Is it accurate to recognize the UMC is pretty liberal these days?

[circuitrider]

In the scriptures the Bible says of married couples, "submit yourself one to another out of reverence for Christ." The problem is that many male preachers skip that verse to the verse following where it tells wives to submit and for husbands do love. The Biblical mandate is mutual submission and not for one gender to submit to the other all the time.

The terms you are using "supportive role" "the male is the head" all point to the woman is less than the man.

If you'd rather not discuss it that's fine. When I get one of those "Heck I'm glad I'm in a conservative church because of all those darn feminists" or something like that, it sets off a lot of warning bells for me.

I have a daughter who is 23 and about to graduate from college with two bachelor degrees. She is very intelligent. She knows wha she believes and is an adult who can make her own decisions. Why should she "submit" to the will of some other person just simply because of his gender? I frankly hope she never marries some guy who thinks he is the head of the household just because of his plumbing.

 

[Krillin]

There are many women (not just men) who believe in their supportive role.

The terms you are using "supportive role" "the male is the head" all point to the woman is less than the man.

You've still not explained how.

If you'd rather not discuss it that's fine. When I get one of those "Heck I'm glad I'm in a conservative church because of all those darn feminists" or something like that, it sets off a lot of warning bells for me.

I sense some mockery there. I already apologized about my attitude. Besides, by saying this, you almost seem to show the same attitude.

 

[circuitrider]

I'll try again Krillin.

An argument for popularity of a view does not make that view true. Even if most people were to believe the moon is made of green cheese that would not cause the moon to be made of green cheese.

In a company you have a CEO and you have employees. Are the employees in the company "equal" to the CEO in leadership, decision making power, pay, prestige, etc.?

If God were to submit to the will of people would God still be superior? When we submit to God are we equal to God?

To turn it around, I'm not sure how you can say men and women are "equal" when they are not allowed in your mind to fill equal roles. If the woman can never be the boss, never be the head of the household, in what way is she "equal."?

At this point we also have not really approaches scripture. The New Testament does not make women submissive to men in leadership in the way you seem to think. There are women deacons in the NT, women pastors, and other women church leaders. Women are allowed to preach in the New Testament.

I wasn't intending to mock you Krillin though I honestly find your views on female submission to be very out of date. Remember I serve in a Christian denomination that places women on completely equal footing with men and has done so far quite a long time. So when someone tells me women should submit to men at best the idea sounds quaint and old fashioned at worst it sounds oppressive.

I don't mean any insult by that. But I do believe it is long past time that Christians caught up with the rest of society and treated women as equals. Not the secretary, not the assistant, not the little home maker, but people of equal worth and value who can serve in any role of leadersihp a man can.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I have no doubt in my mind that eventually our children will decide for the denomination (if they are still Methodists) to change the language of the Discipline if we don't. The Millenials and the generation that is following them believe, in the growing majority, that we should grant LGBTQ folks equal status.

I expect you are right (at least for that portion which is found in the USA, not sure I agree that the rest of the world will go the same way). However, I don't think that we will make the decision based on theological reflection. I suspect it will be because we've learned to reflect the world in which we live more than anything else.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I guess by using the trinity as an example I was more or less having marriage in mind. Because in marriage a man and a woman, in a sense, can become one together in Christ.

It doesn't take marriage to make us one in Christ. Simply being in Christ accomplishes this whether one is Greek or Jew, free or slave, and for both male and female.

Still, I believe women were made with a more supportive role in mind.

Paul pretty much says we are not complementary beings. Notice that Galatians 3:28 sees that many would divine the world into dichotomous parts of Jew or Greek, and again of slave or free, but Paul does not recognize that one can do that with men and women. Rather he says that there is not male and female. Not only do these differences that exist in the world disappear in Christ, but the view of approaching men and women as two separate parts which combined make a single whole are not true even of the world to begin with.

In a group of lions it is the female that does the hunting while the male defends the group from other male lions. The male is head of the group, and the bigger risk taker, but surely no one can deny that both roles are equally important.

I do. For I deny the whole concept of "both" roles as if the role for a man and the role for a woman are different to begin with. Again, Paul says, "there is no male and female" (Galatians 3:28, ESV).

 

[Tigermoose]

I do. For I deny the whole concept of "both" roles as if the role for a man and the role for a woman are different to begin with. Again, Paul says, "there is no male and female" (Galatians 3:28, ESV).

Do you submit to Jesus Christ? Or are you a co-equal partner with Him?

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansingb her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”c 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

 

[Tigermoose]

Again, Paul says, "there is no male and female" (Galatians 3:28, ESV).

This is taken out of context. Paul's point is that we are all heirs to the promise given to Abraham.

"The Law and the Promise
15 To give a human example, brothers:[f] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

 

[GraceSeeker]

Do you submit to Jesus Christ? Or are you a co-equal partner with Him?

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansingb her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”c 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Why do you pick this up passage part way through it, and not include the whole pericope?

 

[Tigermoose]

Why do you pick this up passage part way through it, and not include the whole pericope?

Please feel free to post anything I omitted that has bearing on this topic.

 

[GraceSeeker]

This is taken out of context. Paul's point is that we are all heirs to the promise given to Abraham.

Well, actually I think the larger point is that we are all one in Christ. But this does not negate the fact that Paul has a series here where the first two pairs have ‘neither…nor’ (ouk…oude); but he doesn't follow that pattern the last pair. It isn't that we are neither male nor female, but that we are quite pointedly (ouk…kai) not male and female.

Christ changes the nature of our creation, not only is original sin washed away, but even the complementary design of Creation is changed in Christ so that both men and women become completed not by one another, but by Christ. Men, equally with women, are brides to Christ's bridegroom.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Please feel free to post anything I omitted that has bearing on this topic.

The direction that Paul is giving, of which the section you quoted are 2 out of a total of 6 particular examples as to how this works out, is found just one verse earlier: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21).

 

[Tigermoose]

The direction that Paul is giving, of which the section you quoted are 2 out of a total of 6 particular examples as to how this works out, is found just one verse earlier: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21).

Sure, Paul is writing to other men and instructing them to submit to one another. But then he directly addresses the relation of husband and wife. I suspect your cultural upbringing is blinding you to the plain truth of these passages. It is very clear. If I was a modern woman impacted by feminism, these passages would be very problematic. Because I would want to say I believe in Scripture, but this would be a case where I would have to disagree or ignore what is plainly stated. In your case, you are wiggling around the plain meaning of the text and searching for a way out. It is clear though. In your heart you know it, even if you have tried intellectualizing this and seeking an escape hatch.

Praise God that we have the Bible to correct our cultural diversions and to keep us on the path ordained by God. Your walk with the Lord would be greatly enhanced if you could submit to His authority through His Word as revealed in Scriptures. By suppressing the plain teaching of the Scriptures, you are limiting the work of the Spirit in you. Please prayerfully consider.

 

[Tigermoose]

Well, actually I think the larger point is that we are all one in Christ. But this does not negate the fact that Paul has a series here where the first two pairs have ‘neither…nor’ (ouk…oude); but he doesn't follow that pattern the last pair. It isn't that we are neither male nor female, but that we are quite pointedly (ouk…kai) not male and female.

Christ changes the nature of our creation, not only is original sin washed away, but even the complementary design of Creation is changed in Christ so that both men and women become completed not by one another, but by Christ. Men, equally with women, are brides to Christ's bridegroom.

Your interpretation conflicts with other passages from Paul that clearly state that the husband is to be in authority over his wife, and that women are not to be preachers in leadership over a church. How do you resolve this conflict given your interpretation? Was Paul simply wrong?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Sure, Paul is writing to other men and instructing them to submit to one another. But then he directly addresses the relation of husband and wife. I suspect your cultural upbringing is blinding you to the plain truth of these passages. It is very clear. If I was a modern woman impacted by feminism, these passages would be very problematic. Because I would want to say I believe in Scripture, but this would be a case where I would have to disagree or ignore what is plainly stated. In your case, you are wiggling around the plain meaning of the text and searching for a way out. It is clear though. In your heart you know it, even if you have tried intellectualizing this and seeking an escape hatch.

Your interpretation conflicts with other passages from Paul that clearly state that the husband is to be in authority over his wife, and that women are not to be preachers in leadership over a church. How do you resolve this conflict given your interpretation? Was Paul simply wrong?

No, I believe it is your cultural bias that is showing. Paul's use of women as ministers in the church, leaders and teachers of men shows that whatever he had to say that was restrictive was isolated to particular instances and not a unviversal teaching.


As for being submissive to one another, that statement was not directed only at men to other men, but to the entire church at Ephesus: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:" (Ephesians 1:1). Unless, of course, you presume that men were the only holy people in Ephesus. And, if so, then why does Paul direct even a portion of the letter to wives? No, the whole of the passage (Ephesians 5:21-6:9) is directed to the whole of the church, and that means that Ephesians 5:21 is directed toward everyone needing to learn to be submissive to one another.

I do agree with one thing you wrote:

Praise God that we have the Bible to correct our cultural diversions and to keep us on the path ordained by God. Your walk with the Lord would be greatly enhanced if you could submit to His authority through His Word as revealed in Scriptures. By suppressing the plain teaching of the Scriptures, you are limiting the work of the Spirit in you. Please prayerfully consider.

If only you would learn to listen to your own guidance.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I have a follow up question for anyone who cares to answer. What role, if any, did the person who delivered Paul's messages to the church have? Do you suppose that the person was just a mail carrier, dropping off the letter and then his/her job was complete. Or, does the person who carries Paul's message to a church have any responsibility as far as communicating, making clear, and answering questions about the contents of the letter if there are any?

 

[Tigermoose]

You might not like it, but you are being contrary to what is Written.

"8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

"34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is [a]improper for a woman to speak in church."

 

[GraceSeeker]

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Tigermoose]

I stand behind the Word of God, and not clever reinterpretations that fit my feminist ideology. That's why I just posted Scripture that answers your question. It would be mightily hard for a woman to be a leader of a church when she is not allowed to speak within it. How exactly does that work?

You need to take this up with God - not me. I know you don't like it, but it is Written.

 

[GraceSeeker]

It is precisely God's Word that convinces me that women are indeed called by God to be leaders in His Church. And it is the rules and conventions of men that have resulted in distorted readings of scripture abridged to make it appear otherwise.



And you still didn't answer my question:

What role, if any, did the person who delivered Paul's messages to the church have? Do you suppose that the person was just a mail carrier, dropping off the letter and then his/her job was complete. Or, does the person who carries Paul's message to a church have any responsibility as far as communicating, making clear, and answering questions about the contents of the letter if there are any?

This isn't a trick question. The answer is right in the Word of God.
"Tychicus, the dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also may know how I am and what I am doing. I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage you." (Ephesians 6:21-22)

And that answer is very relevant to the question about Paul's view of women. For who was it that Paul asked to be the one to deliver his other letters? Not all are identified, but some are. Check it out and get back to me.

 

[Historicus]

Mod Hat On

A Reminder...

This forum is for Methodists/Nazarenes/Wesleyans.
Other members may make fellowship posts and ask sincere questions but may not debate or teach in this forum.

It's also a great time for everyone to review all of CF's sitewide rules.

Mod Hat Off
​