A conservative argument for women priests

[SouthWestConvert]

I wouldn't put it quite like that. I think Paul was reiterating and perhaps expanding something that existed before his instruction.

What does this even mean? 'expanding on something that existed'? You can read clearly what 'existed', a willingness but with no order and confusion. I'm starting to think you are being deliberately stubborn? God is infinitely logical and you are not being logical. Should I treat you as in 1 Corinthians 14:38 'But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.'?

Except, of course, the Greek is "ei tis," which is "if anyone," and not a gendered expression.

Verse 37, 'einai', 'himself to be'.

I can see why that would make sense. However, that's not the way I see it. The way I see it is that both men and women have always been called; Paul recognised and honoured those callings (hence his support and positive comments about so many women), and it was only later, as the church became more socially "mainstream," that patriarchal norms were reasserted, taking some comments of Paul's out of their original context as justification.

I note and by now somewhat unsurprisingly that you say 'the way I see it'.

Remind me what is out of context given my explanation?

For everyone reading this thread, this is my list of reasons why 1 Corinthians 34-36 is applicable to all churches from then until now;

1) Paul writes to a singular 'church' of Corinth. 1v2
2) Present day church services benefit from order, rather than confusion as implemented by Paul with authority. v 1-33.
3) Verse 33 confirms that the benefits of order over confusion are universal by using the plural of 'all churches'.
4) Women are commanded to keep silence in the churches, plural. v 34.
5) In Paul's final conclusion, he returns to the point of church order, encompassing the verses regarding women, and by doing so, we can apply the 'all churches' to the whole chapter. v39-40.

My offering to discuss free will was a separate topic choice, given that you seem quite capable and articulate and therefore quite enjoyable. But the lack of logical, rational thought when good opposing ideas are put forth would lead me to rescind the offer.

 

[Paidiske]

What does this even mean? 'expanding on something that existed'?

There were worship gatherings - and norms for those worship gatherings - before Paul wrote. There is strong evidence that synagogue worship provided a background to some of those norms. Paul didn't invent the idea of order in worship; he just reminded people of important principles that long predated him.

I'm starting to think you are being deliberately stubborn?

I have no idea why you would draw this conclusion from a simple difference of perspective.

Verse 37, 'einai', 'himself to be'.

That's an infinitive form. It's not gendered.

I note and by now somewhat unsurprisingly that you say 'the way I see it'.

Obviously there is a whole world of scholarship and church practice which has formed my views. I am simply acknowledging that there are different views, and this is the one I find convincing.

Remind me what is out of context given my explanation?

I am saying that people who read Paul's words as absolute prohibition on women leading, teaching, ministering, etc., do so ignoring the wider context of Paul's attitudes towards women, as demonstrated throughout his letters.

2) Present day church services benefit from order, rather than confusion as implemented by Paul with authority. v 1-33.

Allowing the ministry of women does not necessarily lead to confusion, though.

My offering to discuss free will was a separate topic choice, given that you seem quite capable and articulate and therefore quite enjoyable. But the lack of logical, rational thought when good opposing ideas are put forth would lead me to rescind the offer.

Once again, just because someone has a different perspective, or doesn't present it the way you expect, doesn't mean it's illogical or irrational. But whatever; I'd rather not have the conversation than have it with someone who will become accusatory every time we disagree.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I find this part of your post very telling. Who is the overlord that is tyrannical? None of us have our fate in our own hands. That is the whole point of the Gospel.

If any man come after me, let him first deny himself and follow in my footsteps.

It’s one thing to claim the Catholic Church is unscriptural, it is another to prove it. If you refuse to prove it, that becomes at best distraction and at worst slander, both of which are gravely sinful

If we deny ourselves, then who do we look to for truth except the Church Christ established by His own words? The word in the psalms say, Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.

The apostolic teaching of that Church is found in the Demonstration of the Apostolic teaching by Iraneus in the second century, paragraph 96.

We do not tithe because everything belongs to God, we do not keep sabbath because Christ is continually with us, we need not say do not commit adultery because it is absurd for a man that has denied himself to desire the wife of another. We need not say do not kill, as it is absurd for one that loves his enemies and mortifies the deeds of the flesh to ever wish the death or misfortune of another

The law is not overthrown, rather fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

If one is following Christ, I have no doubt that Iraneus when he wrote those things ment, believe and practiced everything he said. But it is completely different things for a person 1900 years later to ascribe that to himself or to the Catholic Church which does not.

 

[tall73]

I have thought long on this. And my conclusion is that I am wrong. I still question whether Phebe spoke because 'diakonon' could be a minister and it could be a servant. However, that is beside the point given that, as you would say, Junia, being an apostle, and more especially, Anna, being a prophetess would be somewhat certain to have speaking roles.

So, how do we marry these two in what is 'inerrant scripture'. The only way I see how is that in the early church, with Christ having fewer followers at the time, both women and men were called by grace to spread the gospel. But then, once churches were established and Paul begins his letters, restrictions begin to be implemented. Remember, Paul is writing 1 Corinthians around 54 AD, and whilst the church is hungering and thirsting for the word, it is still in some confusion of practice and there are some home churches still.

You referred to a prophetess having a speaking role. In the same letter he refers to women prophesying:

1 Corinthians 11:3-5​

3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. (NKJV)​

And at a later date we have Philip's daughter's prophesying:

​

Acts 21:7-9 7 And when we had finished our voyage from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, greeted the brethren, and stayed with them one day. 8 On the next day we who were Paul’s companions departed and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. (NKJV)​

You may need to re-think this solution of later order imposed. Or you may need to differentiate prophecy from other roles.

 

[tall73]

So, how do we marry these two in what is 'inerrant scripture'. The only way I see how is that in the early church, with Christ having fewer followers at the time, both women and men were called by grace to spread the gospel. But then, once churches were established and Paul begins his letters, restrictions begin to be implemented.

You seem to acknowledge at least that women helped spread the gospel at one point. This is affirmed in Philippians, which is quite likely to have been written after I Corinthians as well, given Paul's imprisonment, where he receives support from the Philippians.

Philippians 4:2-3 2 I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life. (NKJV)​

​

Not only does he speak of women who were his fellow laborers in the past, but he also calls on the whole church to work as one for the gospel in the present:​

​

Philippians 1:27 27 Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, (NKJV)​

​

As various members of apostolic churches who see a restriction on female priests have indicated, there are still roles for women to share the gospel.​

​

Now that you are trying to reconcile all the texts, continue to look at these things, and let us know your thoughts.​

​

​

 

[tall73]

But then, once churches were established and Paul begins his letters, restrictions begin to be implemented. Remember, Paul is writing 1 Corinthians around 54 AD, and whilst the church is hungering and thirsting for the word, it is still in some confusion of practice and there are some home churches still.

Romans almost certainly was written after I Corinthians, as Paul is speaking of going beyond the areas he has before in mission even to Spain.

Yet even there he is still referring to Aquila and Priscilla as his fellow workers:

Romans 16:3-5 3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. (NKJV)​

​

They have been a blessing to the churches of the gentiles, and continue to have a church meeting in their house.

Priscilla is also a case of a woman joining in teaching a man, which figures into your other discussion, though this would have happened prior to I Corinthians, as Apollos was one of the ministers that had labored among the Corinthians referred to in I Corinthians.

Acts 18:24-26 24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (NKJV)​

​

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If one is following Christ, I have no doubt that Iraneus when he wrote those things ment, believe and practiced everything he said. But it is completely different things for a person 1900 years later to ascribe that to himself or to the Catholic Church which does not.

That is your opinion and personal judgement of the Church. I am sure that you believe that you are justified in your analysis, even though you are incorrect. Did not Jesus say that the enemy would sow tares in His wheat field?

Did Our Lord authorize His sheep to leave the field and start a new one, once the enemy had sown those tares? We both know the answer is no. What gives man a right to judge God’s Church and build one of his own? No scripture that I have read

The Catholic Church maintains the Apostolic teaching in the Catechism if one looks for it. Protestants have never reformed the Catholic Church. They rather have abandoned her and built their own and could not maintain integrity, as we have so many splits that there are over 30,000 Protestant sects. All like sheep have gone astray, each going their own way. What has been accomplished? The Church is abandoned and Christ’s sacraments have been abandoned.

I used to believe the Protestant logic that the sacraments are not real, but just symbolic. I also bought the line that the Catholic Church is corrupt and full of selfish people that do not care about God. I had many examples, as I am sure that you do, that lead me to bekeive that was true. I concluded that the Catholic Church is unbiblical, and felt very self righteous in that assessment.

It was in coming to Christian Forums all those years ago in 2003 that I found that there was nothing unbiblical in Catholic Church teaching. If it is not unbiblical, then why did I abandon her?
I tried to come back then, but was not ready to accept all Church teaching. I still thought that I knew better. It was not until that God, in His mercy, showed me that I had not denied myself.

Due to selfishness, I was ineligible for the Catholic sacraments. I was baptized, but that could be received only once, there is no rebaptism. I could go to confession, but if I maintained my sinful state what was I confessing? I was forbidden to take the Eucharist.

It was not until I denied myself and submitted to the full authority of the Church that I was able to receive the Eucharist once more. When I did, the grace of God came upon me and the sin that so easily beset me was gone.

I finally understood Peter’s words in the bread of life discourse when Our Lord asked him, will you abandon me also? Lord, where else would we go? You alone have the words of eternal life.
Christ said this IS my body, this is the cup of the new covenant poured out in my blood
I know those words are true because Satan does not cast out Satan and the peace that passes understanding is not given to the wicked

You can try to say that the Catholic Church is unbiblical but it does not make it true. Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity are in the bread of life that He feeds us through the Holy Spirit at each Mass. Where else shall I go?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I didn't say that, though. As far as I know, she did not publicly advocate for women's ordination. She does, however, stand as an interesting example of a woman with a clear sense of vocation.

The insinuation that women who seek to pursue their vocations do so out of selfish ambition is becoming very tiresome.

Therese’s vocation was not to the priesthood. Have you read her whole life story?

A true vocation is one of self denial and complete humility, not presumption or pride

It is not an insinuation when you made the argument with your own words.

 

[Paidiske]

A true vocation is one of self denial and complete humility, not presumption or pride

And again, there is no more of presumption or pride in a woman's vocation to priesthood, than there is in a man's.

It is not an insinuation when you made the argument with your own words.

I did not make such an argument; but you keep presenting it that way.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

You make accusations Mr Adventist heretic, yet offer no proof, only your opinion. You make an accusation that the Catholic Church is the harlot of Babylon. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you study the Catechism, or were you just told some gossip and you believed it?

my views are Standard SDA Protestant views. if you want to know them go hang out in the SDA section. I have neither the time nor the desire to explaining all the ends and outs of SDA Theology. one basic truth of it I will explain 666 applies in the OT only to God's representative and people Solomon 666, 1 Kings 10 and 2 Chronicle 9, also Ezra 2. and is associated with false worship Daniel 2 statute 600,60,60 and Violent oppression of God's people in Goliath. 600,60,6 1 Sam 17

You can fight if you like but it will accomplish nothing. I already know that Christ has told me that I would be hated by all men for His name’s sake. I do not hate you back, as I believe that you are deceived.

Great, go be a marytar you are not hated your rejected, because of Sin and error. there is a difference you are wrong and play the victim, you said I was deceived because I do accept your claims. What person would accept the claims of a complete stranger on the internet.

God loves you, because His love is constant and cannot change. He has given us free will, so we can choose to accept or reject His love. That is all we have, our will. We are promised nothing of the things of this world and are told to detach our hearts from them. Love not your life unto death and you will be given a crown of life

i have not rejected his love and this is not acceptable, I have rejected your claims to absolute authority apart from God's word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit

Scripture tells us that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. He has given you the gift of life and will not take it back.

It is an acccusation of Satan that God is imperfect and a tyrant, so He will destroy what He has created. The souls in hell are not hated by God. They are there because they refused the eternal love of God. It is a diabolical lie the there is no eternal torment for the wicked. It insults the love and justice of God

I am not saying God is a tyrant I am saying the Church is because it has false teaching like eternal torment. that says God will make you in to eternal barbeque if you don't worship Him. How can one accept such non-sense. Hell is very clearly a place of Darkness, This is very clear in the OT. The fact that the Jews, from which Christianity come from does not teach this should tell you something. and the facts that the Greeks and Roman do should tell you something. I don't want your version of God, you can keep it.

It’s also a lie that God is unjust to punish for eternity things that happen in time, as time is finite and finite actions do not warrant eternal torment. Again it is a false argument

It is a false doctrine. And a Lie about God, keep that evil non-sence to yourself.

God does not punish for eternity acts that are committed in time. God gives us space to repent of all of those and is ever waiting to help us if we ask. John 3:17 says he who believes not is condemned already because he has not believed on the only Son of God. We are not punished eternally for acts commited in finite time. We are condemned eternally for rejecting eternal truth. Jesus Christ is love and He is the truth. Eternal separation from eternal truth is eternal punishment. God gives us space to repent of sin, if we refuse His gift we cannot be with him and will suffer eternal separation. Why do you think it is called a place of whaling and gnashing of teeth?

You may believe that there is no eternal torment, but when you face the eternal love and glory of God, you will see the truth I pray that you repent while you have time

This type of communication is unwelcome and off topic. please get back on topic or leave. this violate the Flaming and Goading rules. Implying I am not a Christian

 

[RileyG]

@Paidiske If it's ok to ask (I don't know how Anglicanism works, since I am a Catholic)

Do your parishioners refer to you ask Mother ______ or Rev. _________ or simply [first name]?

What if it was a MALE priest? Is he referred to ask Father last name?

God bless

 

[Paidiske]

@Paidiske If it's ok to ask (I don't know how Anglicanism works, since I am a Catholic)

Do your parishioners refer to you ask Mother ______ or Rev. _________ or simply [first name]?

What if it was a MALE priest? Is he referred to ask Father last name?

Customs vary in different places, and in different parishes. In Australia, our culture is pretty informal generally, and in most parishes I've been in, most parishioners have been on a first name basis with their priests. In some, particularly more high church or catholic places, they use Father and Mother. In the first parish I ministered in, where I was the assistant, there was already a culture of the priest being Father, so he insisted on me being Mother, so that nobody would think I was "less" for being a woman (or the assistant).

Mostly I get Rev. from funeral directors and in the school, where the kids are taught to call me Rev. Firstname.

The title is useful for things like formal and written communication, but in everyday life it's mostly not the done thing. But in other parts of the world it would be very different!

 

[David Lamb]

@Paidiske If it's ok to ask (I don't know how Anglicanism works, since I am a Catholic)

Do your parishioners refer to you ask Mother ______ or Rev. _________ or simply [first name]?

What if it was a MALE priest? Is he referred to ask Father last name?

God bless

Anglicanism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs, from Evangelical (sometimes referred to as "Low Church") through to almost Roman Catholic ("High Church" or "Anglo-Catholic"). Low church people don't use terms like "priest" and "Father", whereas High Church people do.

 

[Paidiske]

Low church people don't use terms like "priest" and "Father", whereas High Church people do.

Low church people might generally refer to their parish priest as a "minister" or the like, but even they observe the distinction between the three orders of ministry, and will use priest in that context.

 

[David Lamb]

Low church people might generally refer to their parish priest as a "minister" or the like, but even they observe the distinction between the three orders of ministry, and will use priest in that context.

Well, all I can say is that none of the low church Anglicans I have ever known talks/talked about "priests" in their churches. Maybe some do.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

And again, there is no more of presumption or pride in a woman's vocation to priesthood, than there is in a man's.

I did not make such an argument; but you keep presenting it that way.

You think that way because you are in denial.
Human nature is such that people who are doing wrong never admit that their plan and goal are wrong.
What you said was that limiting opportunities and lack of education is oppression. That is a revolutionary spirit and not one of godly humility.

The Bible tells us over and over again to humble ourselves, deny ourselves and mortify the deeds of our flesh. It never says to rise up against oppression, whether real or perceived.

What part of love your enemies, and do good to those that persecute you makes sense for a matriarchal revolution, which has taken place these past 200 years?

Are you going to tell God that He called you to violate His own commands and rise up like Cain, rather than submit like Our Blessed Mother?

Psychology shows us that women have tremendous power over men, when they act like women. It is the same story everywhere as beauty and the beast. The savage man can be tamed by the beautiful feminine woman.

When a woman discards her femininity and endeavors to act like a man, in the ironic name of feminism, she encounters resistance and instead of soothing, she spreads chaos, strife and agony.
By rebelling against her God created role and saying not so Lord, she can very easily reject most men and increase her demand for more manly worthiness for her attention

Most men cannot measure up, and this leaves about 80% of men being rejected by women or having to submit to some form of female domination. No, I am not a whiny involuntary celebate that does not get a second look from a woman. I am blessed to be part of the 1% and could have many choices of women, but I choose to obey God, love my wife and give myself for her

This does not spread the fruit of the Spirit but rather increases strife. You have tunnel vision because you think your vocation spreads the fruit of the Spirit, which may seem so in your limited world, but the world is burning down around you, yet you claim innocence. You say it is not me, Lord. I am called to serve you. It’s those evil men, whose yolk I threw off, that are burning the world. It’s not my fault that it happened. We just have to wait until the bad men kill themselves and blow each other up, so that only I and people like me will remain to live the peaceful life I envision

That vision does not come from God. Jesus tells us to deny ourselves and rejoice in persecution for righteousness. He says to love our enemies and pray. Resist not evil, but overcome evil with good. No command of God says to throw off 1900 years of Church history and do your own thing because you know better. God instead calls us to obedience not revolution

We have the Bible against you and now even secular psychology is aligning against the feminist ideology. Overall feminism has brought evil to society. Hard core believers will still insist we have not seen real feminism because we have not yet completely overthrown the patriarchy, just as naive leftists insist that we have not seen real communism despite its failure in every country in which it is tried and more death following it than had been seen in the history of the Earth

Which command of God allows you to throw off perceived oppression? Where does He say to revolt and ignore all of His instruction in self denial?
You try to look at ancient history and imprint your view on it, despite their being no feminist teaching in the first 1900 years of the Church

 

[Paidiske]

What you said was that limiting opportunities and lack of education is oppression. That is a revolutionary spirit and not one of godly humility.

Jesus said that he came that we might have life to the full. Limiting opportunities and education is the exact opposite of that. Working to overcome those limitations therefore aligns with Christ's purpose and reign. If it's revolutionary, it's the revolution of the Kingdom of God.

The Bible tells us over and over again to humble ourselves, deny ourselves and mortify the deeds of our flesh. It never says to rise up against oppression, whether real or perceived.

Isaiah says (emphasis mine):

"Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
plead for the widow."

And Jeremiah says:

"Execute justice in the morning,
and deliver from the hand of the oppressor
anyone who has been robbed,
or else my wrath will go forth like fire,
and burn, with no one to quench it,
because of your evil doings."

The song of Judith rejoices:

"Then my oppressed people shouted;
my weak people cried out, and the enemy trembled;
they lifted up their voices, and the enemy were turned back."

Ecclesiasticus:

"Rescue the oppressed from the oppressor;
and do not be hesitant in giving a verdict."

And in the New Testament, Luke has Jesus reading Isaiah:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour."

And that is just looking for the exact word oppression, before looking at the wider theme of justice.

What part of love your enemies, and do good to those that persecute you makes sense for a matriarchal revolution, which has taken place these past 200 years?

I reject the idea that we have had a "matriarchal revolution." However, I would argue that feminism as a movement has done more good for the people caught in the structures it has sought to change, than many more violent revolutions. Because patriarchy actually isn't really healthy for anyone, even men.

When a woman discards her femininity ...

I'd be fascinated to know exactly how you define femininity, and if it is reflective of full humanity.

Most men cannot measure up, and this leaves about 80% of men being rejected by women or having to submit to some form of female domination.

Amazing how equality can feel like being dominated, when you're used to entitlement and power.

This does not spread the fruit of the Spirit but rather increases strife.

Systematically limiting and disempowering women can hardly be considered loving them.

You have tunnel vision because you think your vocation spreads the fruit of the Spirit, which may seem so in your limited world, but the world is burning down around you, yet you claim innocence. You say it is not me, Lord. I am called to serve you. It’s those evil men, whose yolk I threw off, that are burning the world. It’s not my fault that it happened. We just have to wait until the bad men kill themselves and blow each other up, so that only I and people like me will remain to live the peaceful life I envision

Well, that's a fascinating peek into dystopian terror. If the world is burning down, it is not doing so more than at other times in history. But I'm not blaming men, as a group, for the world's problems.

If we want to look at the world's problems, we might note that the leading cause of death worldwide is ischaemic heart disease, contributed to by poor diet, air pollution, and smoking. Those are issues we could tackle through economic and policy means, if we had the will, but I'm not particularly blaming men, or patriarchy, for them.

Overall feminism has brought evil to society.

It's so terrible that now women can be educated, and be employed, can hold property in their own right, can leave an abusive husband, can have a say in their own government. Appalling. I don't know why we ever thought it would be good for women to be treated as better than property.

Which command of God allows you to throw off perceived oppression?

I would argue that the pursuit of justice is absolutely part of loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength; and loving your neighbour as yourself. How can you say you love God, and yet allow the degradation of God's image-bearer to continue unchallenged?

You try to look at ancient history and imprint your view on it, despite their being no feminist teaching in the first 1900 years of the Church

The word "feminism" itself is so new as to be anachronistic in much of church history, it's true. But the basic principles - that God created humankind, male and female, in God's image; and that Christ has redeemed humankind, male and female, into full participation in the Kingdom of God - are not new at all.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

oppression - to keep in an subservient position and treat unfairly.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

there are different phases of feminism
1. first wave feminism - pre voting right , no equal rights and women as property- fight for right to participate in government and normal life. fight for self-determanation, I decide for my self, not father and not husband.
2. Second Ave feminism - post voting right - equal pay, equal opportunity, self-determination say in choice of marriage. - fight is for equal opportunity and access, equal voice
3. Third wave feminism- Divorce at will, bodily autonomy, reproductive right, option to be pro-choice. Sexual liberation. fight is against the patrararcy and the order that support it. That being Christiantiy.
4. Fourth wave feminism - current. Men are the problem get rid of them, oppress men by denying them access to Jobs and education and say in the home and in society. this is the under 35 crowd. Men have no place in society. "We don't need men". Rise of the Lesbian class and the encouragement of homosexuality. and promsicuity

 

[Paidiske]

3. Third wave feminism- Divorce at will, bodily autonomy, reproductive right, option to be pro-choice. Sexual liberation. fight is against the patrararcy and the order that support it. That being Christiantiy.
4. Fourth wave feminism - current. Men are the problem get rid of them, oppress men by denying them access to Jobs and education and say in the home and in society. this is the under 35 crowd. Men have no place in society. "We don't need men". Rise of the Lesbian class and the encouragement of homosexuality. and promsicuity

It's true that there are different waves of feminism, but arguing that they are "against Christianity," or for the oppression of men, and so on, is a gross distortion.

There has been robust and profoundly Scripturally based Christian feminist scholarship through these decades, for a start. (And, I might note, not just in the English speaking world; but French scholars have contributed significantly). Elizabeth Johnson's book, The Strength of Her Witness, might be a good place to start deepening understanding of that part of the discourse.