If I misunderstood, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions. The standard use of "penetration" when talking about a man penetrating a woman in today's society is along the lines of my interpretation. Before your post, I have never encountered the manner of sexual intercourse to be a reason for not ordaining women. That said, I appreciate the clarification. (Admittedly, I am not the most comfortable discussing the way men and women join together on a forum, so please accept my alternative wording).
So, in regards to your explanation above:
It is true that a husband and wife joining together as one, through sexual intercourse, and conceiving a child is a beautiful thing. In marriage, it is God ordained, and as all that God ordains, has multiple purposes, including love. While I don't focus on the penetration part of this, I'll go with it for the purposes of this discussion.
Yes, ideas and words are penetrative (in a very non-sexual manner). Again, it is the combination of the sexual connotation moving onto another topic with the same word (apparently with a different connotation), that made it seem inappropriate from my perspective. Words have meaning in the current culture. Stringing concepts together continues the meaning of one understanding to the next section.
Moving on from that, yes, words can change or deepen someone's mind about something substantial. Certainly, that includes speaking or preaching. I'm not used to having people speak from a podium, but I see your point.
There are constructs within the Church, constructs within the family, and constructs within the world. They aren't all the same.
I actually don't fit into the description your last few paragraphs. I do however see multiple concepts about this written in Scripture. I personally don't see anything stating that women were presbyters or elders. I do see evidence of women being deaconesses, though they did not have the same role as deacons. I see many women who had roles of influence in the early church.
In light of this, we need to synthesize these scriptures together with the scriptures you quoted. Would you agree?
Here are some examples of roles women held in the apostolic church:
St Mary of Magdalene evangelized to others.
St Thecla, after converting from hearing Paul's message, was sentenced to death due to dedicating her life to Christ rather than becoming a wife to someone who was not a Christian. She was saved from this death, and preached to many in Antioch.
St Phoebe was a deaconess sent by Paul. She was a leader of the early church, though I don't believe she had the same role as the male deacons. She brought letters from Paul to the church, ministered to many, and helped in a variety of ways. Again, deaconess was a unique role.
If you are willing to look at some historical documents, you'll find that St Photini (the woman at the well) preached the gospel to many. History shows that she and her sisters traveled far to spread the word of God.
St. Lydia was a business woman. She opened up her home to the apostles, and spread her wealth to many. She took care of the poor and ministered to many. History records her spreading the gospel through Europe and further west.
St. Priscilla (or Prisca) and her husband, the Apostle Aquila of the Se
venty, are perhaps best known for their apostolic work with St. Paul in Ephesus. They not only provided hospitality for the Apostles, but they had a church in their home. In Romans 16:3-5, Paul says:"Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus . . . . Likewise greet the church that is in their house."
St. Junia and her husband (who became a bishop) spread the gospel.
In Romans 16:7, St. Paul makes a remarkable statement. He says: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."
You'll find many more both in Scripture and in historical documents. St. Tabitha, St. Mary and Martha...the list continues.
Note what happens in these examples (which were praised by the apostles):
They taught.
They evangelized.
They took care of the poor.
They spread the gospel.
They were martyrs.
They provided financial support.
They provided hospitality.
They were deaconesses (of a different role than deacon today).
There is direct evidence that participated in pretty much every ministry the men participated in, with the exception of the priesthood (and bishops / elders / some roles of deacon today).
If you didn't see this in my previous posts, my Church (and my personal opinion) does not support women being priests or deacons in the sense of male deacons. I do accept the position of deaconess, in the context of what deaconesses did in the early church. I do believe the family models after the Church, as do our parishes. I do support the priests and bishops being men, as they represent Christ, and we represent the Bride of Christ (well...we kind of are
).
In fact, I do consider my husband to be the head of my house. However, he never lords that over me, we always make decisions together (if we could not come to a conclusion, I would accept his decision - "submit" to him, though he never has done that). Despite that, we work together on everything.
That doesn't, however, mean that women can't have vocations in the business world, that they shouldn't be equal in importance, that they cannot be smart, etc. etc.
Considering my stance on my husband being the head of the house, I disagree with this. The debate is more than that. Like I said earlier, I don't think there are just two sides to this conversation. I also think my understanding of "preach" and your understanding of "preach" may be different. If I understand correctly, you associate "preach" with being the pastor of a church. I don't necessarily adhere to that. Being the priest of a church is much more than "preaching". If I am misunderstanding you, feel free to clarify.
