Baptist views on feminism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brad2009

Newbie
Feb 10, 2009
990
163
USA
✟9,437.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
A person can't be a leader and a servant of the church at the same time? Since when?

That's not the implication in any way. How could you possibly get that implication, except just to be contrarian? You say, this word means leader. I say, no this word means servant. You say, pfff, leader can == servent, therefore it still means leader. Its ridiculous.

The statement that Phoebe represents a female leader is not substantiated by the verse as you claim. Neither is it proved in the negative, but the verse you cite does not show Paul's endorsement of female leadership. Its the inference that you draw which does not logically follow.

Looks like the Byzantines had found a very scriptural use for women as servants of the church. But now find the part about how women were commonly the head authorities in that same church...
 
Upvote 0

becareful

Newbie
May 13, 2009
22
1
Arab, AL
✟7,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree. But, you do realise that the reason feminism came about in the first place was because men were abusing their power and women were not afforded the same rights as men. Keep in mind, the feminism I speak of -- and spoke of in my OP -- is first wave feminism, not second wave.

Absolutely... that's addressed in the very next sentence. You're right and I do understand why women needed to organize and it is very important as our secular society would dictate.

Let's consider for a moment why men were abusive to women... because in general there are as many men as there are women. I believe women, as the weaker gender, were more vulnerable to the men who had weak or no faith in God. Has this abuse stopped because of feminism? Because the abuse hasn't stopped... has feminism taken on a new personality and moved from trying to help women... to just outright hatred of men? It could be argued... I'm really saying that feminism was started on a slippery slop and it is sliding...

I would like to know if you think All men were abusing women... or were a few women abused... then a few women decided organize to save All the women from All the men.

Don't get me wrong... I am in no way trying to defend any abuse whatsoever. Abuse is wrong no matter what.

Let me approach it in a different way... if All men and women were acting according to God's plan, do you think there would be a need for feminism?
Do you think that all women want to be feminists?

So feminism is a secular movement. In that I mean... keep it secular. Godly men and Godly women don't need feminism in the home. However, when it is necessary that women to be in the secular world... I don't think there is anything wrong with taking advantage of any secular opportunities that have been provided by feminism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

becareful

Newbie
May 13, 2009
22
1
Arab, AL
✟7,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let's put aside all the asinine "counseling" and lectures about maturity. You're talking over me instead of listening to what I'm trying to say.

1 Timothy 5:1

Maturity and experience are defining qualifications... how did you come to the conclusions that you have? You're trying again to change the rules to fit yourself. Additionally, your quote "asinine counseling" shows your immaturity. Immaturity will then explain how you can't accept counseling.


I understand exactly what you are saying... You are wrong or rather... incomplete.


Have any of you noticed that I never argued against women submitting?

You have said that "women submitting" is illogical, disproportionate, and unreasonable. This would indicate that you are arguing against it.

My main objection of the verse in question is not so much that women should submit but that this verse is only asking women to submit when relationships are a team effort.

This is where you miss the point. I and many others have tried to help you understand that a woman is submissive to the man's AUTHORITY as the head of the household.

In order for a relationship to work, both partners must mutually submit to one another - to be held accountable for each other's actions.

This position, your position, which has not been denied by anybody, is a mutual submission of WILL. Does not directly have anything to do with authority. The very proof of this lies in the experiences of those who are older and have firsthand knowledge. You choose not to accept that maturity and experience are valuable to this discussion.

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

No doubt. However, I'm talking about God's perfect plan not any exceptions. I do accept and agree there are exceptions...


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

It "evens out" only in God's perfect plan... when we as men and as women are doing what God specifies. Please when you are making comparisons... make it "apples to apples." God designed man and woman. Man was not designed to have babies... there is no comparison to being physically stronger... Men are stronger because God made us that way... if we weren't who would protect and take care of women during their pregnancies... and post partum... they are very vulnerable at this time... My point being... there is no way to make that comparison. I totally understand as do most others that man and woman complement each other in their relationship, but your comparisons and conclusions are way off. Your conclusions point directly to your immaturity and inexperience. It is applicable.

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

They are submitting their WILL to each other. This does NOT compete or go against God's plan to have the man be the head of the household.

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

Close, I agree that the table gets moved from one point to the other with the man and woman cooperating... and the table can't move without both... HOWEVER, one or the other is carrying more of the load. In God's plan the man is to carry more of the load. (Not that is just requires more physical strength... it also requires more responsibility.)

You are still only supporting your views from a secular point of view... if this is so illogical, disproportionate, and unreasonable provide a different Biblical point of view that supports your thoughts.

I agree with Brad2009 on the deaconness discussion.

Ringo... you might want to read closely what your Wikipedia says. I would think being a full fledged deaconness... would have ministries for all the church... not just women ministries. This is the only conclusion you can draw from the Wikipedia reference.

Could it be that Paul recognized her as a deaconness... because she was involved in women ministries only? To me this would not conflict with the qualifications of deacons... and still does NOT justify women in church leadership.


God Bless!
becareful
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's not the implication in any way. How could you possibly get that implication, except just to be contrarian? You say, this word means leader. I say, no this word means servant. You say, pfff, leader can == servent, therefore it still means leader. Its ridiculous.

A leader isn't a servant? We don't say that a President is a servant of the people, since he (theoretically, at least) represents them and serves at their pleasure? All servants are not leaders, but all leaders are servants - of whomever it is that they serve.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Let's put aside all the asinine "counseling" and lectures about maturity. You're talking over me instead of listening to what I'm trying to say.

1 Timothy 5:1

Maturity and experience are defining qualifications... how did you come to the conclusions that you have? You're trying again to change the rules to fit yourself. Additionally, your quote "asinine counseling" shows your immaturity. Immaturity will then explain how you can't accept counseling.


I understand exactly what you are saying... You are wrong or rather... incomplete.


Have any of you noticed that I never argued against women submitting?

You have said that "women submitting" is illogical, disproportionate, and unreasonable. This would indicate that you are arguing against it.

My main objection of the verse in question is not so much that women should submit but that this verse is only asking women to submit when relationships are a team effort.

This is where you miss the point. I and many others have tried to help you understand that a woman is submissive to the man's AUTHORITY as the head of the household.

In order for a relationship to work, both partners must mutually submit to one another - to be held accountable for each other's actions.

This position, your position, which has not been denied by anybody, is a mutual submission of WILL. Does not directly have anything to do with authority. The very proof of this lies in the experiences of those who are older and have firsthand knowledge. You choose not to accept that maturity and experience are valuable to this discussion.

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

No doubt. However, I'm talking about God's perfect plan not any exceptions. I do accept and agree there are exceptions...


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

It "evens out" only in God's perfect plan... when we as men and as women are doing what God specifies. Please when you are making comparisons... make it "apples to apples." God designed man and woman. Man was not designed to have babies... there is no comparison to being physically stronger... Men are stronger because God made us that way... if we weren't who would protect and take care of women during their pregnancies... and post partum... they are very vulnerable at this time... My point being... there is no way to make that comparison. I totally understand as do most others that man and woman complement each other in their relationship, but your comparisons and conclusions are way off. Your conclusions point directly to your immaturity and inexperience. It is applicable.

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

They are submitting their WILL to each other. This does NOT compete or go against God's plan to have the man be the head of the household.

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

Close, I agree that the table gets moved from one point to the other with the man and woman cooperating... and the table can't move without both... HOWEVER, one or the other is carrying more of the load. In God's plan the man is to carry more of the load. (Not that is just requires more physical strength... it also requires more responsibility.)

You are still only supporting your views from a secular point of view... if this is so illogical, disproportionate, and unreasonable provide a different Biblical point of view that supports your thoughts.
I agree with Brad2009 on the deaconness discussion.

Ringo... you might want to read closely what your Wikipedia says. I would think being a full fledged deaconness... would have ministries for all the church... not just women ministries. This is the only conclusion you can draw from the Wikipedia reference.

Could it be that Paul recognized her as a deaconness... because she was involved in women ministries only? To me this would not conflict with the qualifications of deacons... and still does NOT justify women in church leadership.


God Bless!
becareful

I think a quote from Toy Story is applicable here:
"You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell."
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Brad2009

Newbie
Feb 10, 2009
990
163
USA
✟9,437.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Statement 1, made circa 100 AD:

Object A is a ball.

A discussion between two parties regarding statement 1:

party 1 - Since we know that Object A is a ball, it is reasonable to infer that it has a leather cover and a diameter of 2.9 inches.

party 2 - Actually, you're talking about a baseball which wasn't even invented at the time of statement 1. All that we can reasonably infer from the statement is that Object A has a spherical shape, not its composition or specific diameter.

party 1 - Aren't all baseballs also balls?

party 2 - It exceeds the information presented in statement 1 to say definitively that object A is a baseball.

party 1 - Baseballs aren't balls? Have you gone mad?

party 2 -
facepalm.jpeg
 
Upvote 0

TimRout

Biblicist
Feb 27, 2008
4,762
221
53
Ontario
✟13,717.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
[/color][/b](Headship and submission) may be true for God and the church, but it doesn't have to be true for a marriage...
Are you arguing against me, or the Apostle Paul? After all, it was Paul who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose to draw the parallel between Christ's relationship to His bride, and a husband's relationship to his wife [Eph. 5:32].
[/color][/b]...which is an equal partnership and not a hierarchy.
Ringo
How does this unfounded assertion subvert my careful and detailed exegesis of Ephesians 5? You have yet to prove that marriage is indeed an equal (egalitarian) partnership. You are quick to dismiss my argument, but one must be careful to distinguish between dismissal and refutation. Aside from the fact that you find my position distasteful, can you explain from the text of Ephesians 5 why my position is objectively wrong?
 
Upvote 0

TimRout

Biblicist
Feb 27, 2008
4,762
221
53
Ontario
✟13,717.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
From this analysis, I assume that you would also argue that Paul (and, therefore God) was endorsing slavery within this passage. Is this correct?
Actually, no. I do not believe Paul --- or God, through Paul --- was endorsing slavery. Philemon makes this fairly clear. But I do think that God inspired Paul to select the relationship of masters and slaves, among others, to characterize the content of Ephesians 5:21. If Paul were writing in a contemporary western context, he might have chosen employers and employees, instead of masters and slaves. Nevertheless, the argument still stands. Regarding the three relationships described in Ephesians 5:21 - 6:9, each reflects one party who leads, and another party who follows.

Passages like Galatians 3:28 reflect an equality of value, insofar as Christ shed just as much blood to pay for the sins of women, as He did for men. Men and women, though equal in value, are commanded by God to play different yet wonderfully complementary roles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.