quoted by Macrina, previously locked/updated thread:
That would be along those same lines. However, while I agree that the symbolism of "head" and "heart" is somewhat different in modern day compared to ancient Hebrew culture, there is more than simply "Head of the house" to consider - Ephesians 5, for example, suggesting women "submit" (that is, obey husbands) - though as noted, that is not a coverall for men to treat women as inferior (thus the command for husbands to love their wives in the same way as Christ loved the church).
As such, there is not necessarily a Hebrew-imagery here of the "head" being a symbol. And while in some ways, considering headship as "the source" may be an appropriate analogy, it is not the entirety of what the relationship entails.
But in general, your comments seem accurate.
Hope that clarifies
~ PA
Okay, thanks, PA -- I wanted to be sure I was understanding you correctly, so we wouldn't be talking past each other (common problem on the ol' internets).
It seems to me that, regarding what we've discussed so far, there are two areas of disagreement between us:
A) You seem to view the submission of the wife in Ephesians 5 as implying that she is inherently created in a less authoritative role than her husband, and that this is God's intention for an ideal Christian marriage.
B) You extrapolate that overall gender relations should take their shape from what you see as this standard for marriage expressed in Ephesians 5. As men are authoritative in marriage, so should they be in the church.
These are the two areas in which I disagree with you. Let me express my view:
A) Ephesians 5:21-6:9 is part of a literary genre known as a "household code." Such tables of commandments for orderly domestic life were common instruction in that culture, and they almost always advocated a clear chain of command, with slaves, children, and wives exhorted to obey their masters, fathers, and husbands, respectively. There was no reciprocity expressed in these codes. However, when Paul relates his own table of them, he adds previously-unheard-of reciprocity: Be subject to one another. Husbands, sacrifice for your wives. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger. Masters, render service unto your slaves. Paul was not advocating that people rebel and disrespect the social order -- so central to the stability of Roman society, which had the power to persecute the Church -- but he did subvert it by adding in reciprocity to the standard household code.
Therefore, my view of Ephesians 5:21-6:9 is that it exhorted believers to live with Christlike self-giving no matter their place in society: If you are already of lower rank in the world, be gracious to those over you, just as Jesus was gracious to those who exercised unwarranted authority over him. If you are of higher rank in the world, offer yourself as a servant, just as Christ served those who were of lower rank than him. There's an analogy here to the life of Christ, showing that he had an attitude we should emulate in whatever circumstances we find ourselves... but an analogy is not the same as an argument from the created order. I see this as a beautiful call for us to be Christlike and life-giving to one another, with specific reference to the social circumstances of first-century Ephesus; I do not find this to be a prescription for a social hierarchy to be imposed upon all cultures of all times.
B) Given the above, I do not see universal gender-principles which should be extrapolated from marriage to the church. The broad principle of "be gracious to those in power, and exercise your power graciously" is a good one, but I find no logical connection between that and gender-related prohibitions for offices in the church.
Again, thanks for considering my points. I hope you're having a good weekend.
~Mac
What if your church, JWNEWMAN had just hired a female pastor, would you stay there or would you leave your church and join a male pastor-ed church?
I would leave the church believing them to be in error. However, that is my belief. It is not a condemnation of that church or the pastor. I would do the same thing if a church accepted a homosexual pastor.
I have nothing against homosexuals. However, I don't believe it is a supported Christian practice. Therefor, I wouldn't accept the authority or guidance (in spiritual matters) from a professed homosexual.
Now if a man had troubles or that was one of his temptations... that's a different matter. My objection is to changing the fundamental doctrines of the Church.
If you're going to do that I suggest starting a new denomination. Don't attempt to fuse it into traditional historical Christianity and say it was there all along just hidden.
If we are to accept that, historical traditional Christianity has gotten this issue wrong all these years then, who is to say we've got Salvation right? Or any major doctrines? Why don't we just tear apart the whole thing and start from scratch?
For starters we could throw out the doctrine of the blood of Christ? Hell too? Those are two doctrines that, I don't especially like myself (though I accept them). What about persecution? If necessary dying for one's faith? I don't like those ideas either.
Left up to me if, someone slaps me on the cheek (or tries to do so) I'm side-stepping and and hitting them where it hurts.
Left up to me if, someone persecutes the church (government) I'm whipping out the guns and forming a militia.
It's not up to me, or you, if we want to follow scriptures. Traditional, historical, Christianity, clearly teaches that man is head in the temple, church, home. God's ways are simply not logical to the human brain. They are spiritual and spiritually discerned.
What is clearly, repeatedly stated and historically practiced in virtually all the church's throughout history can not be changed today without considering that all other doctrines likewise have been handed down and expounded up based on the bias and prejudice of men.
If we are to accept that, historical traditional Christianity has gotten this issue wrong all these years then, who is to say we've got Salvation right? Or any major doctrines? Why don't we just tear apart the whole thing and start from scratch?
For starters we could throw out the doctrine of the blood of Christ? Hell too? Those are two doctrines that, I don't especially like myself (though I accept them). What about persecution? If necessary dying for one's faith? I don't like those ideas either.
Left up to me if, someone slaps me on the cheek (or tries to do so) I'm side-stepping and and hitting them where it hurts.
Left up to me if, someone persecutes the church (government) I'm whipping out the guns and forming a militia.
It's not up to me, or you, if we want to follow scriptures. Traditional, historical, Christianity, clearly teaches that man is head in the temple, church, home. God's ways are simply not logical to the human brain. They are spiritual and spiritually discerned.
What is clearly, repeatedly stated and historically practiced in virtually all the church's throughout history can not be changed today without considering that all other doctrines likewise have been handed down and expounded up based on the bias and prejudice of men.
JWN, these are some harsh words. I find them to be a contrast to something you posted earlier in this conversation:
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
Following my last statement I'd also like to add that, I think a woman who becomes a pastor is in error and a church that supports the notion is in error. That is my opinion. It's not the end of the world.
I'm not upset that this happens. Nor do I wish to upset people who believe it's OK. It's not up to me what someone else thinks. We simply disagree and probably think each others notions don't make sense.
What else is new in the world?
I think we can agree to disagree and love one another regardless. I've have strong disagreements with people I love.
historical traditional Christianity has gotten this issue wrong all these years then,
the 'Church' was not the 'churches' you see today, and I know you know this to be a fact.
When Rome took preeminence a LOT of good, Godly doctrines and theological suppositions went to pot, this is just ONE of them!
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
who is to say we've got Salvation right? Or any major doctrines? Why don't we just tear apart the whole thing and start from scratch?
Why would you entrust your Salvation to men who are falliable in the FIRST place!
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
For starters we could throw out the doctrine of the blood of Christ?
That depends, does the teaching you've received line up with the WORD OF THE LORD & historical evidences?
Wasn't Hebrews written to specifically counteract the error that was prevelent at THAT time?
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
Hell too?
Possibly.
Are you aware that when translated to LATIN a LOT of the GREEK was confounded?
Sheol, Gehenna, Hades, the Abyss..
Look it up for yourself man, WHY are you taking man's FALLIABLE word for it!
The Bereans were PRAISED for thier studies, not rebuked!
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
Those are two doctrines that, I don't especially like myself (though I accept them).
Well then you'd BEST ask your Heavenly Father why He gave you morals if they don't line up with HIS WORD!
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
What about persecution? If necessary dying for one's faith? I don't like those ideas either.
Again, ASK your Father WHY! LOL!
Don't just sit there and accept the first thing you heard, but STUDY!
SHOW thyself APPROVED, a WORKMAN who need not be ASHAMED.
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
Left up to me if, someone slaps me on the cheek (or tries to do so) I'm side-stepping and and hitting them where it hurts.
Is that Christ in you?
That's the ONLY question you have to ask to know if it's morally right or wrong!
God is LIVING, He's ALIVE!!!
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
Left up to me if, someone persecutes the church (government) I'm whipping out the guns and forming a militia.
Is THAT Christ?
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
It's not up to me, or you, if we want to follow scriptures.
Do you follow the Scriptures, or God?
God is written ABOUT in the Scriptures, but I tell you man, it ain't NOTHING like the REAL thing!!!
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
Traditional, historical, Christianity, clearly teaches that man is head in the temple, church, home.
Then why not join the Roman Catholic Church, for they are among the first to espouse this doctrine.
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
God's ways are simply not logical to the human brain. They are spiritual and spiritually discerned.
Mabey not to the brain, but to our new hearts, surely?
Originally Posted by JWNEWMAN
What is clearly, repeatedly stated and historically practiced in virtually all the church's throughout history can not be changed today without considering that all other doctrines likewise have been handed down and expounded up based on the bias and prejudice of men.
And again, if you want to stick to tradition, you know which 'church' holds to it
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Zeena; 30th January 2010 at 02:55 PM.
Reason: spelling =P
JWN, these are some harsh words. I find them to be a contrast to something you posted earlier in this conversation:
I don't find them to be harsh. This is my opinion. It can be accepted, rejected, considered, ignored, whatever.
I am not the judge but I have an opinion on the matter. I accept that some women believe they are called of God to be a pastor. They may be. However, I don't see it. I could be somehow missing it. I don't see how.
It's not up to me what people do or say. It is always possible that for 2000 years the church has simply ignored the witness of the Holy Spirit and sacred text regarding the role of women.
Possible.
Likely?
I don't think so.
That is my opinion.
Myself and virtually all churches in all ages up to the 20th century could be wrong.
Harsh? I'm not meaning to be harsh. If you are a woman and a pastor and you believe God has called you that is between you and God. I'm not your judge. Nor do I condemn what you are doing. I do however, believe it is in error.
Many women think my position is gender biased regardless of the fact I had no bias on this issue till I read the scripture. I'm not offended (most of the time) they have a right to think whatever they like. God gave us all free will to make decisions.
Traditional, historical, Christianity, clearly teaches that man is head in the temple, church, home. God's ways are simply not logical to the human brain. They are spiritual and spiritually discerned.
.
*
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Scripture teaches it's not natural. Some people believe with all their hearts it's natural. I have to conclude scripture is right. That is, if I accept the bible as God's word.
Where does that leave the homosexual? That's not up to me. I could be wrong about that to. 2000 years of church history and doctrine could be wrong on this also.
Possible.
Likely?
No. Not if the bible is the word of God.
Do I love people who are homosexuals? Of course. They are no worse sinners then myself. However, scripture doesn't teach homosexuality is acceptable to God. No more then it teaches any of my failures are acceptable.
That's what forgiveness is about. Agreeing (confessing) to/with God on a point of some difficulty (slip, fall, miss behavior) and receiving by virtue of confession and faith in God's word that we are pardoned.
Pardoned why? Because we are good? No. Because we've placed our trust in God's love and promises. Our spirit is born again when we receive Christ. However, the flesh and the mind of the flesh is not. It is still stubborn and self-willed towards sinful behavior and all of us make mistakes.
Why all this? What does it have to do with this discussion? Well, did Jesus die on the cross? Does his blood cover our sins? What proof do we have that these things are so? We have the testimony of the word of Christ as recorded by the Apostles and the church for the last 2000 years.
If someone concludes that this doctrine of salvation through the blood is somehow miss-leading and for all these ages the church has gotten it wrong due to some syntax I will accept their right to think what they will but defend the integrity of the word, and the doctrine of the church regarding it.
Upon the word of God stands the foundation of all things that will last beyond this age.
Scripture teaches it's not natural. Some people believe with all their hearts it's natural. I have to conclude scripture is right. That is, if I accept the bible as God's word.
*snip*
Doesn't nature also teach you these truths?
Is God so far off that you must read about Him in the Bible?
His WORD is LIVING!!!
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
