So the majority of people including your own church is committing spiritual abuse.
Perhaps it would help if we define spiritual abuse.
Spiritual abuse: using religious or spiritual beliefs, teachings, or practices to manipulate, control, or exploit another person.
Refusing to allow women to explore their vocation to particular ministry roles meets the definition in two ways; it controls them by refusing to allow them to participate in something fundamentally important to their faith, and it controls them in a more diffuse way by excluding their voices, perspectives, and wisdom from particular decision-making processes.
Paul is committing spiritual abuse because you did say that the text applied to ignorant women who were promoting false ones.
There is a difference between "You are not ready (yet) to take on this role," and "You are never eligible to take on this role because of your sex."
As you said only if its forced.
But that's what hierarchy is. It's the use of power to enforce dynamics of control.
I gave you the example of men dominating the building industry.
That is not a hierarchy in the sense of one person controlling another.
THis is from your own church members
They do not belong to the same church as me.
So yes, wives might be asked to submit, if we’re reading the NIV text, because that was the power structure and organization of that time, AND only in the sense of submitting to a man that loved and cherished them, who understood that the two were effectively united and were responsible for taking care of each other with the same tenderness and love they afforded themselves.
You haven't given a link there, but it sounds as if they're acknowledging that the instructions were conditioned by the culture of the time.
Now I know this will raise red flags and set off triggers for egalitarians but this article from the Anglican church about the controversy and uproar in the church over the Sydney diocese changing the marriage formalies to include the word "Submit" as well as obey the husband.
David Ould is, by the way, a notoriously unreliable narrator.
As above by witness of your own church Godly submission is not a harmful belief but the opposite.
Because Godly submission in marriage is
mutual. It is not the husband controlling the wife. But of course that link totally fails to acknowledge that in any meaningful way.
WE know this, you have mentioned this 10 times before to me.
Then it's not a falsehood to say that abuse flourishes in communities that believe in gender hierarchy. It's a very well established fact.
Then why do you keep equating what I have said as abuse.
Because you keep advocating for an unequal dynamic of power and control between men and women in marriage and the church. And that is the essence of abuse.
We are all saying it is not about abusive control even if the words seem that way
If the words seem that way, you need to find better ways to explain your position.
Because here's how your position comes across to me: Men should get to control women, but in a perfect world the women would be so submissive, and the men so loving, that nobody would ever need to notice the iron fist inside the velvet glove.
But that's not reality, and there's a trail of wounded people to prove it.
Not so that you can accurately conflate them the way you have been.
Phoebe was not a disciple or bishop in the church. She was a deacon.
But as a deacon, she carried and would have taught and explained Paul's letter to the Romans. As a deacon, Paul uses of her a word that Justin Martyr soon after uses to describe the person who presides over worship. And so on. She is a good example of a woman with authority in the NT church.
Yes but prophesy is not being a priest or bishop and leading the church.
It is leading the church, though. In the Didache, prophets are given more authority than elders (priests) in some matters.
Its not a salvation issue to disobey Gods word and Christs teachings
It's not a salvation issue to disagree on what God's word says about women in leadership.
I am not saying how Abraham and Sarah treated Hagar was not abusive. I am saying measuring Gods law and order on this is false.
All I'm saying is, you can't point to the Biblical patriarchs as an example of non-abusive patriarchy. Because the record of abuse is quite clear.
When it comes to physically restraining him it is true.
Look, I've been the person to deal with disruptive, aggressive, and difficult people (including those who are severely mentally ill or substance-affected in all kinds of ways) in the church. As a woman, I have been completely able to do that. This idea that somehow you need men for physical strength to restrain intruders bears absolutely no relation to the reality of ministry on the ground.
Yes he does. He lists Tryphaena and Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia and Syntyche, as his co-workers in the gospel. The same term he uses for Mark, Luke, Demas, Aristarchus, Jesus (Justus) and Clement. That seems to be his preferred term for people in ministry alongside him, and he does not pause to clarify exactly what role he saw them as filling.
No she wasn't. We don't know that.
It's the plain, clear meaning of the text. But it's funny how that gets hand-waved away when it doesn't suit your position.
Once again you are conflating a host as a leader.
Yes, because we know that that's how things worked at that time. The host had the privilege and responsibility of presiding over worship in their home. Lydia is a good example.
Have you ever bothers to read the women in your own church on this.
Again you do not answer the specific question being asked.
So are you saying Gods laws for protecting slaves was improper.
I am saying that a system of slavery is entirely improper.
In that it was making allowance for human hardness of heart, it looks pretty similar to me.
Your creating strawmen and false representations. I have said this 100 times lol.
You have said that, but your arguments don't match what you're saying.
Interestingly you have never taken issue with this accusation of egalitarianism and how it distorts the teachings.
You seem to me to completely misunderstand theological egalitarianism, so it's not really worth pursuing.
But the hermeneutics and principle are the same.
It does not, however, change the fact that in marriage, giving one spouse an automatic "tie-breaker" results in abusive dynamics. Because it limits and controls the other spouse.
Not really because thern you are relying on human interpretations of what counts as qualification for priests rather than the clear teachings in black and white.
It's applying what's there in black and white.
Your own church believes this
No, it really doesn't. I am not aware of any authoritative Anglican statement to that effect.
Yes the majority are with me.
Doesn't sound like you took a comprehensive sample.
Its not because its only happened since women have become leaders.
But that is not
why it happened. That's what you fail to grasp.
The introduction of lesbain and Gay priests and SSM was made by women priests and bishops.
That's not what I saw. And I was there to see it.
Because they are Gods law and order and Christ teachings.
That's not a good answer.
We did not, for example, find that an adequate answer when people pointed out the harms of apartheid, but there were people making a solid case for that being "God's law and order," too.
The passage is about husband and wife.
We were not discussing a specific verse, but the issues of translation in general.
I notice when you make claims like the early church allowed women and when I provide evidence to the contrary from the declarations church fathers you go quiet on this.
I have answered that point before, and you've dismissed it. Is there any point making the same points over and over again?
Your not answering the question.
I very directly answered the question. Perhaps you did not articulate your question well.
So now we have the rediculous situation where we have a bible having two different interpretations.
Actually, many more than two. Translation is, to some degree, a subjective exercise.
And that's
before we get into the reality that it depends which manuscript evidence is taken as more accurate, given the divergence in different early copies of manuscripts.
It is well acknowledged that the church is more compromised by secular society to day then in the past.
That may be your view; I'd suggest it's viewing the past through very rose-coloured glasses.
It can be. If they act like a kid and cause unsafe situations they will be controlled.
If someone is, for example, suffering psychosis, sure, there's an argument for restraint.
The rest of the time, absent very extreme situations, no. One adult should not be controlling another in marriage.
It seems to be for the women in your own church I have linked several giving testimony that they have lived under these teachings for many years and have flourished and been uplifted.
That is, again, dodging the question.
Its what I am talking about though
No, it's not. Because you're advocating for things like the husband having an automatic "tie breaker." Which gives him control.
If its about teachings then a church cannot have double think on teachings.
Like I said, it's reasonable to have a statement of beliefs to which you expect members to adhere, provided they are free to leave without penalty.
Yet your own church allows such belief and you said that the Anglicans are a happy church that allows disagreement.
On the whole, yes. Our diversity is a strength.
We've always argued about exactly how big the tent should be, but we have never been a church that required - or wanted - rigid conformity beyond particular essentials. I'd argue that the absence of abuse should be one of those essentials.
