any decision on this would be based on much deeper theological and historical reasoning than my selecting a few choice verses. I'm sure I could cherry pick my way firmly into either side...

eta: I consider myself a feminist and I did consider a religious vocation, but I don't feel too personally bothered with the way things are at the moment. Nuns do a LOT at my parish and take on some considerable leadership positions, without leading the Mass obviously, but it's not like Catholic women are just out there making babies and letting the men run the parish...

raising my two sunshine children.

la mamita is offline  
#7 of 132 Old 12-13-2010, 06:55 PM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 18,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I read a book once that suggested that when  Paul wrote those verses that he may not have meant forever but for the time being.  The women in that location were uneducated and were just now being put into a position where they were allowed to worship alongside the men and participate fully in worship.  They needed to take time to learn and grow at this moment.

 

However, I do not think those verses were meant to be applied to the priesthood.  Priests serving in the church are a different role than the protestant pastor.  God has been clear from the beginning of time (old testament) that priests were to be men.  and his disciples, who became the first church leaders and bishops were men.  I do not see anything in scripture or church history or tradition that indicates anything has ever changed.  

 


The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
#8 of 132 Old 12-13-2010, 07:37 PM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

11 Let a woman learn in 1aquietness in all 2bsubjection;

12 But I do not permit a awoman to 1teach or to assert authority over a man, but to be in 2quietness.

13 For 1Adam was 2formed first, then Eve;

14 And 1Adam was not deceived; but the 2woman, having been quite adeceived, has fallen into transgression.

15 But she will be saved through her 1childbearing, if they remain in 2afaith and love and bholiness with csobriety.

 

This is directly related to God's governmental arrangement. It's in the same sense as God being the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, man the head of women.  There are God ordained authorities on the earth and in our personal lives. We accept the President of the United States, we accept our boss, the police officer as authority figures, even if we don't like it.

 

In the Bible there were sisters serving and even coworking with the apostles, but teaching doctrine and and having authority to be over the brothers was not God ordained then, or now.  Sisters still need to be under the covering or headship of the brothers.  I view it as a covering because when I begin to function outside of my measure, chaos occurs.  When I am under the covering of the brothers there is a lot of peace.   We need sisters in the church life to love, to function and serve, but not to have authority to teach over the brothers.

 

This doesn't mean that a sister can never teach another person something they have learned.  We have small group meetings in the homes and the sisters share a lot of experiences and things that the Lord has taught them.  However, if a sister is trying to assert authority over the brothers or lead the whole congregation in the divine truths,  this touches God's governmental arrangement.  In the verses above Paul gives the reason for this, which is that Eve was the one deceived.  In principle, the females are the weaker vessel and easily deceived  due to our genetic makeup.  I know this is an unpopular view, but it came from the Bible, so I don't know how to get around that issue.

 

We don't hire pastors or elect elders.  We have elders/ leading brothers who have grown in the divine life and their function begins to manifest itself organically.  It's the same with sisters.  As we grow in Christ our function manifests itself, but all(brothers and sisters) must be careful to be led by the Lord and not led by the self. 

 

"The self is the greatest frustration to serve the Lord"  by Watchman Nee.


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#9 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 07:12 AM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

 

 

11 Let a woman learn in 1aquietness in all 2bsubjection;

12 But I do not permit a awoman to 1teach or to assert authority over a man, but to be in 2quietness.

13 For 1Adam was 2formed first, then Eve;

14 And 1Adam was not deceived; but the 2woman, having been quite adeceived, has fallen into transgression.

15 But she will be saved through her 1childbearing, if they remain in 2afaith and love and bholiness with csobriety.

 

This is directly related to God's governmental arrangement. It's in the same sense as God being the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, man the head of women.  There are God ordained authorities on the earth and in our personal lives. We accept the President of the United States, we accept our boss, the police officer as authority figures, even if we don't like it.

 

In the Bible there were sisters serving and even coworking with the apostles, but teaching doctrine and and having authority to be over the brothers was not God ordained then, or now.  Sisters still need to be under the covering or headship of the brothers.  I view it as a covering because when I begin to function outside of my measure, chaos occurs.  When I am under the covering of the brothers there is a lot of peace.   We need sisters in the church life to love, to function and serve, but not to have authority to teach over the brothers.

 

This doesn't mean that a sister can never teach another person something they have learned.  We have small group meetings in the homes and the sisters share a lot of experiences and things that the Lord has taught them.  However, if a sister is trying to assert authority over the brothers or lead the whole congregation in the divine truths,  this touches God's governmental arrangement.  In the verses above Paul gives the reason for this, which is that Eve was the one deceived.  In principle, the females are the weaker vessel and easily deceived  due to our genetic makeup.  I know this is an unpopular view, but it came from the Bible, so I don't know how to get around that issue.

 

 

 

This is a fundamentalist POV and not shared by all Christians, though.  Not all denominations interpret Scripture literally (as an example, the Catholic faith teaches that the "creation" story is one of two creation stories, and probably more myth/teaching than literal happening).  Also, there is a lot of nuance in various mistranslations/multiple meanings of the original writings, particularly the Greek.

 

I'll reiterate that Paul was ministering in a specific cultural era, and teaching to/for a specific time and place.

 

There is some evidence that the women who ministered alongside Christ were intentionally downplayed by the Church when the decisions about what should be included in Canon Scripture were made.  It is apparent that there is "more to the story", so to speak.  The Catholic Church acknowledges Mary Magdalene as "The First Evangelist" and "The Apostle to the Apostles" - she is, after all, the one who brought the news of the resurrection to the Apostles.

 

Quote:
 

We don't hire pastors or elect elders.  We have elders/ leading brothers who have grown in the divine life and their function begins to manifest itself organically.  It's the same with sisters.  As we grow in Christ our function manifests itself, but all(brothers and sisters) must be careful to be led by the Lord and not led by the self. 

 

 

I am assuming that, by "We", you are referring to your own denomination; since many DO elect elders and hire pastors.

la mamita likes this.

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#10 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 07:39 AM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

From Proverbs 31 (The Ideal Wife)

 

 

Quote:
11The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.

 

12She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.

 

16She considers a field and buys it;
From her earnings she plants a vineyard. 

 

17She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong.

 

20She extends her hand to the poor,
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.

 

24She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies belts to the tradesmen.

 

26She opens her mouth in wisdom,
And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

 

27She looks well to the ways of her household,

 

28Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying:

 

29"Many daughters have done nobly,
But you excel them all."
 

 

This "ideal" woman is obviously strong, wise, and enterprising.  She is the absolute delight of her husband, her children respect her, she cares for her family, she even earns an income (and invests it wisely).  Her husband - an elder "known at the gates" - is not threatened by any of it, nor does he require her submission.  They are a team, providing for the needs of their family and ministering to the community together.


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#11 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 08:32 AM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Trigger's post said:

"There is some evidence that the women who ministered alongside Christ were intentionally downplayed by the Church when the decisions about what should be included in Canon Scripture were made.  It is apparent that there is "more to the story", so to speak.  The Catholic Church acknowledges Mary Magdalene as "The First Evangelist" and "The Apostle to the Apostles" - she is, after all, the one who brought the news of the resurrection to the Apostles."

 

Yes that was Mary's function at the time, but the sisters did not get 'sent out' by the Holy Spirit in Acts to raise up churches and to lead churches or to teach doctrine.  This was the brothers' function.  Yes this is a fundamentalist view and I don't apologize for this view point.  Of course, I think it is the correct view according to the Bible.

 

I believe that we were all meant to be priests.  The literal def. of priest is one who brings God to man and man to God.  So, we are all being made a royal priesthood to rule and reign with Christ in eternity.  I do not believe that the clergy laity system in place today is the way God ordained it to be.  It is a system which annuls the function of the body of Christ.  But that is off topic.

 

The leadership in the church is done by brothers according to the New Testament.  When the early church began, Acts is very explicit in how they carried on and this is what we (the believers that I meet with) do our best to follow as a pattern. 

 

Earlier you posted that Jesus would want sisters to be priests? or something like that...no time to go up thread and find it.  Can you give your sources for this or maybe just expound your thought a little more so that I know where you are coming from.  Thanks


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#12 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 08:43 AM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm fine with the Catholic Churches traditional teaching of no women priests. It's not my place to try and change the Church. ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

 

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.

 

Arduinna is offline  
#13 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 08:48 AM
 
cappuccinosmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SW Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,628
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Quote:
 

This "ideal" woman is obviously strong, wise, and enterprising.  She is the absolute delight of her husband, her children respect her, she cares for her family, she even earns an income (and invests it wisely).  Her husband - an elder "known at the gates" - is not threatened by any of it, nor does he require her submission.  They are a team, providing for the needs of their family and ministering to the community together. 

 This is all true, but it doesn't speak to pastorship of a church.  And in Paul's teaching, it is not up to the husband to require his wife to submit.  It is up to the husband to love his wife, honor her, and care for her.  It is for the wife to choose to submit, that is directed at her only, not her husband.

 

Our beliefs are similar to Shami's and Arduinna's.  It's not an issue of equality or value to me.  It is not that women cannot teach, or are not intelligent, or have nothing of value to say.  It's a specific requirement for a specific setup (church government) and that's it. 

cappuccinosmom is offline  
#14 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 09:26 AM
 
Purple Sage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post

I'm fine with the Catholic Churches traditional teaching of no women priests. It's not my place to try and change the Church. ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

 

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.

 



 

I'm fine with this, too.

 


 

Purple Sage is offline  
#15 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 09:53 AM
 
la mamita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the dark side of the moon.
Posts: 2,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Somewhat OT to the original question, but I started getting interested in what my Church says about women after reading this:
Quote:
In principle, the females are the weaker vessel and easily deceived due to our genetic makeup. I know this is an unpopular view, but it came from the Bible, so I don't know how to get around that issue.
My jaw kind of dropped when I read this and I went off to go make sure the Catholic Church didn't interpret things like this...
here's what I found:
Quote:
The Catholic view is that men and women are equal in the sight of God. In marriage, each is to sacrifice himself or herself for the other. They are to build a family together through cooperation with each other and mutual respect.
...
Where there is an absolute difference in the roles the two sexes can play is in the giving of life. By natural law, only women can give physical life by serving as mothers. By supernatural law, only men can give spiritual life to the faithful by serving as priests. Women have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through birth, and men have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through the priesthood.
From: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806qq.asp

And another article titled "Does the Catholic Church Hate Women?" talks about the interpretation of Biblical passages which seem to promote patriarchy.

raising my two sunshine children.

la mamita is offline  
#16 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 09:58 AM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

Yes that was Mary's function at the time, but the sisters did not get 'sent out' by the Holy Spirit in Acts to raise up churches and to lead churches or to teach doctrine.  This was the brothers' function.  Yes this is a fundamentalist view and I don't apologize for this view point.  Of course, I think it is the correct view according to the Bible.

 

A perfect example of how Paul's teaching was very different from Christ's.  Paul set out to create a "church", structured and orderly, with specific rules and regulations.

 

Many theologians today acknowledge that Christ's intention was not to form a structured church; rather, more likely, to bring us into a closer/better/more intimate RENEWED relationship with Our Loving Father and with each other in communion (community) with one another.

 

 

Quote:
Earlier you posted that Jesus would want sisters to be priests? or something like that...no time to go up thread and find it.  Can you give your sources for this or maybe just expound your thought a little more so that I know where you are coming from.  Thanks

 

 

Hm, given the feelings Jesus had toward the Jewish priests, I would not say that. lol.gif  Not in His time, anyway.

 

What I said was that Christ invited women to be part of His ministry; but again, whether or not one agrees depends on factors such as Scripture interpretation, translation, deference to the teaching of this Church or that, theology, etc.  I've been schooled in Catholic ministry formation and much of my information comes from those materials and teachings.

 

Personally, I believe that women had a much greater role in the Gospels than they are given credit for.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post

I'm fine with the Catholic Churches traditional teaching of no women priests. It's not my place to try and change the Church. ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

 

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.

 


This often gets thrown up as "infallible" teaching, but it isn't.

 

(By the Church's own teaching on "infallibility", the Bishop of Rome must speak in union/agreement with ALL bishops when making such a statement.  This did not occur here.)
 

 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post
 
It is not that women cannot teach, or are not intelligent, or have nothing of value to say.  It's a specific requirement for a specific setup (church government) and that's it.

 

Except that Jesus wasn't attempting to set up a church government, and Paul seems to have had a bit of an agenda (since the cultural thinking of the day & location was basically keep the women quiet and under control).

 

I realize that this is slightly off topic - but would you accept a similar argument on behalf of the practice of slavery, simply because the general cultural acceptance that people of color were absolutely inferior existed at one time?

 


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#17 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 10:01 AM
 
Ellien C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in the middle ages
Posts: 5,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post

This is a fundamentalist POV and not shared by all Christians, though.  Not all denominations interpret Scripture literally (as an example, the Catholic faith teaches that the "creation" story is one of two creation stories, and probably more myth/teaching than literal happening).  Also, there is a lot of nuance in various mistranslations/multiple meanings of the original writings, particularly the Greek.

 

I'll reiterate that Paul was ministering in a specific cultural era, and teaching to/for a specific time and place.

 

I'm with the eloquent Trigger on this point. I belong to a church that hires it's pastors. We currently have a husband and wife team with the wife taking a lead role and the husband a lesser role. I grew up with women pastors  - my mother's best friend became a Methodist minister at the age of 40) and it's something I've always considered for my "old age/retirement/second career. My parents go to a church in Florida right now with a female minister. It's just not a big deal to me.


Third generation WOHM. I work by choice.
Ellien C is offline  
#18 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 10:19 AM
 
Llyra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 9,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy has been disputed, however, outside of the most fundamentalist Christian circles. The Epistles for which Pauline authorship is fairly unanimously accepted-- those are a lot lighter on the subjection of women. And we know from Acts that women played a large role in the earliest Church.

me knit.gif, he bikenew.gif, my three reading.gif, sleepytime.gif, and fairy.gif-- and the one we lost angel2.gif
Llyra is offline  
#19 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 11:10 AM - Thread Starter
 
genifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a land, far far away...
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thanks for everyone's replies.

 

 

 

Quote:
I do not believe that the clergy laity system in place today is the way God ordained it to be.  It is a system which annuls the function of the body of Christ.  But that is off topic.

 

 

 

Actually I dont think its off topic. In my reading, studying and research this is the conclusion Ive come to myself.

genifer is offline  
#20 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 02:34 PM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Trigger,

I am really at a loss for how to converse with you because you don't believe what the Bible says.  Paul wrote 14 of the books in the Bible.  If you don't believe in what he wrote then how can we even converse about it?

 

Acts 2:42

42 And they continued steadfastly in the 1teaching and the fellowship of the apostles, in the abreaking of bread and the bprayers.

Titus 1:9

9 1aHolding to the 2bfaithful word, which is according to the 3teaching of the apostles, that he may be able both to exhort by the 4chealthy teaching and to 5convict 6those who doppose.

 

 

I may be different in that I don't hold the Tradition of the RCC, but I thought at least we would have the Bible in common.  Not trying to pick on you, but I just don't know how to proceed.  I can quote a lot of verses, but many will be from Paul's writings, which you have doubts about. 

 


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#21 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 02:41 PM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by la mamita View Post

Somewhat OT to the original question, but I started getting interested in what my Church says about women after reading this:

Quote:
In principle, the females are the weaker vessel and easily deceived due to our genetic makeup. I know this is an unpopular view, but it came from the Bible, so I don't know how to get around that issue.


My jaw kind of dropped when I read this and I went off to go make sure the Catholic Church didn't interpret things like this...
here's what I found:

Quote:
The Catholic view is that men and women are equal in the sight of God. In marriage, each is to sacrifice himself or herself for the other. They are to build a family together through cooperation with each other and mutual respect.
...
Where there is an absolute difference in the roles the two sexes can play is in the giving of life. By natural law, only women can give physical life by serving as mothers. By supernatural law, only men can give spiritual life to the faithful by serving as priests. Women have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through birth, and men have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through the priesthood.


From: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806qq.asp

And another article titled "Does the Catholic Church Hate Women?" talks about the interpretation of Biblical passages which seem to promote patriarchy.

 

1 Peter 3:7

7 aHusbands, in like manner dwell together with them 1according to knowledge, as with the 2weaker, female 3vessel, 4assigning bhonor to them as also to cfellow heirs of the 5grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

 

Here is the verse that says that the female is the weaker vessel, but that husbands should assign honor to them.  It is not a negative thing, it's just the fact.  You have to go back and read the context of the verse.  It has to do with the headship of Christ and the husband to the wife.  It's God's governmental arrangement and it is not popular, but still it is there.  What does patriarchy have to do with it?  This is not the same as patriarchy.


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#22 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 03:44 PM
 
la mamita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the dark side of the moon.
Posts: 2,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
again, Catholics don't read the Bible literally, so the fact that that "weaker female vessel" phrase existed in the Bible doesn't mean I have to apply it to every part of my life as a woman. If I was going to interpret that literally, I might just read it as 'women are physically weaker than men' which is a generically true statement. In the sense of not taking the Bible literally, we might be just talking past each other. It might be helpful to hear more from other Protestant denominations on this issue as far as how they intepret the passages if they also take them literally.

From the link I posted about Does the Catholic Church Hate Women on how to interpret Scriptural passages which appear to be misogynistic or patriarchal:
Quote:
But what should be made of subordination passages in Scripture, such as "Let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph. 5:24)? This appears to contradict the idea that Christianity views the sexes as equal. Pope John Paul II’s answer was:

The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (Mulieris Dignitatem 24; cf. Eph. 5:21).

Discussing the bond of marriage as it exists after the taint of original sin, John Paul states:

The matrimonial union requires respect for and perfection of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. The woman cannot be made the object of dominion and male possession (MD 10).

That husband and wife are to be subject to one another is reinforced in the next verse of the original passage cited: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). This injunction transforms the potentially selfish orientation of male love into a form of intense self-sacrificial service. Subordination is mutual, but the admonition is given to husbands, perhaps because they need it more. What is implied, then, is not general female inferiority but general female superiority in the order that most matters eschatologically—the order of charity.

Again, I can only speak (and not even definitively) on my own denomination, which is Catholicism. But JPII was a great pope and I like his take on things smile.gif

raising my two sunshine children.

la mamita is offline  
#23 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 04:03 PM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by la mamita View Post

again, Catholics don't read the Bible literally, so the fact that that "weaker female vessel" phrase existed in the Bible doesn't mean I have to apply it to every part of my life as a woman. If I was going to interpret that literally, I might just read it as 'women are physically weaker than men' which is a generically true statement. In the sense of not taking the Bible literally, we might be just talking past each other. It might be helpful to hear more from other Protestant denominations on this issue as far as how they intepret the passages if they also take them literally.

From the link I posted about Does the Catholic Church Hate Women on how to interpret Scriptural passages which appear to be misogynistic or patriarchal:

Quote:
But what should be made of subordination passages in Scripture, such as "Let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph. 5:24)? This appears to contradict the idea that Christianity views the sexes as equal. Pope John Paul II’s answer was:

The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (Mulieris Dignitatem 24; cf. Eph. 5:21).

Discussing the bond of marriage as it exists after the taint of original sin, John Paul states:

The matrimonial union requires respect for and perfection of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. The woman cannot be made the object of dominion and male possession (MD 10).

That husband and wife are to be subject to one another is reinforced in the next verse of the original passage cited: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). This injunction transforms the potentially selfish orientation of male love into a form of intense self-sacrificial service. Subordination is mutual, but the admonition is given to husbands, perhaps because they need it more. What is implied, then, is not general female inferiority but general female superiority in the order that most matters eschatologically—the order of charity.



Again, I can only speak (and not even definitively) on my own denomination, which is Catholicism. But JPII was a great pope and I like his take on things smile.gif


All of the above quoted passages I agree with because they are founded on the scripture.  The Bible charges husbands/wives to have mutual subjection to their spouses.  Husbands love  to the extent of self sacrifice. Amen.   

 

I don't get the 'we don't interpret the Bible literally.'   You just did.

 

If you read the context of the the verse I gave about the weaker vessel, it has nothing to do with physical strength.  I get you were trying to make a point and not really interpreting it that way.  Now I am making a point.  The context means everything.  The context within the passage, context within the particular book/epistle, and the context within the entire New Testament, and finally the context of it within the entire Bible is how verses should be interpreted.  Oh and of course, with a discernment, wisdom and revelation, led by the Holy Spirit and balanced with the body of Christ.  Maybe I am leaving something out, but that's all I can think of for now.


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#24 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 05:03 PM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post

I read a book once that suggested that when  Paul wrote those verses that he may not have meant forever but for the time being.  The women in that location were uneducated and were just now being put into a position where they were allowed to worship alongside the men and participate fully in worship.  They needed to take time to learn and grow at this moment.

 

However, I do not think those verses were meant to be applied to the priesthood.  Priests serving in the church are a different role than the protestant pastor.  God has been clear from the beginning of time (old testament) that priests were to be men.  and his disciples, who became the first church leaders and bishops were men.  I do not see anything in scripture or church history or tradition that indicates anything has ever changed.  

 


yeahthat.gif

 

 

On another note:  I have a question for people, especially those who feel women should not be in different rooles than men.  How do you feel about pagan groups who have specific roles for men and women in their worship?  What about those groups which are led by women only?  Is this different than the idea of an all-male priesthood?  I'd love to hear from any pagans on the question too.


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#25 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 05:47 PM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Trigger said:

 

"A perfect example of how Paul's teaching was very different from Christ's.  Paul set out to create a "church", structured and orderly, with specific rules and regulations.

 

Many theologians today acknowledge that Christ's intention was not to form a structured church; rather, more likely, to bring us into a closer/better/more intimate RENEWED relationship with Our Loving Father and with each other in communion (community) with one another."

 

Jesus died and resurrected and another Comforter came, whom we understand to be the Holy Spirit.  Now the Lord is the Spirit.  The Father, Son and Spirit are all one.  In Acts, the Spirit led them out two by two to spread the gospel and establish churches in every city.  How could Jesus be against this if it was Spirit led?

 

Acts 14:23

23 And when they had appointed 1aelders for them 2in every bchurch and had prayed with cfastings, they dcommitted them to the Lord into whom they had believed. 

 

This (Acts) was written by Luke, not Paul.  If you don't believe in setting up local churches, then Luke is off too.  And, if you don't think Jesus wanted a structured church then why are you in the RCC?  You should come join me!  LOL  Hope you take that well, just trying to lighten up a bit. But still, I'd love for you to come join me.

 

Titus

5 For this cause I left you in aCrete, that you might set in order the things which I have begun that remain and appoint belders in 1cevery city, as I ddirected you:


DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#26 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 06:19 PM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

Trigger,

I am really at a loss for how to converse with you because you don't believe what the Bible says.   

 

 

I believe the messages of Scripture, but I also know that as our culture and knowledge have evolved, we continue to discover - as I stated before - the nuances of the message that have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and so on.

 

I suspect that you reject ALL scientific evolution; however, the Catholic Church has conceded that evolution likely played a part in creation.

 

Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

 

In any case, nobody is forcing you to converse with me, nor am I trying to "convert" you.  I'm debating, which is what this forum is for.

 

 

Quote:
 Paul wrote 14 of the books in the Bible.  If you don't believe in what he wrote then how can we even converse about it?

 

 

I can quote a lot of verses, but many will be from Paul's writings, which you have doubts about.

 

Are you aware that prominent Christian theologians now dispute this (specifically, Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, and Titus)?  Hebrews is generally considered an anonymous  letter, and only attributed to Paul by some.  Only seven letters are not disputed, and universally accepted as Pauline writings: Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.

 

Timothy 1 & 2 and Titus are now considered by most Scripture scholars to be works falsely attributed to Paul by another author.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

1 Peter 3:7

7 aHusbands, in like manner dwell together with them 1according to knowledge, as with the 2weaker, female 3vessel, 4assigning bhonor to them as also to cfellow heirs of the 5grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

 

Here is the verse that says that the female is the weaker vessel, but that husbands should assign honor to them.  It is not a negative thing, it's just the fact.  You have to go back and read the context of the verse.  It has to do with the headship of Christ and the husband to the wife.  It's God's governmental arrangement and it is not popular, but still it is there.  What does patriarchy have to do with it?  This is not the same as patriarchy.


May I safely assume that you never wear gold jewlery or braid your hair, or "fine clothes" - that you do not ever "adorn" yourself externally in any way?
 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

The context within the passage, context within the particular book/epistle, and the context within the entire New Testament, and finally the context of it within the entire Bible is how verses should be interpreted.  Oh and of course, with a discernment, wisdom and revelation, led by the Holy Spirit and balanced with the body of Christ.  Maybe I am leaving something out, but that's all I can think of for now.


I said basically the same thing upthread.  shrug.gif
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post

On another note:  I have a question for people, especially those who feel women should not be in different rooles than men.  How do you feel about pagan groups who have specific roles for men and women in their worship?  What about those groups which are led by women only?  Is this different than the idea of an all-male priesthood?  I'd love to hear from any pagans on the question too.


I feel that true Christian leadership should be rooted in equality.  This is clearly what Jesus Christ taught.  I can't speak to other faiths, though.
 


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
#27 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 06:46 PM
 
Smokering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8,613
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

 

Quote:

Except that Jesus wasn't attempting to set up a church government, and Paul seems to have had a bit of an agenda (since the cultural thinking of the day & location was basically keep the women quiet and under control).

Unless you believe (as I do and I suspect Shami does) that Paul's writings about church government were inspired by God, and thus "set up" by Jesus just as much as things Jesus personally said. I'm not sure that liberal and conservative views of the Bible allow for particularly meaningful interaction - they're poles apart epistemologically.

 

Quote:
Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Galileo's teachings were considered heretical because they went against the accepted cosmology of the day, which was based on the writings of the pagan ancient Greeks. It wasn't nearly as theological a controversy as it's popularly portrayed.

 

Quote:
If you read the context of the the verse I gave about the weaker vessel, it has nothing to do with physical strength.

I don't see that that's clear. Women are given a set of moral commands to do with issues that, while not exclusive to women, tend to be particularly relevant to women - vanity being one. Men are then given a set of moral commands to do with issues that tend to be particularly relevant to men - one such being the sinful male tendency to physically abuse or dominate women simply because they are (on average) weaker. The very next part of the sentence reminds husbands that women are "heirs with you of the gracious gift of life", so it seems odd that Paul would be talking about some kind of spiritual weakness in women. I'm not sure of the Greek, but the phrase is often translated as "weaker vessel" - if this accurately reflects the Greek it's another point in favour of the "physical weakness" theory, as "vessel" presumably refers to the body, not the soul (which, by the analogy, would be housed within the vessel).


If decomposition persists please see your necromancer.

Smokering is offline  
#28 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 06:47 PM
 
Bluegoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


I feel that true Christian leadership should be rooted in equality.  This is clearly what Jesus Christ taught.  I can't speak to other faiths, though.
 



Equality


 I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt.
Bluegoat is offline  
#29 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 07:07 PM
 
Shami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fairborn, Ohio
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


My responses in BLUE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

Trigger,

I am really at a loss for how to converse with you because you don't believe what the Bible says.   

 

 

I believe the messages of Scripture, but I also know that as our culture and knowledge have evolved, we continue to discover - as I stated before - the nuances of the message that have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and so on.

 

I suspect that you reject ALL scientific evolution; however, the Catholic Church has conceded that evolution likely played a part in creation.

 

I do not reject evolution.  There is evidence that animals evolved to survive.

 

Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

 

In any case, nobody is forcing you to converse with me, nor am I trying to "convert" you.  I'm debating, which is what this forum is for.

 

My point is that debating you about the divine truths in the Bible will be impossible because you have been convinced that the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted.    It's like trying to convince an atheist that there is a God by using scripture. No matter what I say, you can easily reply with an answer like Paul is all wrong about it and therefore, debate over.  Fellowship requires an openness from both parties.  I am open to hear your points if you can back it up with scripture or even inferences in the scriptures.  

 

Quote:
 Paul wrote 14 of the books in the Bible.  If you don't believe in what he wrote then how can we even converse about it?

 

 

I can quote a lot of verses, but many will be from Paul's writings, which you have doubts about.

 

Are you aware that prominent Christian theologians now dispute this (specifically, Ephesians, Colossians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, and Titus)?  Hebrews is generally considered an anonymous  letter, and only attributed to Paul by some.  Only seven letters are not disputed, and universally accepted as Pauline writings: Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.

 

No, I have not heard this, nor do I believe it.  I guess with this aspect, I am not open to consider if the Bible is wrong.  I am open to discuss the verses and what they might mean, but not open to say that the Holy Bible is wrong.  I trust in the Bible and I can't imagine it any other way.   I am curious who these prominent theologians are and what their agenda is.

 

Timothy 1 & 2 and Titus are now considered by most Scripture scholars to be works falsely attributed to Paul by another author.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

1 Peter 3:7

7 aHusbands, in like manner dwell together with them 1according to knowledge, as with the 2weaker, female 3vessel, 4assigning bhonor to them as also to cfellow heirs of the 5grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

 

Here is the verse that says that the female is the weaker vessel, but that husbands should assign honor to them.  It is not a negative thing, it's just the fact.  You have to go back and read the context of the verse.  It has to do with the headship of Christ and the husband to the wife.  It's God's governmental arrangement and it is not popular, but still it is there.  What does patriarchy have to do with it?  This is not the same as patriarchy.


May I safely assume that you never wear gold jewlery or braid your hair, or "fine clothes" - that you do not ever "adorn" yourself externally in any way?
 

I wear my gold wedding band.  I stopped wearing jewlery and I shop for quality modest clothes.  But this is not a legal thing, nor is it something we focus on in our gatherings.  It is a personal choice.  Some females I meet with look like a movie star and others look quite homely, but it is not something that is taught in a legal way.  We don't pass judgement on others because it is a matter of growth in life.  As Christ grows in us, He touches us about our dress.  It is not up to the eldership or anyone else to do this.  I'm still praying about head covering.  I feel led to do it, but I don't know how and when.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shami View Post

The context within the passage, context within the particular book/epistle, and the context within the entire New Testament, and finally the context of it within the entire Bible is how verses should be interpreted.  Oh and of course, with a discernment, wisdom and revelation, led by the Holy Spirit and balanced with the body of Christ.  Maybe I am leaving something out, but that's all I can think of for now.


I said basically the same thing upthread.  shrug.gif
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post

On another note:  I have a question for people, especially those who feel women should not be in different rooles than men.  How do you feel about pagan groups who have specific roles for men and women in their worship?  What about those groups which are led by women only?  Is this different than the idea of an all-male priesthood?  I'd love to hear from any pagans on the question too.


I feel that true Christian leadership should be rooted in equality.  This is clearly what Jesus Christ taught.  I can't speak to other faiths, though.
 




DH, and Me plus baby girl (10/07)
Shami is offline  
#30 of 132 Old 12-14-2010, 07:12 PM
 
Trigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Quote:
Remember Galileo?  We imprisoned him as a heretic for concluding that the Earth is not the center of the universe, as the Church once believed and taught.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Galileo's teachings were considered heretical because they went against the accepted cosmology of the day, which was based on the writings of the pagan ancient Greeks. It wasn't nearly as theological a controversy as it's popularly portrayed.

 

Per the Inquisition, Galileo was ordered by Rome not to "hold or defend" the idea that the earth moves around a centered sun.

 

He was subsequently ordered to trial for heresy, found guilty, and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.(nine years).  His works were condemned and banned by the Church.


I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. 

 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 

Trigger is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off