women as priests

Paidiske said:

I don't know it, so I can't really comment.

Click to expand...

Well.........if you ever get the time to buy and read the book, I'd surely enjoy hearing your critique of it. Of course, I can just as easily find and read some book reviews of it and get something from those, but being that you're already coming from an egalitarian position, as does Kroeger, it'd certainly be interesting to see what your evaluation of her work may be and where it might be improved.

While I have one review of her work in a book from John Stott, but even though his brief comments were useful, I think he all too quickly declined from her thesis. In searching the web, I've found a review that's more accessible and fairly brief and can give you a taste of the contents of Kroeger's book, written as it was on behalf of Christian women everywhere (or in the pulpit):

Paidiske said:

A couple of things in the early portion, in particular, are that she discusses OT priests, and ecclesiastical priesthood as it developed after about the third century, but skips right over NT and very early church elders, despite that being an important part of the Anglican understanding of priesthood.

I also thought it would have been worth mentioning the ordination to the priesthood of Florence Li Tim-Oi during WWII, and how that shaped the discussion that Lewis was participating in. It's hard for me to imagine that Lewis wrote his paper unaware of Tim-Oi and the aftermath of her ordination, or that he would have failed to see his paper as a contribution to that wider discussion.

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about Florence Li Tim-Oi, so I'll look this context up in the next day or two and add what I find to my current understanding. Thank you for your added insight where Winslow's article is lacking. I appreciate that!

2PhiloVoid said:

Well.........if you ever get the time to buy and read the book, I'd surely enjoy hearing your critique of it.

Click to expand...

I'm currently in the pre-Easter phase of the year where I have no spare time for anything (except, apparently, forum discussions; I suppose everyone has their weaknesses), but I will try to remember to find some headspace for it after Christ has risen.

Paidiske said:

I'm currently in the pre-Easter phase of the year where I have no spare time for anything (except, apparently, forum discussions; I suppose everyone has their weaknesses), but I will try to remember to find some headspace for it after Christ has risen.

Click to expand...

That's completely understandable, Paidiske.

I do not find this post to be from a Christian point of view.

One of the major assertions, is that God changes his law, as people change.
This is too undefined and fudgy, to be called Christian.

Another assertion is that the people of God, is not perfect, (therefore)
God must keep changing his moral/ethical standards. This is not a
Christian doctrine.

Jesus commands us to be perfect, as hi Heavenly Father is perfect.
This is a goal, and we must change to meet it.
It is not God's job, to change the requirements for his people, because
some people think that God's concept of perfection is not practical.

These are basic points in the original post, which do not match
core Christian doctrines.

I find all sorts of assertions in the original post, that are not
demonstrated by the person posting.

Paidiske said:

Indeed, which is important, because some people try to argue that only men are made in God's image. But humanity - men and women - is in God's image.

Click to expand...

I would go even further to say the Imago Dei is so vast that it is manifested diversely in each of the 7+ billion people alive on the planet today AND then manifested even more diversely in the Imago Christi found in every Christian (we bear the image of God twice). Seven billion people, no two alike. Every single one of them made in God's image but no two alike. Relevant to this op, that means we, those in Christ, are to see that image in everyone we meet and conduct ourselves accordingly, especially with those in the Church. God put His image in each individual for His purpose (not our own). Four billion image-bearing people inside the seven billion image-bearing people and half of them are women.

But women can't be priests/ministers/ pastors?


Has anyone read the Bible and given actual thought to what it states AND exemplifies?


While my intent it not provoke, because I know these next statements are likely to do so I will even stir things up some more. Tanakh is always correct, but Judaism was/is often incorrect! Judaism interpreted scripture in ways the New Testament tells us were incorrect. For example, Jesus frequently prefaced his teachings with, "You have heard it said........ BUT I say..................." and then he corrects the understanding of his audience. That "understanding" was not understanding. It wasn't accurate. It was not correct. It was wrong. Their views did not exist spontaneously. They arrived at that misguided view through centuries of equally misguided bad teaching - religious teaching. Furthermore, Jesus does not simply correct their misunderstanding, he restored the true meaning of the scripture, what Tanakh had been intended by God to say, mean, and direct. Jesus did not teach something that was so much new, and it was restored. The most significant error, of course, was the nature of the Messiah. The long-awaited Messiah stood right in front of them doing ALL the things prophesied and they looked Jesus right in the face and denied his ontology. Denying his existence as the Messiah wasn't sufficient; they plotted to violate their own Law and murder the Messiah and do so in egregiously violent and depraved manner. It makes what Westboro Baptist did look amateurish. They thought the Messiah should look one way and refused to acknowledge the reality AND the chief reason and vehicle for doing so was their religion*. They also got the priesthood wrong, the monarchy wrong, the temple wrong, and their own identity wrong (there's more but this should suffice). They segregated and excluded women in ways God never did. In the New Testament we find a restored view that began with women being the first witnesses, the first teachers, the first apostles of the resurrection AND they did so at God's hand in elevation over the men.

Were I among the eleven I'd feel embarrassed. I'm not shy, but I know I would have been like them and fled despondently to my own shame and chagrin. I'd like to think I'd be thankful to hear from those women, filled with gratitude God saw fit to use them..... and use their example as motivation to do better.










*I say "chief" because the fact is the full weight of divine providence and prophetic necessity came to bear down on them in that era.
.

KisKatte said:

I do not believe in a perfect book, because God existed also before the bible existed and there is no perfect church neither a perfect book. We should also be capable to think logically for our own. So tell me just your since opinion. Would you like women as priests if this is a capable woman?

Click to expand...

What does the existence (or lack thereof) of a perfect book have to do with whether or not women can be priests?

2PhiloVoid said:

Well.........if you ever get the time to buy and read the book, I'd surely enjoy hearing your critique of it. Of course, I can just as easily find and read some book reviews of it and get something from those, but being that you're already coming from an egalitarian position, as does Kroeger, it'd certainly be interesting to see what your evaluation of her work may be and where it might be improved.

While I have one review of her work in a book from John Stott, but even though his brief comments were useful, I think he all too quickly declined from her thesis. In searching the web, I've found a review that's more accessible and fairly brief and can give you a taste of the contents of Kroeger's book, written as it was on behalf of Christian women everywhere (or in the pulpit):

I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timoty 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence - The Gospel Coalition

The discussion of 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in relationship to the place of women in ministry continues unabated. Richard Kroeger (a retired pastor) and Catherine Kroeger (founder and President of Christians for Biblical Equality) have produced a fascinating and important contribution to that...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

​

​

I hadn't heard about Florence Li Tim-Oi, so I'll look this context up in the next day or two and add what I find to my current understanding. Thank you for your added insight where Winslow's article is lacking. I appreciate that!

Click to expand...

I think it worth noting 1) the 1 Timothy 2 passage is not limited to just verse 11-15 (it continues onto the next chapter), 2) all the examples given by Paul are of married women. If we kept to the context given by Paul (and we assume his examples were provided to him by the Holy Spirit on purpose) then the context is married women, not all women, and married women whose husbands also serve in the Church. There are no single, widowed, or otherwise unmarried women in any of his precedents. Granted, the norm for his era was that of men and women marrying at a very young age but Paul (and the HS) could easily have incorporated one example of an unmarried woman to cover that base if they intended to his words to be applied to all women.

A third point is that the 1 Tim. 2-3 passage is about elders (bishop, overseers, deacons, administrator, episkopon, diakonos, etc.) not priests. Upon what basis would we take the specified role of an elder and then (over-)generalize it to any other leadership rule like that of the priest? Remember: the NT Church did not have priests like the Jews, and neither did they have priests like we have today (especially in the liturgical congregations within Christ's body. There many "offices" of leadership (like those listed in Ephesians 4) and only one office is specified in Paul's letter to Timothy.

Stephen3141 said:

I do not find this post to be from a Christian point of view.

One of the major assertions, is that God changes his law, as people change.
This is too undefined and fudgy, to be called Christian.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, but it's clear from Scripture that God changes his actions.

In Moses' time, he "lived" in a tabernacle; the Israelites literally believed they were carrying God around with them.
Solomon built a temple, with a Holy of Holies, and the tabernacle was not mentioned again.
The temple was destroyed a couple of times; it has never been rebuilt.
Today, Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit. God himself lives IN us.

In Moses' time they had to offer animal sacrifices for their sin.
Today we have Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Moses was told that he couldn't see God's face - other folk also believed that if the looked at God they would die.
When Jesus came, many people looked at him.

God himself once said to Isaiah, "see I am doing a NEW thing."

Calling women to be ordained is not even an entirely new thing - God has always called, chosen and used women.

KisKatte said:

Halo,

I want to know your opinions. Your sincere personal opinions.

God allowed divorce because of the hardened hearts of the men/husbands. Only because of that. So the law has a SENSE OF MEANING and is not for the bad but for the good. And if time change, the law is changed by God, too! And also it is written in the scripture that the letter is killing (= the written law), that instead we should be from the spirit! Yes it is written that women should shout their mouths in the church. But also it is written in the bible that also the daughters, not only the sons, will make prophecy in the future. Times are hard. Many priests for example are loyal to the aggressors if the aggressor is a man and do not allow the abused women to divorce. This is only one example. Yes a women priest can be lead out of the right path in DETAILS but in general I believe because of the abuse of power of man, wich did NOT stop in front of the church doors, we need women as priests. Also I do not believe in a too great difference between women and men. Maybe not EVERY woman should become clergy member. But some should for sure. Also only Paul the apostel, who first was chasing the christians wrote against women. Possibly at THAT time women were not capable to become clergy or even only the specific place Paul addressed his letter to. Now is another time. Another apostle writes there is no difference between men and women.

I do not believe in a perfect book, because God existed also before the bible existed and there is no perfect church neither a perfect book. We should also be capable to think logically for our own. So tell me just your since opinion. Would you like women as priests if this is a capable woman?

Click to expand...

Hi. My it thought when this topic comes up is. ‘If you have a problem with it all sorry mate its Your problem ,deal with it. ‘. Pray).
I do believe biblically that a ‘One man ministry’ is very unbiblical, always.
The three fold ministry is wisdom in action.

Paidiske said:

I'm currently in the pre-Easter phase of the year where I have no spare time for anything (except, apparently, forum discussions; I suppose everyone has their weaknesses), but I will try to remember to find some headspace for it after Christ has risen.

Click to expand...

He has risen &we are alive in Him, if we are born-again

Josheb said:

I think it worth noting 1) the 1 Timothy 2 passage is not limited to just verse 11-15 (it continues onto the next chapter), 2) all the examples given by Paul are of married women. If we kept to the context given by Paul (and we assume his examples were provided to him by the Holy Spirit on purpose) then the context is married women, not all women, and married women whose husbands also serve in the Church. There are no single, widowed, or otherwise unmarried women in any of his precedents. Granted, the norm for his era was that of men and women marrying at a very young age but Paul (and the HS) could easily have incorporated one example of an unmarried woman to cover that base if they intended to his words to be applied to all women.

A third point is that the 1 Tim. 2-3 passage is about elders (bishop, overseers, deacons, administrator, episkopon, diakonos, etc.) not priests. Upon what basis would we take the specified role of an elder and then (over-)generalize it to any other leadership rule like that of the priest? Remember: the NT Church did not have priests like the Jews, and neither did they have priests like we have today (especially in the liturgical congregations within Christ's body. There many "offices" of leadership (like those listed in Ephesians 4) and only one office is specified in Paul's letter to Timothy.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those are all goods points and seem copacetic with what Catherine Kroeger and her husband talk about in their book, as well as with the more general info I find in various commentaries. Thanks for adding these notes in! It's good for folks here to remember these points, especially skeptical ones, so they don't feel like they're justified straight off in drop-kicking our faith on the count of misunderstanding Paul's directives about women (or wives) in 1 Timothy (or 1 Corinthians).

As for the "priestess" nomenclature, I know you're technically correct, and being that I'm neither Protestant nor Catholic, and for the fact that I'm just not a big stickler on the exacting nuances of Church polity being that I'm simply a philosopher, I leave it up to each denomination and their respective churches to define it for themselves. I suppose that if I really wanted to get into nitty-gritty detail about Church leadership, then I'd pull out my sources on Ecclesiology and go to town. But I get what you're saying in regard to the positions among the elders as it applies to the context of 1 Timothy.

... In relevance to this thread, however, I just happen to think women could be a part of all of that, even if on a more infrequently expected basis.

Josheb said:

A third point is that the 1 Tim. 2-3 passage is about elders (bishop, overseers, deacons, administrator, episkopon, diakonos, etc.) not priests. Upon what basis would we take the specified role of an elder and then (over-)generalize it to any other leadership rule like that of the priest? Remember: the NT Church did not have priests like the Jews, and neither did they have priests like we have today (especially in the liturgical congregations within Christ's body. There many "offices" of leadership (like those listed in Ephesians 4) and only one office is specified in Paul's letter to Timothy.

Click to expand...

I would point out, again, that contemporary Christian priests are functioning in the NT office of elder. The very word "priest" is a contraction of the NT Greek word for elder.

But it is true that if one sees this text as prohibiting women from serving as elders, that does not preclude us from serving in other roles.

2PhiloVoid said:

Yeah, those are all goods points and seem copacetic with what Catherine Kroeger and her husband talk about in their book, as well as with the more general info I find in various commentaries. Thanks for adding these notes in! It's good for folks here to remember these points, especially skeptical ones, so they don't feel like they're justified straight off in drop-kicking our faith on the count of misunderstanding Paul's directives about women (or wives) in 1 Timothy (or 1 Corinthians).

As for the "priestess" nomenclature, I know you're technically correct, and being that I'm neither Protestant nor Catholic, and for the fact that I'm just not a big stickler on the exacting nuances of Church polity being that I'm simply a philosopher, I leave it up to each denomination and their respective churches to define it for themselves. I suppose that if I really wanted to get into nitty-gritty detail about Church leadership, then I'd pull out my sources on Ecclesiology and go to town. But I get what you're saying in regard to the positions among the elders as it applies to the context of 1 Timothy.

... In relevance to this thread, however, I just happen to think women could be a part of all of that, even if on a more infrequently expected basis.

Click to expand...

Kroeger? meh Scripture? Definitely. I don't find Kroeger's liberal theology and liberal interpretations of the scripture valid, veracious, or correct. When she sticks to the actual text she's okay but, despite her Gordon-Conwell training, has been too influenced by the culture. There are many extra-biblical sources to support what I posted (and many in dissent), and I could have appealed to any of them.

But if we actually believe scripture is authoritative and sufficient for tasks like this op's query, then we should post accordingly. Appeals to Kroeger run the risk of fallacy (appeals to authority) and divide. If we found/find agreement, then let it be with God's word and not each other or some other teacher.

Paidiske said:

I would point out, again, that contemporary Christian priests are functioning in the NT office of elder. The very word "priest" is a contraction of the NT Greek word for elder.

Click to expand...

I disagree.


There is a lot about today's common congregational practices that is different and/or inconsistent with NT era practices, but that does not mean all of our modern changes are wrong, unscriptural, or disobedience. For example, the premise one specific purpose is, should be, and can be responsible for the spiritual well-being and growth of every individual in a large group of people we call a "congregation" is nowhere found in the NT. Buildings, stages, pulpits, podiums or lecterns, and special gowns or backwards collars are all extra-biblical and nowhere present in the NT era. At best they are modelled on the Levitical practice and Old Testament rules and rituals that were done away with by Christ. The unspoken presupposition to this op's inquiry is that a modern "priest" is something legitimate in Christian practice. We live in an information age where everyone here in this forum has access to an eBible and therefore near-instant access to word searches and if anyone bothers to search for the words, "priest" or "priests" in the epistolary (the writings that came after Calvary and Pentecost) they'll readily see those words are found only 33 times - once in Romans (Rom. 15:16), and ALL the rest in the book of Hebrews. "priests" are not something the epistolary spends any time. The only way the question this op asks can be asked is if it is first assumed "priest" is a legitimate, scripture-based, position. The entire thread is built on a presuppositional mistake.

Does that mean the question and its answer cannot be discussed? No! How far would anyone get if I started undermining the foundation of the inquiry to reveal its presuppositional failure? Not far.

The term and the office the epistolary uses for what most of us consider a "priest" is "pastor" or "shepherd." When the question is asked using those terms then the entire foundation, question and the ensuing conversation is changed. Paul lists a handful of "offices" in Ephesians 4:11 = apostle, evangelist, prophet, pastor/shepherd, and teacher. Great abuse has been done to this verse over the centuries, especially in modernity. The idea of a "five-fold ministry" is completely baseless because Paul's list is not exhaustive. There are MANY "offices" Christ has given the Church (like administrator, overseer, etc.) but people prone to proof-texting mishandle scripture and the unknowing and less mature are persuaded. The aforementioned Romans 15:16 verse is informative because in that verse Paul, an apostle, states he is also a minister and a priest. Minister and priest are not in his Ephesians 4 list. Furthermore, it was Paul's practice to submit himself to the local leadership when he visited a local body of believers. His role as apostle and teacher (and minster and priest) had limits. He was not the Grand Poobah.

Sadly, much of modernity has lost track of this - and I say that having been raised in the liturgical pomp and circumstance of the Episcopal Church, and worshipped in a wide array of liturgical environs and non-liturgical ones. I don't grind axes if the pastor happens to be wearing a backwards collar under his blazer, or the minister happens to be wearing robes (unnecessarily for my sake).

You, me, and everyone else in this thread are royal priests and f we ever meet I will show you my bona fides.




Can women lead? Yep. They can be judges, apostles, prophets, and many other things and the only stipulated office I read scripture to specify is that of elder or overseer and that passage appears to be speaking about married women with the implication they can't co-serve with their husbands.

Paidiske said:

But it is true that if one sees this text as prohibiting women from serving as elders, that does not preclude us from serving in other roles.

Click to expand...

Yep. Especially since there are multiple examples in multiple places in scripture where women do lead in a variety of positions.


And I hope @KisKatte has followed the thread because there's a lot of good content here.

Josheb said:

Kroeger? meh Scripture? Definitely. I don't find Kroeger's liberal theology and liberal interpretations of the scripture valid, veracious, or correct.

Click to expand...

Which interpretations of hers are you referring to specifically? I have to ask because if anyone is epistemologically liberal, it's me (although Existential and Realist are the words I prefer to use to describe myself being that I may or may not actually "BE" Liberal in the final wash).

Personally, I don't see all much from Catherine Kroeger that would put her over on the side Feminist Leftists. If anything, she's a moderate on some things, and as it turns out I find she's a bit on the conservative side of things for my taste. But, the world isn't a perfect place and I still appreciate what she and other women theorists and biblical expositors have to offer and bring to the table of hermeneutical discussion. Take the following article from Christianity Today as a case in point. I'm not really seeing any red flags of a Marxist or Liberationist nature indicated in her bibliographic profile. Are seeing any?:


I could be wrong, but I'm almost getting the sense that you haven't actually read the book that I posted for @Paidiske's reference in a previous post above?

Josheb said:

When she sticks to the actual text she's okay but, despite her Gordon-Conwell training, has been too influenced by the culture. There are many extra-biblical sources to support what I posted (and many in dissent), and I could have appealed to any of them.

Click to expand...

Don't you mean to say "should have"? And likewise---there are many extra-biblical sources to support much if not most of what I post on CF in general. In fact, there's very little that I say here on CF that originates merely with myself. I ALWAYS like to be informed by expert informers (usually called "scholars") and I don't intend to stop with that diversified and inter-disciplinary academic angle any time soon.

Josheb said:

But if we actually believe scripture is authoritative and sufficient for tasks like this op's query, then we should post accordingly. Appeals to Kroeger run the risk of fallacy (appeals to authority) and divide. If we found/find agreement, then let it be with God's word and not each other or some other teacher.

Click to expand...

No, I'll post according to the Reality in which we all engage the Bible today in the 21st Century, without pretensions of pulling in or assuming any unfounded insinuations that we HAVE to ABSOLUTELY handle the Bible in a way that only some ultra liberal sector of denominations or a stagnant set of Fundamentalists all too typically insists upon, often in pre-suppositional style for their respective political and/or epistemological preferences.

... besides, this is the CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY & Ethics forum after all, not the "Reformer's Private Club" forum.

Josheb said:

I disagree.

Click to expand...

I am a priest, and I am telling you that my church understands my role as being that of an elder in NT terms. And that that understanding is common across churches which call their clergy "priests."

Josheb said:

For example, the premise one specific purpose is, should be, and can be responsible for the spiritual well-being and growth of every individual in a large group of people we call a "congregation" is nowhere found in the NT.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I would argue that that is not actually our contemporary understanding, either.

Josheb said:

At best they are modelled on the Levitical practice and Old Testament rules and rituals that were done away with by Christ.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'd argue that at least some are mimicking synagogue practice, rather than temple practice. That even quite early, elements of church gatherings were deliberately modelled on synagogue gatherings.

Josheb said:

The unspoken presupposition to this op's inquiry is that a modern "priest" is something legitimate in Christian practice. We live in an information age where everyone here in this forum has access to an eBible and therefore near-instant access to word searches and if anyone bothers to search for the words, "priest" or "priests" in the epistolary (the writings that came after Calvary and Pentecost) they'll readily see those words are found only 33 times - once in Romans (Rom. 15:16), and ALL the rest in the book of Hebrews. "priests" are not something the epistolary spends any time. The only way the question this op asks can be asked is if it is first assumed "priest" is a legitimate, scripture-based, position. The entire thread is built on a presuppositional mistake.

Click to expand...

Again, you are confusing two different senses of the word "priest." The sense you are referring to is the Greek hiereus; and I agree with you that this role does not, and should not, exist in the church today. But the other is the Greek presbyteros, elder, which is actually where we get the word priest (from a contraction of the Greek presbyteros; presbyteros became presbyter, then prester, then priest as English developed), and that role does and should exist in the church today.

Josheb said:

The term and the office the epistolary uses for what most of us consider a "priest" is "pastor" or "shepherd."

Click to expand...

I would agree that contemporary priests are expected to be pastors as well as elders; we have conflated the two in practice. Although it is also possible to have people who exercise a pastoral role without being priests (as deacons, or lay pastors).

2PhiloVoid said:

... besides, this is the CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY & Ethics forum after all, not the "Reformer's Private Club" forum.

Click to expand...

Stow that dross. The only reason I mentioned anything Reformed is because Kroeger's Gordon-Cornwell leans Reformed. Neither was I suggesting she held to Feminist Theology or Liberal Theology in any way related to Marxism, Liberation, or the denial of the historical Jesus. Not Liberal theology, but liberal theology. Big difference.

I'll provide two very brief examples of what I see as problems with Kroeger, and they are problems that are easily corrected, especially by someone of her education and intelligence. In the IVP Women's Commentary Bible Kroeger makes the following two statements, "That woman is called ‘the glory of man’ is not a diminution of her glory, for she is equally made in the image of God. Glory augments the reputation, wealth or status of another. Paul declares that the Thessalonians were his ‘glory and joy,’ (surely not a pejorative term). They are the fulfillment of his aspirations, and his pride and happiness in them know no bounds. Thus, it is that Paul sets forth the interdependence of man and woman and their need for one another," and "Woman was given to complete and fulfill man, to minister to his aloneness." I've edited out the scriptural references so her statements can be read without breaks in them. Both of these statements appear, on their surface, to be correct but a more critical examination shows flaws in both.

In the first case the "glory" in question has nothing to do with the image of God in which both were created. It has nothing to do with diminution. She's made a categorical error with the first and used that categorical error to justify what is otherwise a correct view. She'd have been better off saying the woman being the glory of the man does not preclude her from also being the glory of God or Christ (as is elsewhere reported in scripture). It's sloppy exegesis. The same proves true with the premise woman completes man. That's a very popular notion but it's not scriptural. It furthermore implies God made man incomplete and apart from man a woman has no purpose since the purpose for which she was created was to complete man. The problem of aloneness (not loneliness) is scriptural. This is what I call the problem of "onlyism," or the practice of inserting an "only" into scripture where none exists. It is common, for example, for many to appeal to 1 Jn. 3:4 and say sin is ONLY lawlessness, whether they actually say the word "only" or not. The fact is scripture defines sin in many ways, not one and they do not all have anything to do with the Law of Moses (as some think). It is only in the context of certain relationships (like marriage) where any "completeness" is relevant. This is another example where Kroeger was (partly) correct but her exegesis sloppy. Deborah was not completing a man when she served God as Judge. Deborah's superior place in the hierarchy has nothing to do with the peer-orientation of her being the descendant of a woman made from a rib (and not a head or a toe bone).

Paidiske said:

I am a priest,

Click to expand...

I do not care.

Paidiske said:

and I am telling you that my church understands my role as being that of an elder in NT terms.

Click to expand...

I do not care.

Paidiske said:

And that that understanding is common across churches which call their clergy "priests."

Click to expand...

I do not care.



Appeals to personal anecdotal experience and argumentum ad populum are irrational and meaningless. I could just as easily appeal to my personal experience of examples in large groups of others and all we'd have is competing fallacies.

And do not take my blunt directness as disrespect. Facts don't care about feelings.


If it is agreed that scripture is authoritative in all to which it speaks and it has anything at all to say in answer to the question asked by this op, then all we need is scripture. We do not need anecdotal evidence or appeals to commonality.

Paidiske said:

I agree, but I would argue that that is not actually our contemporary understanding, either.

Click to expand...

Are we now going to get distracted by comparative examples that were never intended to divert us from the topic at hand? Your personal experience may be that your congregation does not hold you responsible for everyone else's spiritual well-being and maturity, but your personal example is not representative of all cases.

Paidiske said:

Actually, I'd argue that at least some are mimicking synagogue practice, rather than temple practice.

Click to expand...

Yep. But the salient point is it has nothing to do with Christian practice evidenced in the New Testament epistolary..... which clearly has women in places of authority, and authority over men.

Paidiske said:

That even quite early, elements of church gatherings were deliberately modelled on synagogue gatherings.

Click to expand...

Relevance to the op?

Paidiske said:

Again, you are confusing...

Click to expand...

I am confusing...?

I am not confusing anything, and this is where we part ways, priest.

Next time say, "it appears the two words or concepts are being confused," and then post the evidence for that perception. Any insinuation I am the one confused or that I am confusing something is ad hominem. Yes, I understand this is the way people commonly post but commonality does not make it correct. Furthermore, any perception I do not already know the meaning of the Greek is incorrect, but you don't read me saying, "You are wrong," or "you are confusing..." or "You are assuming things about me you cannot possibly know unless you're a mind reader." I've done that in this post to show you how it looks and how it feels.

If you don't like it, then don't do it to others.

Just keep the posts about the posts, and not the posters.

Paidiske said:

The sense you are referring to is the Greek hiereus; and I agree with you that this role does not, and should not, exist in the church today. But the other is the Greek presbyteros, elder, which is actually where we get the word priest (from a contraction of the Greek presbyteros; presbyteros became presbyter, then prester, then priest as English developed), and that role does and should exist in the church today.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect, a false equivalence, and self-contradictory. The Greek presbyteros as applied in the first century ecclesia, was NOT equivalent to a modern-day English term priest, or its modern-day application. And furthermore, despite the flawed reasoning, the conclusion is exactly what I said: just because our modern practices are different from NT precedent does not mean they are wrong.

Now count how many times I mentioned "you" in that paragraph. Whether agreeing or disagreeing it is possible and commendable to keep "you" out of the posts, especially in any statement that is or can be read as accusatory (whether intended as such or not). I am fully aware of how presbyteros was used, has changed, and is now used and the idea I don't know or am confused is all on you.

Paidiske said:

I would agree that contemporary priests are expected to be pastors as well as elders; we have conflated the two in practice. Although it is also possible to have people who exercise a pastoral role without being priests (as deacons, or lay pastors).

Click to expand...

What's the topic being discussed in this thread?

Josheb said:

Stow that dross. The only reason I mentioned anything Reformed is because Kroeger's Gordon-Cornwell leans Reformed. Neither was I suggesting she held to Feminist Theology or Liberal Theology in any way related to Marxism, Liberation, or the denial of the historical Jesus. Not Liberal theology, but liberal theology. Big difference.

I'll provide two very brief examples of what I see as problems with Kroeger, and they are problems that are easily corrected, especially by someone of her education and intelligence. In the IVP Women's Commentary Bible Kroeger makes the following two statements, "That woman is called ‘the glory of man’ is not a diminution of her glory, for she is equally made in the image of God. Glory augments the reputation, wealth or status of another. Paul declares that the Thessalonians were his ‘glory and joy,’ (surely not a pejorative term). They are the fulfillment of his aspirations, and his pride and happiness in them know no bounds. Thus, it is that Paul sets forth the interdependence of man and woman and their need for one another," and "Woman was given to complete and fulfill man, to minister to his aloneness." I've edited out the scriptural references so her statements can be read without breaks in them. Both of these statements appear, on their surface, to be correct but a more critical examination shows flaws in both.

In the first case the "glory" in question has nothing to do with the image of God in which both were created. It has nothing to do with diminution. She's made a categorical error with the first and used that categorical error to justify what is otherwise a correct view. She'd have been better off saying the woman being the glory of the man does not preclude her from also being the glory of God or Christ (as is elsewhere reported in scripture). It's sloppy exegesis. The same proves true with the premise woman completes man. That's a very popular notion but it's not scriptural. It furthermore implies God made man incomplete and apart from man a woman has no purpose since the purpose for which she was created was to complete man. The problem of aloneness (not loneliness) is scriptural. This is what I call the problem of "onlyism," or the practice of inserting an "only" into scripture where none exists. It is common, for example, for many to appeal to 1 Jn. 3:4 and say sin is ONLY lawlessness, whether they actually say the word "only" or not. The fact is scripture defines sin in many ways, not one and they do not all have anything to do with the Law of Moses (as some think). It is only in the context of certain relationships (like marriage) where any "completeness" is relevant. This is another example where Kroeger was (partly) correct but her exegesis sloppy. Deborah was not completing a man when she served God as Judge. Deborah's superior place in the hierarchy has nothing to do with the peer-orientation of her being the descendant of a woman made from a rib (and not a head or a toe bone).

Click to expand...

Ok. From what you're saying above, and even though I think you're overdoing it on dismissing Kroeger's arguments as they sit in the specific book that I cited earlier to Paidiske, it sounds like both of us are more or less not against women playing some role(s) in Church Leadership.

With this assumption then, can I take it that we're in general agreement about women's roles in the Church?

Josheb said:

Appeals to personal anecdotal experience and argumentum ad populum are irrational and meaningless.

Click to expand...

When we are discussing the meaning of "priest" in contemporary Christian usage, surely evidence of contemporary Christian understanding is not irrelevant?

Josheb said:

Are we now going to get distracted by comparative examples that were never intended to divert us from the topic at hand? Your personal experience may be that your congregation does not hold you responsible for everyone else's spiritual well-being and maturity, but your personal example is not representative of all cases.

Click to expand...

All cases, no. But again, if we are discussing what the contemporary role of a Christian priest is, then surely the practice and understanding of communities which have priests is relevant?

Josheb said:

That is incorrect, a false equivalence, and self-contradictory. The Greek presbyteros as applied in the first century ecclesia, was NOT equivalent to a modern-day English term priest, or its modern-day application.

Click to expand...

It was not exactly equivalent, I agree; the world has changed, the church has changed, and the way this role is expressed has changed. But modern day Christian priests are functioning in the NT office of elder, even though that office has developed somewhat over the last twenty centuries.