Baptist views on feminism

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Simply answering "because God said so" when someone has a valid question is like answering "Goddidit" when valid questions are asked about creation. It evades the question and substitutes pat answers for real thought.

As a matter of fact, it is. Phoebe the deaconess was a minister during Biblical times and had many of the same functions as male clergy.



Women can't lead? Women can't protect and provide for their families?
Ringo

Ringo...you are definately smarter than what you are trying to convey here....you seem to know exactly what I mean by "God said so"...I wouldn't use that line on a non-believer for sure...don't play the fool here man. Stop convoluting things.
No women cannot lead a church of God. Have a problem with that....take it up with Paul.
That is the only question and answer that concerns me...and the overall question from the OP...remember the OP????
Woman can protect and provide for whomever they want too....it's turned into a persoal diatribe for you it seems(My opinion only here.) Women must submit to their husbands biblically.
It's been 15 pages of the same thing.....and well IMHO you're wrong scripturally for the answer of the OP.

 

[leothelioness]

Oh NO NO NO..sorry it's in response to the general message that Ringo is trying to convey.

I have a habit of responding to a thread and not quoting what I'm responding too...sorry.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

 

[Ringo84]

Yes, they can. My grandmother did it, and quite successfully. My point was that that's not our primary role.

Well, I disagree, but I can accept that better than I can accept: "women can't preach or lead or do anything else"

Ringo...you are definately smarter than what you are trying to convey here....you seem to know exactly what I mean by "God said so"...I wouldn't use that line on a non-believer for sure...don't play the fool here man. Stop convoluting things.

How am I convoluting things? Answering "Because God said so" is a substitute for real thought about this and other issues. It's a non-answer.

No women cannot lead a church of God. Have a problem with that....take it up with Paul.

Again: women were leading the church as Deaconesses during the time that Paul wrote that.

What does a woman pastoring and leading a church say about women's roles?
Ringo

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Well, I disagree, but I can accept that better than I can accept: "women can't preach or lead or do anything else"

Not what we are trying to convey.

How am I convoluting things? Answering "Because God said so" is a substitute for real thought about this and other issues. It's a non-answer.

See the above question/answer in this post here...right above this...the one starting with "Well, I disagree...."
Because God said so is a valid answer for a christian to a question from another christian...it's a good reminder of who's in charge.

Again: women were leading the church as Deaconesses during the time that Paul wrote that.

That is debatable at best...many people think Phoebe was not a deaconess, but regardless the definition of a deacon/deaconess is not that of a Pastor of a church...I thought you all went over this on page 10 or something.

What does a woman pastoring and leading a church say about women's roles?

It simply implies that they cannot.

Ringo

Thanks for listening.

 

[Ringo84]

Not what we are trying to convey.

Well, it just seems to me that all the restrictive rules concerning what can't be done is aimed towards women. I don't understand that and don't find "because they're different" to be a satisfactory answer.

Because God said so is a valid answer for a christian to a question from another christian...it's a good reminder of who's in charge.

I understand who is in charge. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind asking women - and women only - to submit. "Because God said so" may be a fine answer for a five year old who asks for a reason for being denied a cookie, but it's wanting as an answer for a complex theological and philosophical question such as this one.

That is debatable at best...many people think Phoebe was not a deaconess, but regardless the definition of a deacon/deaconess is not that of a Pastor of a church...I thought you all went over this on page 10 or something.

No, we never covered that particular issue. I bring it up to illustrate the point that while you may claim that women can't be leaders, they are already leaders in churches - and doing a fine job.

It simply implies that they cannot.

How come?

Thanks for listening.

I'll listen to whatever you have to say, as long as it's reasonable. I can't guarantee, however, that I'm ever going to agree with you - at least on this issue. We seem to see eye-to-eye on others, which is interesting.
Ringo

 

[becareful]

A label defines or describes a person in terms of his or her behavior. What is wrong with labeling? That's exactly what this thread is about "feminism".

Secular - of or relating to the wordly or temporal

Feminism - is an intellectual, philosophical and political movement aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women. This definition of feminism is a worldly definition, in other words not Biblical

In terms of the world and in a perfect world... I don't believe in feminism because I think everybody should be of equal value and have equal rights and equal opportunities. Therefore, no need to make special terms for every group that feels their rights are threatened. I understand that in a not-so perfect world that threatened groups need to organize and they must label it somehow.

Anyway feminism is a worldly topic and I've stated my position here and I'm done with that...

However, in the OP's starting message she mixes in the relationship of husband and wife citing submissiveness. I'm guessing her intent was in a Christian home and the ideal situation of one man being married to one woman.

If in fact, you are taking the position of being a Christian... and arguing against what God has clearly shown in the spiritual authority description of God/Christ/man/woman. Then this is clearly shows your error. The logic being shown to you is from Christians showing their Christian logic, through faith and with the Holy Spirit guidance.

Otherwise, if your taking the wordly position and bringing it to a Christian forum only for argument sake... shame on you. You shouldn't read any further because this whole argument does NOT apply to you.

Your point of view tries to integrate a "perfect world" with scripture. It simply can't be done and if you believe in God and the Bible. There are specific truths that can't be overcome by your position. You are using circular reasoning because you're using your position to prove itself. For example, woman should not submit to man because woman should not submit to man. Your only point is that it is illogical and disproportionate... according to you NOT God.

You have only defended your position with scripture by...
Galatians 3:26-28
Which... to your own admission is NOT specifically directed to husbands and wives. So therefore taken out of context.
and Ephesians 5:21
Speaking in general that everybody should submit to everyone else... again NOT specifically directed to husbands and wives. So therefore taken out of context. But you choose to ignore verses 22-24, where a specific relationship is laid out for husbands and wives.
and Romans 16:1-2
this is about Phebe being a deaconnes... has nothing to do with husbands and wives. So therefore NOT a point to defend your position.
and Acts 18:26
Priscilla and Acquila... show me where this is specific about husbands and wives spiritual authority or submissiveness... You can't, therefore, NOT a point to defend your position.

This is your only defense... and it is defenseless. I choose to be on the side of scripture. "Because God said so" is for a 5 year old that can't read and understand scripture. Many have presented scripture and explained it to you and you are denying it...

Scripture defines correct God->Christ->man->woman relationship here.
1 Corinthians 11:3-5
Colossians 3:18
1 Peter 1-5

Oh and yes women are the weaker vessel...
1 Peter 3:7
You have stated your position, in post #24, which is absolutely opposite to this scripture.

ringo says:
I don't believe that women are nothing more than a "helper" or a "weaker vessel" and I reject that viewpoint for my future marriage.
Ringo

And from an earlier post I eluded to the relation of divorce and feminism and have drawn a conclusion from when feminism started to take hold in this country as it relates to divorce rates...
1955 there were 2.3 divorces per 1000
peaking in the late 1970's and early 1980's at 5.3 divorces per 1000
over double...
I'm sure there are other causes and I didn't do a full analysis... I'll leave it to you to de-bunk the correlation.

Please becareful for what is warned in
Romans 8:7

Take it or leave it... I've argued from a sound scriptual foundation, as many others have... where have you argued from - at the least, a very liberal point of view... at the worst, well... in direct contradiction of scripture. I will not therefore anymore go by the rules that you are trying to impart on this thread... it is significant that you aren't and haven't been married. You don't have any experience with what you're talking about and are forming a hard-lined opinion from the secular "if it feels good do it", "it's not my fault, it's your fault" take no responsibility society we live in today.

You just pick and choose what you want to justify your opinion... you only want to be argumentative... you can't accept anybody else's opinion on this subject, much less God's absolute authority. These things are indicative or your maturity level. Maturity would show insight... thoughtfulness... compassion. Instead you are obstinate and disrespectful. Your ideas indicate that the only correct position is for the man and woman, together at the same time, to be in a leadership role in marriage... like it is some wonderful thing. All the parts make the whole... and relationships should be complementary but there must be leadership and their must be following. Not in every matter... but specifically in the matter of Spiritual issues and family responsibilities.

I'm sure it is hard for a young and immature young man to understand that the leadership role of a Christian household is a huge responsibility. I as a man leading my family... am responsible for the spiritual condition of my wife and children, the food, clothing, shelter, security of my family and a host of other responsibilities. My wife also has responsibilities that are of no lesser importance than mine: raising the children while I'm gone, care of our home while I'm gone, she's the only one that could give birth to our children, she has better nurturing ability than me... and she is the most important thing in my life but the next most important are my children... she is the glue that keeps everything running smooth. Is it wise not to take the advice of several posters here who have witnessed the success and fruitfulness of a Christ centered home.

You also seem to be hung up on the idea that submission to authority totally overshadows submission to will. Yes, in a husband/wife relationship we should submit to one another's will...equally. It is not disproportionate to say the husband is the head of the wife.

The Bible says we are to reject the world in favor of God if we want to have a life everafter.
1 John 4:5-6
5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Just because you may have all the knowledge of the world... doesn't mean you have any wisdom.

Please pray and contemplate your position.

About women Pastors, there are none. Start another thread to discuss this...

I'm finished with this until you can support your position with applicable scripture.

God Bless!
becareful

 

[MrJG]

What I don't understand is the reasoning behind asking women - and women only - to submit. "Because God said so" may be a fine answer for a five year old who asks for a reason for being denied a cookie, but it's wanting as an answer for a complex theological and philosophical question such as this one.

This is not a great theological or philosophical question, as it is stated very clearly in God's Word why it is this way.

I am going to lay this out as clearly as I can for you, so that you and anyone else can understand why God has set up the marriage relationship the way that He has. If you continue to disagree with me, that is fine but I will not continue to debate this subject with someone who is not open to reason and will not (or can not for that matter) use the Bible to back up their beliefs.
So...
1) God created man in His own image (Gen. 1:26, 27; 5:3; 9:6).
2) Woman is created from man and is the glory of man and is man's help meet (Gen. 2:18, 22-23; 1 Cor. 11:7-10).
3) Woman is the "weaker vessel" because she is created from man (1 Pet. 3:7, 1 Cor. 11:8-10).
4) God's plan in the marriage relationship is for the husband to be the head of the wife with the wife submitting to her husband's will (Eph. 5:22-23, 33; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1).
5) Husbands are to love their wife as their own bodies and love them with a sacrificial love as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25, 28-29, 33; Col. 3:19; 1 Pet. 3:7).

It is worthwhile to note that whenever the Bible talks about the relationship between two people or groups of people it always mentions the submissive one first. This is the case with wives and husbands, servants and masters, children and fathers, subjects and then rulers. Also, the verse in Ephesians 5 that you use is not for the husband wife relationship, but for the relationship of ALL believers. I do not believe I can lay this out any more clearly than has already been stated.

I also applaud becareful for his last post.

 

[Ringo84]

Secular - of or relating to the wordly or temporal

Feminism - is an intellectual, philosophical and political movement aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women. This definition of feminism is a worldly definition, in other words not Biblical

In terms of the world and in a perfect world... I don't believe in feminism because I think everybody should be of equal value and have equal rights and equal opportunities. Therefore, no need to make special terms for every group that feels their rights are threatened. I understand that in a not-so perfect world that threatened groups need to organize and they must label it somehow

I don't know what any of that has to do with me, as I don't self-identify as either one.

If in fact, you are taking the position of being a Christian... and arguing against what God has clearly shown in the spiritual authority description of God/Christ/man/woman. Then this is clearly shows your error. The logic being shown to you is from Christians showing their Christian logic, through faith and with the Holy Spirit guidance.

I don't need to "take a position" of being a Christian. I am one.

Your point of view tries to integrate a "perfect world" with scripture. It simply can't be done and if you believe in God and the Bible.

Your argument here is essentially: "this is the way things are. Deal with it". If we applied that logic to everything, slaves wouldn't have been freed and women wouldn't have been granted greater freedom. The way it is isn't necessarily the way it ought to be.

There are specific truths that can't be overcome by your position. You are using circular reasoning because you're using your position to prove itself. For example, woman should not submit to man because woman should not submit to man. Your only point is that it is illogical and disproportionate... according to you NOT God.

Which is not even close to what I've said. Simply saying that my argument is circular doesn't make it so.

Galatians 3:26-28
Which... to your own admission is NOT specifically directed to husbands and wives. So therefore taken out of context.

No, it isn't taken out of context. I never said that the verse applied to husband and wives. What I said was that under God, women and men don't belong to a hierarchy.

and Ephesians 5:21
Speaking in general that everybody should submit to everyone else... again NOT specifically directed to husbands and wives. So therefore taken out of context. But you choose to ignore verses 22-24, where a specific relationship is laid out for husbands and wives.

Again: I never said that it was. I used the verse to show that in life, we all submit to one another by being held accountable to one another - just as a husband is accountable to his wife and a wife is accountable to her husband.

and Romans 16:1-2
this is about Phebe being a deaconnes... has nothing to do with husbands and wives. So therefore NOT a point to defend your position.

It is a bit of a side issue. I brought it up only to show that contrary to your view that women are submissive to husbands and cannot have any authority at all, Phoebe was a woman who held spiritual authority as a Deaconess.

and Acts 18:26
Priscilla and Acquila... show me where this is specific about husbands and wives spiritual authority or submissiveness... You can't, therefore, NOT a point to defend your position.

The verse isn't literally about husband and wives, but it shows that Priscilla and Aquila - together and equally - shared the gospel in the verse. Priscilla was not "under authority" in the verse; they both had equal authority.

This is your only defense... and it is defenseless.

This isn't my "only defense". I've stated over and over that men and women are submissive to one another by being held accountable to one another. I've stated that Eve was not solely responsible for the events of the Garden. I've stated that women aren't "weaker vessels". Whether you think my arguments are defensible or not is beside the point.

Oh and yes women are the weaker vessel...
1 Peter 3:7
You have stated your position, in post #24, which is absolutely opposite to this scripture.

After spending so much time claiming that I am "defenseless" (which is far from true), you use one verse to prove your point about women being "weaker vessels"? On what science does that verse base this belief?

And from an earlier post I eluded to the relation of divorce and feminism and have drawn a conclusion from when feminism started to take hold in this country as it relates to divorce rates...
1955 there were 2.3 divorces per 1000
peaking in the late 1970's and early 1980's at 5.3 divorces per 1000
over double...
I'm sure there are other causes and I didn't do a full analysis... I'll leave it to you to de-bunk the correlation.

I don't need to debunk that correlation. You just said: "I didn't do a full analysis". That says it all. It isn't enough just to look at two factors and conclude, without looking at other factors, that there's a correlation. It's like those who say that "taking the Bible out" of public schools (which never happened) correlates to the uptick in violence we've seen since the 1960s. The two don't necessarily correlate at all.

've argued from a sound scriptual foundation, as many others have..

Your "solid scriptural foundation" is lacking in logic.

where have you argued from - at the least, a very liberal point of view... at the worst, well... in direct contradiction of scripture. I will not therefore anymore go by the rules that you are trying to impart on this thread... it is significant that you aren't and haven't been married. You don't have any experience with what you're talking about and are forming a hard-lined opinion from the secular "if it feels good do it", "it's not my fault, it's your fault" take no responsibility society we live in today.



You just pick and choose what you want to justify your opinion... you only want to be argumentative... you can't accept anybody else's opinion on this subject, much less God's absolute authority. These things are indicative or your maturity level. Maturity would show insight... thoughtfulness... compassion. Instead you are obstinate and disrespectful. Your ideas indicate that the only correct position is for the man and woman, together at the same time, to be in a leadership role in marriage... like it is some wonderful thing. All the parts make the whole... and relationships should be complementary but there must be leadership and their must be following. Not in every matter... but specifically in the matter of Spiritual issues and family responsibilities.

I'm sure it is hard for a young and immature young man to understand that the leadership role of a Christian household is a huge responsibility. I as a man leading my family... am responsible for the spiritual condition of my wife and children, the food, clothing, shelter, security of my family and a host of other responsibilities. My wife also has responsibilities that are of no lesser importance than mine: raising the children while I'm gone, care of our home while I'm gone, she's the only one that could give birth to our children, she has better nurturing ability than me... and she is the most important thing in my life but the next most important are my children... she is the glue that keeps everything running smooth. Is it wise not to take the advice of several posters here who have witnessed the success and fruitfulness of a Christ centered home.

You also seem to be hung up on the idea that submission to authority totally overshadows submission to will. Yes, in a husband/wife relationship we should submit to one another's will...equally. It is not disproportionate to say the husband is the head of the wife.



You just pick and choose what you want to justify your opinion... you only want to be argumentative... you can't accept anybody else's opinion on this subject, much less God's absolute authority. These things are indicative or your maturity level. Maturity would show insight... thoughtfulness... compassion. Instead you are obstinate and disrespectful. Your ideas indicate that the only correct position is for the man and woman, together at the same time, to be in a leadership role in marriage... like it is some wonderful thing. All the parts make the whole... and relationships should be complementary but there must be leadership and their must be following. Not in every matter... but specifically in the matter of Spiritual issues and family responsibilities.

I'm sure it is hard for a young and immature young man to understand that the leadership role of a Christian household is a huge responsibility. I as a man leading my family... am responsible for the spiritual condition of my wife and children, the food, clothing, shelter, security of my family and a host of other responsibilities. My wife also has responsibilities that are of no lesser importance than mine: raising the children while I'm gone, care of our home while I'm gone, she's the only one that could give birth to our children, she has better nurturing ability than me... and she is the most important thing in my life but the next most important are my children... she is the glue that keeps everything running smooth. Is it wise not to take the advice of several posters here who have witnessed the success and fruitfulness of a Christ centered home.

You also seem to be hung up on the idea that submission to authority totally overshadows submission to will. Yes, in a husband/wife relationship we should submit to one another's will...equally. It is not disproportionate to say the husband is the head of the wife.

I won't comment any further on this malarkey. It's empty speculation based on my beliefs and maturity level, which you know nothing about.

When you're done making Ringo84 an issue and lecturing me about maturity, we can return to the subject at hand.

Just because you may have all the knowledge of the world... doesn't mean you have any wisdom.

I never claimed to have all the knowledge in the world.

Please pray and contemplate your position.

I've contemplated it. My mind hasn't changed.

I'm finished with this

Good.

This is not a great theological or philosophical question, as it is stated very clearly in God's Word why it is this way.

The whys and wherefores are not, however, which is why "because God said so" is not an acceptable answer.

I will not continue to debate this subject with someone who is not open to reason

Your argument is based in reason?

1) God created man in His own image (Gen. 1:26, 27; 5:3; 9:6).

And women weren't?

2) Woman is created from man and is the glory of man and is man's help meet (Gen. 2:18, 22-23; 1 Cor. 11:7-10).

Help partners can be equal.

3) Woman is the "weaker vessel" because she is created from man (1 Pet. 3:7, 1 Cor. 11:8-10).

Let's see proof that women are "weaker vessels".

4) God's plan in the marriage relationship is for the husband to be the head of the wife with the wife submitting to her husband's will (Eph. 5:22-23, 33; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1).

Except that in real marriages, both parties submit to one another through mutual accountability.
Ringo

 

[Brad2009]

On Pheobe the "deconess":

Romans 16:1-2, NIV:
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.

Romans 16:1-2, ESV:
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, 2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.

Romans 16:1-2, KJV:
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

Link to commentary on the direct greek:
Romans 16:1 and Women Deacons Green Baggins


And now, a discussion between carpenters:

carpenter A: So, because of the weight of the table top, the right thing to do is to use the 2x4 as a support beam. Also, all our 2x4's happen to have hinges on them, so we can use it as both support and to mount the cabinet door to.

carpenter B: Hold on a second there, are you sure that you can't use on of the 1x4 with the pulley attached to it?

carpenter A: Well, it wouldn't make sense to do that. The pulley is not the right tool for the job of mounting the door to, plus the physical strain is more than the 1x4 can handle.

carpenter B: But doesn't the pulley make the 1x4 stronger? I mean, you can pull all kinds of things with a pulley that you can't with the hinge.

carpenter A: That has no bearing on the use of the 1x4 as a support beam - its not the right piece to use there. Besides, the 1x4s are used for other things. We use those to mount the rolltop, not support the structure. And the hinge is perfectly placed so the door can swing right off it.

carpenter B: But, doesn't the pulley make it stronger and therefore equally functional in that place?

carpenter A: No.

carpenter B: You're wrong.

carpenter A: Look, here's the manual if you don't believe me.

carpenter B: You're still wrong.

carpenter A: eh, whatever.

 

[Ringo84]

On Pheobe the "deconess":

Romans 16:1-2, NIV:
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.

Romans 16:1-2, ESV:
1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, 2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.

Romans 16:1-2, KJV:
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

Aren't ALL ministers servants?

And now, a discussion between carpenters:

carpenter A: So, because of the weight of the table top, the right thing to do is to use the 2x4 as a support beam. Also, all our 2x4's happen to have hinges on them, so we can use it as both support and to mount the cabinet door to.

carpenter B: Hold on a second there, are you sure that you can't use on of the 1x4 with the pulley attached to it?

carpenter A: Well, it wouldn't make sense to do that. The pulley is not the right tool for the job of mounting the door to, plus the physical strain is more than the 1x4 can handle.

carpenter B: But doesn't the pulley make the 1x4 stronger? I mean, you can pull all kinds of things with a pulley that you can't with the hinge.

carpenter A: That has no bearing on the use of the 1x4 as a support beam - its not the right piece to use there. Besides, the 1x4s are used for other things. We use those to mount the rolltop, not support the structure. And the hinge is perfectly placed so the door can swing right off it.

carpenter B: But, doesn't the pulley make it stronger and therefore equally functional in that place?

carpenter A: No.

carpenter B: You're wrong.

carpenter A: Look, here's the manual if you don't believe me.

carpenter B: You're still wrong.

carpenter A: eh, whatever.

That's very cute. But a support beam - which can only hold a limited amount of wiehgt - is not comparable to women, who can do much more than they some here are willing or able to admit.
Ringo

 

[becareful]

Thanks BWB! I too applaud your attempt to counsel.

This young man reminds me of a mule I had once.


God Bless!
becareful

 

[Ringo84]

Let's put aside all the asinine "counseling" and lectures about maturity. You're talking over me instead of listening to what I'm trying to say.

Have any of you noticed that I never argued against women submitting? My main objection of the verse in question is not so much that women should submit but that this verse is only asking women to submit when relationships are a team effort. In order for a relationship to work, both partners must mutually submit to one another - to be held accountable for each other's actions. Taken literally, this verse does not seem to acknowledge that men willingly submit - through accountability and self-sacrifice - to their wives but only asks for it from women.

It's normal for marital roles to sometimes overlap or switch. Sometimes men take over jobs that are traditionally "woman's work" out of kindness and deference to their wives. Sometimes, women take jobs that are traditionally men only in order to provide for their families when their husband cannot.

Many of you seem to have misunderstood my point about complementary strength. There may be some ways in which women are weaker than men. There may also be some ways in which men are weaker than women. But when men and women's relative strengths and weaknesses are all added together, they come out even. Women generally don't have the strength to complete heavy construction jobs, but their bodies can withstand carrying an unborn child for nine months. Men's bodies can't carry an unborn child for nine months, but they can complete heavy construction iobs. It all evens out.

That's why men and women are such a perfect fit for each other: it all balances out. Men sometimes give in their relationships, and women take. Sometimes, women may give in the relationship and men take. Where men are weak in some areas, women are strong. Where women are weak in some areas, men are strong. Both submit to one another through self-sacrifice and accountability.

In other words, it's something like two men carrying a table. Both men carry an equal amount of the table's weight so that moving the table will be successful. If one man carries too much of the weight, the move doesn't work as well.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Thanks BWB! I too applaud your attempt to counsel.

Your "counseling" is not needed.

This young man reminds me of a mule I had once.

I take that as a compliment
Ringo

 

[Brad2009]

Aren't ALL ministers servants?

The point being, there is no reason to equate Phoebe with a minister/deconess. Check the link for the a commentary on the greek + the contextual use of the same word in other writing by Paul.

 

[Ringo84]

The point being, there is no reason to equate Phoebe with a minister/deconess.

She was called Deaconess - by Paul, no less.
Ringo

 

[Brad2009]

I don't understand. Surely you are referring to Romans 16:1-2?

That verse doesn't say what you think it does, according to greek scholarship.

 

[Ringo84]

I don't understand. Surely you are referring to Romans 16:1-2?

That verse doesn't say what you think it does, according to greek scholarship.

Oh? Because it sure seems to be the same word - Deacon or diakonos - for men and women.
Ringo

 

[leothelioness]

In terms of the world and in a perfect world... I don't believe in feminism because I think everybody should be of equal value and have equal rights and equal opportunities.

I agree. But, you do realise that the reason feminism came about in the first place was because men were abusing their power and women were not afforded the same rights as men. Keep in mind, the feminism I speak of -- and spoke of in my OP -- is first wave feminism, not second wave.

 

[Brad2009]

Rather than applying the term διάκονον to the modern office of deacon which is codified in certain churches (thus equating it with leadership), its more helpful to look at the term as meant in those days.

The term διάκονον meant 'servant of the church'. It does not have a leadership connotation as you claim.

 

[Ringo84]

The term διάκονον meant 'servant of the church'. It does not have a leadership connotation as you claim.

A person can't be a leader and a servant of the church at the same time? Since when?

According to wikipedia, Deaconesses were ordained and had many of the same responsibilities as their male counterparts:

In the Byzantine church deaconesses had both liturgical and pastoral functions within the church. [1] These women also ministered to other women in a variety of ways, including instructing catechumens, assisting with women’s baptisms and welcoming women into the church services. They also mediated between members of the church, and they cared for the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the imprisoned and the persecuted.[4] They were sent to women who were housebound due to illness or childbirth. They performed the important sacramental duty of conducting the physical anointing and baptism of nude women. Ordination to the diaconate was also appropriate for those responsible for the women’s choir, a liturgical duty.

Source: Deaconess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ringo