- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Who is this directed at?We are talking about women as clergy. See the thread's title?
Upvote
0
Who is this directed at?We are talking about women as clergy. See the thread's title?
I don't know of anyone who is off topic except you since you brought up POWs (which stands for prisoners of war).any reader who wanders off-topic.
I think it's clear from the context that the POW from that poster was a typo; he meant POV=point of view.
Everything does get debated, but some positions hold more water than others with careful examination. This is true for any contentious topic in life, including this one.
Paul did admittedly write some difficult things; even Peter acknowledged this in 2 Peter 3:16. Nonetheless, Peter also acknowledged in that passage that it's the people distorting what Paul says who are the problem, not that Paul is incorrect.
Peter walked alongside both Jesus and Paul, and didn't dispute anything Paul said, other than circumcision, which Paul corrected Peter for. Peter also agreed on that pesky topic of gender authority that we've been debating in this thread (1 Peter 3).
And since Peter agreed with Paul on that very same topic, and Peter actually walked alongside Jesus, that should give the male leadership position even more authority. As others have pointed out, if Jesus were so big on including women as leaders of the church, there would have been a woman among twelve (count 'em, twelve) disciples. But all twelve of his disciples were male. (And the women who followed Him, saw Him after the resurrection, did not become leaders over men.)
But there are some who remain convinced that, even though Jesus said Peter would be the rock of the church, that Peter and Paul were somehow wrong to include these submission things in the Bible, and that such things are merely the ideas of men, and shouldn't be there.
If such is the case, then God has allowed the church to be deceived about this for two thousand years, then Jesus shouldn't have given Peter so much authority, etc etc.
And all of that would just make God out to be incompetent, and would make Christianity a religion of no authority. It would be just another attempt of man to conceptualize the world around them, and not something worth being a part of. This is why liberal Christian branches have trouble retaining members; the Bible isn't considered a firm foundation, so what's the point of following only some of it? We can do that with any religion. Why hold onto Christianity if you think its sacred Scriptures are in error? I think this is why so many liberal Christians, once they really tackle all these issues, eventually leave the church and become atheists. It's at least more internally consistent than "sort of" following a faith whose writings you think were only "sort of" inspired.
But don't say that those of us who believe that women should be ordained are only "sort of" following the faith.
I think this is why so many liberal Christians, once they really tackle all these issues, eventually leave the church and become atheists.
And all of that would just make God out to be incompetent, and would make Christianity a religion of no authority. It would be just another attempt of man to conceptualize the world around them, and not something worth being a part of. This is why liberal Christian branches have trouble retaining members; the Bible isn't considered a firm foundation, so what's the point of following only some of it? We can do that with any religion. Why hold onto Christianity if you think its sacred Scriptures are in error? I think this is why so many liberal Christians, once they really tackle all these issues, eventually leave the church and become atheists. It's at least more internally consistent than "sort of" following a faith whose writings you think were only "sort of" inspired.
We don't laud infanticide despite one of the psalms rejoicing in the violent death of the children of Israel's enemies
You could see some of these questions as a matter of literalism vs. metaphorical readings, but I'm not sure that really works for the question at hand.
I was very struck today, reading a commentary on Job by Janzen, (of all things!), by his description of choosing between possible meanings of a text (or texts) as a matter of "morally active engagement," of bringing the text into dialogue with all of life, with our own relationship with God (and capacity to listen to/hear from God), and with all of that in the picture, meaning-making as a moral act, an active choosing of the good.
That resonates very strongly with my sense of how we handle the texts which are seen as problematic for women's ordination, because it requires us to make a moral assessment as well as a textual one.
I'm not sure I've fully grasped it either! But it was interesting that I was reading it today after thinking about this thread.
I'd be very happy to continue the discussion, but perhaps it belongs in a thread of its own?
I don't think so. The majority of "church" in TV and movies is the Catholic Church, which does not have female ordination. There have been representations of female priests as a main character. The "Vicar of Dibley" comes to mind as a popular British show.Some churches have women priests and women bishops.
Movies and TV shows rarely show them.
Is this a form of censorship?
I've noticed that quite a few of the ministers shown performing weddings on TV shows are women.I don't think so. The majority of "church" in TV and movies is the Catholic Church, which does not have female ordination. There have been representations of female priests as a main character. The "Vicar of Dibley" comes to mind as a popular British show.
Of course there are also TV and movie representations of just general "Christians", but generally those churches being represented would not have bishops anyways.
The current running TV show/book series "The Expanse" has a frequently recurring character that is a Methodist minister at a mega church.
That's true, now that you mention it. I have also seen female rabbi's in TV weddings.I've noticed that quite a few of the ministers shown performing weddings on TV shows are women.
Nah.Does the world need women priests?
What criteria do you find acceptable?Can anyone give me one single, legitimate reason why women should not be "priests" (pastors, priests, deacons, elders, etc.)?
What matters is what the Church has actually done.