Does God want us to live in a patriarchal society ?

[stevevw]

I'm not saying that at all. But I'm saying that good, sound teaching is important.

Yes so don't undermine clear sound teachings that the majority of people including your own church have stood on for 2000 years until 5 minutes ago.

I think there are places in Scripture where this has happened, yes, and not just on gender issues.

Your not answering the question. I am not talking about in obvious false teachings and heresay. I am talking about the clear teachings from the words that was held by the majority of the church for 2000 years as understood. Are you saying this teaching was wrong up until 5 minutes ago.

This is the interpretation taught. It was written in black and white for millions to read and when their church confirmed the clear teachings that is what they were educated to believe according to oethodoxy. There was never any doctrime that said women can be priests ever taught until 5 minutes ago.

Are you saying that this particular education on the words was wrong for 2000 years. We suddenly got enlightened on the true definition with the rise of the womensd movement.

And indeed, there are many updated translations.

So now we have the rediculous situation where we have a bible having two different interpretations. Thats just a reciepe for disaster. Whats the aim to get rid of all the bibles which make offense and replace them with the egalitarian womens bible. Not only are women dividing the church they are now dividing the bible.

I'm saying that a view of history in which each generation is successively further away from God is profoundly problematic. God has not abandoned us, or withdrawn from us. God continues to indwell each baptised person. God continues to be present and active in the life and mission of the Church. We are not, somehow, further removed from God now that Christians were a generation ago, or twenty generations ago.

As a church we are. Christ said from the start that the wolves will come and keep coming. It is well acknowledged that the church is more compromised by secular society to day then in the past.

Worse than Death: How Compromise with the World Is Killing the Church

Worse than Death: How Compromise with the World Is Killing the Church — Faith Beyond Belief

By: Shafer Parker Which is worse, killing a human being made in the image of God, or corrupting another human being’s soul? You know the answer, don’t you? Corrupting someone’s soul is far worse than merely taking a life. Jesus said it like this: “Offences will certainly come, but woe to the one t

www.faithbeyondbelief.ca

“Woke” Thinking Has Infiltrated the Church at Higher Levels Than You Think

“Woke” Thinking Has Infiltrated the Church at Higher Levels Than You Think - Phil Cooke

Facebook X.com LinkedIn I had an interesting experience recently when one of the largest ministry organizations in the world called and asked me to do an online training session with about sixty members of their global leadership team. After my talk, one of the questions asked was about cancel...

www.philcooke.com

#341 The Feminization of Christianity

The Feminization of Christianity | Reasonable Faith

Dear Dr. Craig, I have usually found your words to be a source of information and reassurance in my Christian faith, and have often sought out your writings and videos in times of doubt or questioning. So I was really disappointed, almost shocked, when I read your newsletter of April of this...

www.reasonablefaith.org

That is not, however, an excuse for controlling behaviour.

It can be. If they act like a kid and cause unsafe situations they will be controlled.

That's not a good enough answer. Because we know that too many of those married couples work it out in profoundly abusive ways.
So we need to spell out an understanding of it which rules out any possibility of abuse; sexual, physical, emotional, social, financial, or spiritual.

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. They say that when both husband and wife live under the teachings the idea of the husband having some sort opf abusive control is not even on the radar as they trust in a loving husband to look out for them and give their lives for them.

'Submission' to my husband allows us both to flourish in our marriage
Many evangelical Christian women are not at all bothered by these verses, in fact, many see goodness in them that they want preserved.

First, they do not connect submission with personal worth, because they already know that they are infinitely precious to God and, in good marriages, to their believing husbands. Instead, they see submission – where one person trusts another to lead them, and honours them for exercising that responsibility selflessly – helps two people to grow closer together, and enables them both to flourish as individuals.

Second, the contentment and fulfilment that come from knowing Christ and the sense that all who are saved by Him are now "one body", means they no longer compare themselves to everyone else the way they once did. Instead of seeing men as competitors, or looking at what men have that women don't, these women see men as partners in Christ – saved sinners, just like them.

Thirdly, many Christian women are married to men who also feel very secure and content before God, and so have no desire to dominate their wives – only to love them above themselves as God commands.
'Submission' to my husband allows us both to flourish in our marriage

As long as one is not enforcing submission on the other, and as long as the one submitting is free to make a different choice at any time, then that is not what we are talking about as a "hierarchical control dynamic."

Its what I am talking about though and you keep turning this into the egalitarian view over and over again that I get sick of repeating myself lol. Probably 500 times now lol.

It's justified to have, say, a statement of beliefs to which you expect members to adhere, if those members are free to leave without penalty. Beyond that, no, I'd say it's very difficult to argue that control is justified.

If its about teachings then a church cannot have double think on teachings. That undermines the truth of teachings. That is why the Anglican church is splitting and fighting among themselves. You can't have a church that has two opposing teachings on scripture. It is against church formalities.

For the last fifty years the Anglican Communion has been divided over the doctrine of marriage. That came to an end in April 2023 when Global South Anglicans declared they’d had enough. Anglican bishops representing 85 percent of the Anglican Communion decided that Canterbury’s same-sex blessings were attempts to sanctify “sin” and determined to “reset the Communion on its biblical foundations.”

One of the most stunning examples of Anglicans rejecting tradition when interpreting the Bible is their widespread practice of women’s ordination. In 2017 the college of bishops in the ACNA acknowledged that the ordination of women to the priesthood is an “innovation” in the tradition and that there is “insufficient warrant” in Scripture for this practice. Yet the ACNA and GAFCON continue to proclaim that they are biblical communions dedicated to the final authority of Scripture.

The new divide in global Anglicanism

For the last fifty years the Anglican Communion has been divided over the doctrine of marriage. That came to an end in April 2023 when Global South Anglicans declared they’d had enough. Anglican bishops representing 85 percent of the Anglican Communion decided that Canterbury’s same-sex...

anglican.ink

Any church that is so conflicted and contradictory in its teachings cannot be trusted.

Absolutely. I cannot "agree to disagree" with someone arguing for patriarchal control of women. There is too much at stake.

Yet your own church allows such belief and you said that the Anglicans are a happy church that allows disagreement. You now seem to be contradicting your self and church.

 

[stevevw]

Where's Red dog gone. Ah there you are. Good boy.

 

[Jo555]

Where's Red dog gone. Ah there you are. Good boy.

Looks like my boy leading the charge.

 

[Paidiske]

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.

Yes but they are linked.

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.

No he doesn't.

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.

Completely different.

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.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Yes that is what one part of the Anglican church is doing to the other parts (Sydney diocese) that disagree with them by putting pressure on them to conform.

Refusing to allow women to explore their vocation to particular ministry roles meets the definition in two ways;

Except if it breaches the clear teachings. Then the church has a right to deny women as priests. Just like they deny anyone who breaches Gods law and order or Christs teachings.

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.

Therefore this criteria should if consistent should apply to gay and lesbian and trans priests as they are being denied priesthood.

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."

Yes not being eligible because of sex or any other criterai thats not been met is justified as its clear teaching.

But that's what hierarchy is. It's the use of power to enforce dynamics of control.

Therefore when say men end up dominating the building industry they are not forcing anyone. Rather its a natural progression of mens natural abilities.

That is not a hierarchy in the sense of one person controlling another.

Its worse according to your logic as its not just one but a bunch of men dominating over women.

Then I gave you the trad wives example.

They do not belong to the same church as me.

But they belong under the Anglican church which is your church.

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.

No it was about both spouses being under Gods order that stands for all times where the wife happily submits and the husband loves the wife like Christ loves the church.

https://stmarksthegap.org.au/what-does-it-mean-to-submit/

David Ould is, by the way, a notoriously unreliable narrator.

Well his position is supported by a lot of people in your church.

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.

They state clearly like me that this is not about control or abuse. You once again hide the truth. As the article mentions there are different relationships of submission in the body of Christ though we are one. One of those is within marriage where the wife submits and the husband loves sacrifically.

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.

Abuse flourishes whereever Gods law and order is rejected. I believe in the male dominated hierarchy that is the building industry because it benefits society.

I believe in male dominated hierarchies that are formed naturaly as it is a natural expression of people living their lives without malice. If men end up dominating STEM, sports, building, the military, rescue, fire fighting, anything where mens natural ability gives them an advantage.

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.

Show me where I am advocating for abuse. Your can't because I have not said this and in fact have said the opposite 500 times or more.

What egalitarians do is they have to accuse the bearer of truth as an abuser to discredit them as they have no evidence. The teachings are clear so the only tactic left is to make out whoever advocates for the teachings is an abuser.

If the words seem that way, you need to find better ways to explain your position.

Why when its the teachings. If the words say wives submit to husbands or men have authority over women in church to teach then you can't make those words any more appealing to the egalitarian ear. These words in themselves are triggers for the egalitarian.

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.

Then you don't understand Gods divine order for marriage and Christs teachings on this. I already explain why this is the case. Because you are using egalitarian hermeneutics.

The biggest problem in this area is in the area of hermeneutics. In a nutshell, feminist (egalitarian) conclusions could be drawn from the Bible only by ignoring the basic rules of hermeneutics when interpreting the key gender passages.
Women Priests: Destruction of the Church

In other words egalitarian hermeneutics will always skew scripture into a worldview and you will miss Gods view on this.

Hermeneutics is the method whereby a text is to be interpreted. What we are seeing among liberal denominations in general, and liberal Adventists in particular is the fact that they have found a way to say, “Well that may be what the text says, but in our contemporary context it means something else. we will find a way to say there's actually a hidden message within the New Testament, or we're going to make the argument “We're just going to call ourselves red letter Christians.”

Now, that is a direct assault upon the integrity, the authority, and the divine inspiration of Scripture, because we are not given merely the so-called red letters as God's word. We are given the entire Bible, Old and New testaments together as the infallible Word of God. In order to believe that women should serve as pastors, as those with teaching authority in the church, you have to decide to invalidate the authority of some very, very clear texts of Scripture.

Now, here's the point. Once you do that you can't stop there. That's why the normalization of the entire LGBTQ spectrum within the church, including ordination in liberal churches, has become inevitable. If you apply that hermeneutic to the question of ordaining women, then you're going to have to apply that same hermeneutic (if consistent) to the question of sexual orientation. There is no way around it.

If you can find a way around the clear teachings of Scripture when it comes to questions of being male and female, then you will charged with inconsistency if you do not find the same way around Scriptures that deal with questions of human sexuality and the definition of marriage.

From Women's Ordination to LGBT Ordination — Fulcrum7

 

[Paidiske]

Yes that is what one part of the Anglican church is doing to the other parts (Sydney diocese) that disagree with them by putting pressure on them to conform.

That's not how Anglicanism works in Australia. Each diocese governs its own affairs under our constitution. If anything, Sydney is using its wealth to put pressure on other dioceses.

Except if it breaches the clear teachings.

No; not except. It meets the definition.

Therefore this criteria should if consistent should apply to gay and lesbian and trans priests as they are being denied priesthood.

As I keep pointing out to you, the issue around sexuality is a moral one. If, for example, someone were gay, but completely chaste, there is no reason to disallow them from discerning a vocation. Just as if someone is straight and single, and completely chaste, there is no reason to disallow them from discerning a vocation.

Therefore when say men end up dominating the building industry they are not forcing anyone.

Which is why it's not a hierarchy in the sense being discussed here.

But they belong under the Anglican church which is your church.

There is more than one church body which describes itself as Anglican. I belong to the global Anglican communion; ACNA does not.

No it was about both spouses being under Gods order that stands for all times where the wife happily submits and the husband loves the wife like Christ loves the church.

https://stmarksthegap.org.au/what-does-it-mean-to-submit/

The bleeding irony. That's a piece written by a woman priest, arguing for marriage as a partnership of equals, in which each submits to the other. If you wanted to argue for patriarchy, I don't know that you could have picked a piece that supported your position less.

Well his position is supported by a lot of people in your church.

He is infamous for his noxious writings.

They state clearly like me that this is not about control or abuse.

But they still argue for a dynamic of control. Where one leads and the other submits. They can say it's not about abuse, but when what they're arguing for is a form of abuse, that statement is meaningless.

Show me where I am advocating for abuse.

Any time you advocate for a husband, or a man, to have more say, more power, more authority, (or the like) than a wife or a woman, that is a form of advocating for abuse.

Remember that definition of spiritual abuse: using religious or spiritual beliefs, teachings, or practices to manipulate, control, or exploit another person.

Giving a husband a "tie-breaker," giving him the right to make decisions over against his wife, giving him authority, giving him a voice, while denying those things to her, are all examples of using religious beliefs to control.

Why when its the teachings.

Because, like I say, there is a long, long line of battered women, raped women, controlled women, traumatised women, who have been subject to those teachings.

So you have an obligation to show how your position is distinct from people saying the exact same things, who have justified that abuse with reference to those teachings. Otherwise, to the outside observer, there is no distinction and your position will end up with the same result.

 

[stevevw]

Not so that you can accurately conflate them the way you have been.

The way I have been conflating them is the accurate assessment. Please refer to above where the egalitarian hermeneutics explains how it naturally follows the same egalitarian hermeneutics for LGBTIQ+ equality rights. Its a logical follow on and as it turns out that is exactly what is happening in the Anglican and other churches in reality.

From Women's Ordination to LGBT Ordination

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.

Neither Phoebe nor Junia were priests or bishops. The reason these holy women of the early Church are brought up with regards to this particular debate usually comes from a confusion of terms and ambiguity in language.

In Rom 16:1 and 16:7, St. Paul introduces Phoebe, a woman deacon and Junia, an apostle. If there were women priests in the early Catholic Church, why not allow women priesthood now? - Catholic Cafe

Neither Phoebe nor Junia were priests or bishops. The reason these holy women of the early Church are brought up with regards to this particular debate usually comes from a confusion of terms and ambiguity in language. The exact Greek word which is used to identify Phoebe is diakonos, which is...

catholic.cafe

It is leading the church, though. In the Didache, prophets are given more authority than elders (priests) in some matters.

Stop trying to find vague and unclear loopholes to poison clear teachings.

It's not a salvation issue to disagree on what God's word says about women in leadership.

But its a salvation issue to disregard Gods law and order and Christ and His disciples on this. You want us to believe that a vague bible antedote that you turn into a clear teaching trumps a clear teaching. It amounts to disobedience and disobedience is a salvation issue.

What happens when we defy clear teachings and the truth as the article above pointed out is that this leads to further compromises and sin is then allowed in the church. This is in fact leading the sheep astray rather than saving them.

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.

So what about the clear and powerful record of those patriarchs being holy men of God, Of doing GOds will and being the system through which Christ came. Men leaders from Adam to Christ. Did not God appoint these men. He appointed King David. He called Abraham and Moses. These were holy and divine callings and appointments by God.

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.

Yet when the situation gets out of hand we call the police who will send a male to deal with a male. Ultimately there is the risk of physical violence that only men can ultimately stand up to. That you may have avoided this is not the point.

Its that ultimately as the head of a church Christ knew that this was going to happen. So men were used and as we know 11 of them were martryed. It would be weird and a breach of duty of care to put women in such situations of violence as it goes against our sensitivities of protecting women who are the weaker vessel as Peter says.

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.

Your conflating coworker which could mean anything and certainly not disciples like Paul as Christ chose Paul with priest or discipleship and leader of the church.

This is agood example of how everything hinges on a word that is not clarified as to what it exactly means. But then people take that and inject the meaning they want and trump clear teachings. Poisoning teachings.

In Paul's letters, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodia, and Syntyche are referred to as "co-workers" or "hard-workers" in the Lord, suggesting they played active roles in the ministry and were likely involved in supporting the church, but not as priests or disciples in a formal sense.

Paul the Apostle and women - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

Its not clear reading and we should hand wave it away. Your own church is divided over this so how can it be a clear reading.

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.

You have not basis for this. A host is a host and they don't necessarily lead but host. They cater to not teach. I provided the evidence from scholars that states Pheobe was not a disciple or ply the role of priest leading the church but as an assistent, a deacon.

This makes sense with Pauls clear teaching that men are head of the home and a male priest has to be a good head of home before they can lead and teach in the church.

I am saying that a system of slavery is entirely improper.

Then why did God and Christ both support it in saying that slaves must submit to their masters. If slavery was seen as abusive then they are supporting the abuse that the slaves are under.

In that it was making allowance for human hardness of heart, it looks pretty similar to me.

Then explain how Christ then said the law of Moses still stood and that even if we look at a women in lust we are commiting adultery. Yes at the same time Christ tells slaves to submit to their masters.

You have said that, but your arguments don't match what you're saying.

Yes they do. I have provided independent evidence including from your own church which has the exact same position as myself and you said that your church allows this disagreement to exist as a right to independent belief about the interpretation of those verses.

I also provided the logic and reasoning why the egalitarian hermeneutics does not work with these verses and causes you to see submission as abuse and not as Gods divine order in marriage based on Christs relationship with the church.

I have also said clearly 500 times that this is not about abuse and then provided independent evidence including from your own church that thse verses are not about abuse submission under Christs example of the various relationships within the body of Christ.

So I have provided more than enough evidence

You seem to me to completely misunderstand theological egalitarianism, so it's not really worth pursuing.

I am not misunderstanding it at all. Your own church uses the egalitarian hermeneutics the results speak for themselves in practice in that the same theological egalitarian hermeneutics has led to allowing SSM, gay and lesbian priests and bishops, abortion equal rights and a buch of other false teachings like denying the mascullinity of CHrist and their own marriage formalities.

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.

I gave you the evidence from your own church of wives who have lived under these teachings for years and they have no issues. In fact they say submitting to their husbands, to a loving man who sees his wife like Christ sees the church makes them trust and have confidence that this is best for their marriage and salvation.

It's applying what's there in black and white.

Actually its not. Your reading a bunch of stuff that is not there. The leaders you refer to as women were not disciples or bishops of the church and there is never a black and white statement that says they are,

But there is for men and this is consistent with the actual practices from the time of Christ until 5 minutes ago when the feminist movement took over the church and poisoned all these verses.

Because make no bones about it your own church believes the clear teachings until they caved in to feminists egalitarianism.

No, it really doesn't. I am not aware of any authoritative Anglican statement to that effect.

First as the clear teachings say which the Anglican diocese of Sydney fully supports and is relected in their liturgies say

1 Timothy 3:1-16
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? ...

Paul destinguishes the overseer in this case as an office of leading the church. He must manage as head of his own household bedore he can lead the church.

This goes with
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Paul says he does not permit women to teach or exercise authority over a man and she is to remain quiet, Paul gives the universal reason that Adam as man was created first in Gods creation order and that Eve was decieved and not Adam so as the result of the fall man would rule over women.

This is then supported by 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which is about order in the church.

Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.

Paul says women are to ask their husbands at home about these matters thus confirming that men are head and are to lead on these matters at home as well.

Doesn't sound like you took a comprehensive sample.

The CC, most scholars, your own church such as the Sydney diocese but also major branches in the US and around the world especially in African and other nations who still stick with tradition. As well as many other Anglican churchurches like St Marks in the Gap here in Queensland.

But also the majority of Christians including women who I have linked with their testimonies that the clear verses are not abusive and in fact enhance and uplift marriage.

But that is not why it happened. That's what you fail to grasp.

Why did it happen then. Explain how these false teachings were allowed to enter the Anglican church without using egalitarianism.

That's not what I saw. And I was there to see it.

How could you have seen this when it happened in the US as well as NZ and other parts of the world in the Anglican church. The Anglican church is not just Australia.

Why has the Diocese of the Southern Cross been created

The reasons behind the creation of the Diocese of the Southern Cross are complex. On its web page, GAFCON Australia states: "At the recent General Synod (the church’s triennial meeting), a majority of bishops were unable to uphold the Bible’s ancient teaching on marriage and sexual ethics."

Behind the split of the Anglican church over gay marriage

In the opening address of this year's Global Anglican Futures Conference Australasia, Bishop Richard Condie announced the creation of the Diocese of the Southern Cross. In his words: the Diocese of the Southern Cross is a new structure for Anglicans in Australia who can no longer sit under the...

www.uwa.edu.au

What were the issues that caused this split. SSM and gay and lesbian priests. The church is pushing for SSM and gay and lesbian priests as a follow on to equal rights lkike women priests. What other reason would there be.

The same logic is being used for women priests. Its certainly not based on any biblical teachings. What else could it be but egalitarianism. They have to do the exact same thing with clear teachings as for women priests to rationalise gay and lesbian priests and SSM.

But it doesn't matter as whichever way you look at it the Anglican church is bringing sin into the church based on the same ideology as secular ideology which happens to be egalitarian politics which is basically feminism.

The dilemma for the progressive liberal egalitarian is that they cannot state that the reason they are denying LGBTIQ+ and abortion ect is because of clear teachings as that would undermine their position on women priests. So they are forced to go down the sinful raod of compromising clear teachings further.

That's not a good answer.

Why. If Gods law says don't commit adultery or don't bear false witness then why do we need to give reasons for its consequences on people. Explaining why the law is the law does not change that its the law and if you breach it you will be punished. Its good enough to say because its Gods law and order we honor and respect that and are obedient without question.

 

[stevevw]

We were not discussing a specific verse, but the issues of translation in general.

I am saying the verse is about marriage so somewhere in that verse has to be husband, wife, male and female which ever way you look at it. One spouse will be head, will have authority over the other. Whichever way you look at it its a red flag for your egalitarian hermeneutics.

But the translation if to male and not female and this is universal in teaching. Its consistent with what other bible verses are saying and what was lived reality ie creation order, Peter in talking about various relationships of head and submission and how marriage was one where women was subject to man and he was head just as Christ is head of church ect ect ect. To flip the sex would poison all these verses.

I have answered that point before, and you've dismissed it. Is there any point making the same points over and over again?

I must have missed it. What was your reply that even the early church heads and fathers from the first disiciples and bishops after the disciples in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries all declared it impossible for women to be priests ie Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, ect.

The Council of Nicaea I in (325AD), the Council of Laodicea (360AD), the Epiphanius of Salamis (370AD), The Apostolic Constitutions (400AD), and Augustine (428AD. They all declared that women could not be priest and this continued with declarations right through all the centuries.

Fathers of the Church

Fathers of the Church.—The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the...

www.catholic.com

I very directly answered the question. Perhaps you did not articulate your question well.

I think that was a very vague answer. It did not adress the fact that the clear teachings as understood by the CC and throughout history. The words written in the bible in black and white that says women shall submit to their husbands and cannot have authority or teach over men in the church was the understanding throughout history.

It was not questioned in any meaningful way as far as splitting the church until relatively late and the most concerted movement for womens priests came directly with the feminist movement. Even your own church did not question this until recently and they are still split over it.

Actually, many more than two. Translation is, to some degree, a subjective exercise.

That's a problem them that subjectivity is causing the church to end up with two completely different teachings for the church. Its a contradiction in belief.

You can't have two opposing beliefs about the same teaching. Thats like saying adultery has two interpretations. One says its ok and the other says its not and the two positions are held by the same church. Its a reciepe for disaster. It actually discredits the church as a reliable witness for Christ.

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 all sounds like rationalising away what most people for most of history have clearly understood and lived out. Like I keep saying your own church believed this before they split and still parts of your church believes this and have split again.

That may be your view; I'd suggest it's viewing the past through very rose-coloured glasses.

Ah its historical fact. even 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago we had 80 to 90% belief and church attendence was high. In fact they only got rid of no Sunday trading 30 odd years ago. Social norms were based on Christian values.

Since the cultural revolution which included the sexual and womens movements belief and church attendence has been declining and seculsrism has taken over and entering the churches. This is fact by the vast majority of scholars not rose coloured glasses lol.

The Secularisation of the Church

The Secularisation of the Church - ETHOS Institute for Public Christianity

July 2019 Credo The modern evangelical church seems to have a penchant for playing fast and loose with the secular culture around it, uncritically absorbing its quintessential qualities and imbibing its ethos. Many decades ago, scholars predicted that the unstoppable march of secularism...

ethosinstitute.sg

Wokeness and the Church

Wokeness and the Church - Christ Over All

A healthy church is a beautiful portrait of unity in diversity. However, this diversity is Holy Spirit-wrought, not a product of any worldly ideology.

christoverall.com

#341 The Feminization of Christianity

The Feminization of Christianity | Reasonable Faith

Dear Dr. Craig, I have usually found your words to be a source of information and reassurance in my Christian faith, and have often sought out your writings and videos in times of doubt or questioning. So I was really disappointed, almost shocked, when I read your newsletter of April of this...

www.reasonablefaith.org

I can tell you how we know that todays church has compromised by the world. A true church of Christ should ber clashing and conflicting with secular ideologies as they are what is sending people to hell. We are called to be like Christ and the diciples which means in this day and age we should be suffering and even martryed. Not celebrating soome egalitarian woke utopia on earth.

That is, again, dodging the question.

How do you know when you have not read them. The answers are in the testimonies. I am giving you independent evidence from women, from Anglican women. You obviously think I am a sexist so no matter what I say won't satrisify you.

So I am allowing the women to speak. Why don't you listen to them. You say your all for womens experience. In fact you breaching your own claim that a women should be believed based on her experience without question. Without asking her to justify her belief. They state that a womens submission is in line with clear teachings and uplifts the marriage.

No, it's not. Because you're advocating for things like the husband having an automatic "tie breaker." Which gives him control.

Only with teachings. The bible teaching is clear on this and only in matters where both are under a Godly marriage and fullfilling their roles. The rest is negociable and the wife can certainly correct the husband and it that sense is having decision making power over him because as a Godly man he must acknowledge the truth of scripture when pointed out.

So I would appreciate that you stop misrepresenting my position. I keep telling you my position is the same as members of your own church and you seem to allow them that right. What you are doing is generalising to imply I am advocating abuse by not adding in my clarification which is dishonest to be honest. THis si what your own church is doing to each other. Its bad fruit.

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.

Your saying that its ok for your church to split on doctrine and still be under the one church. Then as a result are fighting each other over what is truth. This is bad fruit and will produce bad fruit which is what we are seeing.

On the whole, yes. Our diversity is a strength.

Its a weakness as its splitting the church, allowing false teachings into the church and causing conflicts between those with opposing and conflicting positions on important foundational doctrines and the consequences of those false teachings.

Its bad fruit. You cannot deny this under the heading of DEI which basically says we have to include sin as a matter of diversity, equity and inclusion. Your trying to rationalise away obvious sin and bad fruit.

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.

Like I said the egalitarian hermeneutics makes no sense to the teachings. If you say that the church takes a less rigid position because it wants to stop abuse then denying women rights of autonomy of body in abortion, gay and lesbain priests, SSM and trans is abuse according to the same hermeneutics.

Oh thats right, the Anglicans already agree that denying these identities is abuse and thats why they are compromising and allowing gay and lesbian priests and bishops. SSM, trans and abortion rights. Which totally undermines any credibility about what they claim as being less rigid won't compromise teachings.

I am sorry but they have lost all credibility as a church.

Friction over LGBTQ issues worsens in global Anglican church
Friction has been simmering within the global Anglican Communion for many years over its 42 provinces’ sharp differences on whether to recognize same-sex marriage and ordain LGBTQ clergy. This year, the divisions have widened, as conservative bishops – notably from Africa and Asia – affirmed their opposition to LGBTQ inclusion and demanded “repentance” by the more liberal provinces with inclusive policies.

https://apnews.com/article/anglican-church-lgbtq-issues-4f635708fdb24df166ac8237f9473f00

THis is very serious and minimising this is exactly the problem and the same denial of clear teachings by denying the clear ramifications of rejecting the clear teachings. It will get worse for the Anglicans until they completely breakdown and I think many will come back to the Catholic church and make it better.

 

[stevevw]

That's not how Anglicanism works in Australia. Each diocese governs its own affairs under our constitution. If anything, Sydney is using its wealth to put pressure on other dioceses.

The latest issue was over the Sydney dioces adding the word 'submit' to the marriage vows held by the church. The church heads tried to bully the Sydney diocese into remitting the change when they had a right to under Anglicans allowance of independence of each diocese.

Either way the church is in conflict with different factions fighting and bullying each other to conform with their point of vierw. Its bad fruit. From what

No; not except. It meets the definition.

How can it meet the definition when you own church is divided over the definition. That undermines any clear definition.

But that was not my point. I said except if the teaching is false. Forget about women priests for a minute. I am talking about any false teaching that is obvious. Like say allowing SSM.

The church putting their foot down and stopping this teaching or anyone who promotes it is not abusive control. If it happens to be a woman or group of women or men or any individual or group they can be controled within the church to either be quiet or be removed as Paul teaches.

As I keep pointing out to you, the issue around sexuality is a moral one. If, for example, someone were gay, but completely chaste, there is no reason to disallow them from discerning a vocation. Just as if someone is straight and single, and completely chaste, there is no reason to disallow them from discerning a vocation.

This is a false representation of what is happening. I agree a gay man who is chaste is following Christ and denying himself just like a single heterosexual man may deny being sexually active or having sex outside marriage.

But heres the problem for the egalitarian. The logic extension of allowing women priests means that the gay man or lesbian women who may want to be married cannot marry like a man or women can in the church. Therefore the church is forced to allow SSM which your church is doing.

Otherwise its saying women priests are ok as a egaliatrain and moral right but gay and lesbains don't have the right to marry. Do you see how it becomes a moral issue in denial of the same rights. This is the basis for why your own church allows SSM and gay and lesbain priests and bishops. Some of which are married and in a sexual relationship.

Which is why it's not a hierarchy in the sense being discussed here.

Which therefore means that there can be a hiearchy that looks like an abusive one but when we qualify it though it seems similar its actually not abusive but a natural result of gender differences.

Therefore this tells us that ideologues can easily mistake non abusive hierarchies as being abusive if they don't stop and decern exactly what is going on. It seems to me this has been the problem in modern society that it has been taught to assume any difference or domination is abuse.

There is more than one church body which describes itself as Anglican. I belong to the global Anglican communion; ACNA does not.

Yes just another split within asplit within a split. That is what happens when a church disgrees on clear teachings. We can see the gradual deterioration over time until today where 1,000 are leaving the church as they don't believe them anymore. They see them as no different to secular society when the church should be completely different.

The bleeding irony. That's a piece written by a woman priest, arguing for marriage as a partnership of equals, in which each submits to the other. If you wanted to argue for patriarchy, I don't know that you could have picked a piece that supported your position less.

The article says here that yes wives are to submit to husbands but only

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.

That is exactly what the CC and I have been saying. They agree with the clear teachings. They go on to claim that this only applied to the time but that claim has well and truely been defeated by the fact that the same practiced continued for 2000 years up until the last 5 minutes. Your own church believed this until recently.

He is infamous for his noxious writings.

Here we go now the ad hominems. They usually come to discredit evidence. The problem with attacking the person or source is that all the other indpenedent evidence says the same. Your own church says the same. It does the same lol. So the evidence is not reliant on the one source but the other sources add credibility to the one that is attacked therefore defeating the logical fallacy.

But they still argue for a dynamic of control. Where one leads and the other submits. They can say it's not about abuse, but when what they're arguing for is a form of abuse, that statement is meaningless.

But because that may happen doesn't mean the teaching is false. Your taking a once sided biased view of all the negative and not allowing for the positive Godly marriage under Gods law and order and Christs representation. A Godly man under Gods order will not argue for control and to say they would is false and infact is disrespectful to Godly men that you tar them with the same brush.

Any time you advocate for a husband, or a man, to have more say, more power, more authority, (or the like) than a wife or a woman, that is a form of advocating for abuse.

So your saying there is never a situation where even one spouse can take more power and authority over the other say in safety issues where one spouse is clearly wrong.

Remember that definition of spiritual abuse: using religious or spiritual beliefs, teachings, or practices to manipulate, control, or exploit another person.

Yes and. How is standing on clear teachings if the other is wrong using spiritual belief to control another. If someone in my house or in the church is promoting false teachings there is a responsibility to stop that. Stop that narrative happening in the home of church. So in that sense as Paul says confront them and stop this as it will undermine the home and church.

That is a form of control. The persons narrative is shut down and they have to conform to teachings. Paul mentions this that a women has no authority over a man and must remain quiet in the church because they may promote false teachings. They are to ask their husbands at home.

I am not playing those games. Ask the CC, ask members of your own church. Are they abusers for not satifying your demands. I gave you one example and you turned it into abuse when it clearly was not. You hide half my replies which clarify my position over and over again and then turn that back against me with a stawman that I am promoting abuse. Why should I play those games anymore.

 

[Paidiske]

Please refer to above where the egalitarian hermeneutics explains how it naturally follows the same egalitarian hermeneutics for LGBTIQ+ equality rights.

As I have tried to explain to you, they are not using egalitarian in the theological sense that I am using it.

But its a salvation issue to disregard Gods law and order and Christ and His disciples on this.

It might be a salvation issue to wilfully do so, but that is not the same as reading the texts and coming to a different understanding.

So what about the clear and powerful record of those patriarchs being holy men of God, Of doing GOds will and being the system through which Christ came.

What about it? That doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong (we know they did), or that the patriarchal society in which they lived was perfect (we know it wasn't).

Yet when the situation gets out of hand we call the police who will send a male to deal with a male.

You really have no idea.

When you call the police, they send an available team of officers. That might or might not include a man.

Ultimately there is the risk of physical violence that only men can ultimately stand up to.

This is just blatantly false, and ridiculous. And irrelevant, since we should neither expect nor require our clergy to be getting into physical altercations with dangerous people.

It would be weird and a breach of duty of care to put women in such situations of violence

And yet they did. Women were martyred along with men.

These days, workplace safety laws mean the church has an obligation to provide a safe workplace for all clergy (men and women). And that is a good thing.

But the idea that clergy need to be men in order to stand up to physical violence is based on some fantasy completely detached from the reality of ministry on the ground.

Your conflating coworker which could mean anything and certainly not disciples like Paul as Christ chose Paul with priest or discipleship and leader of the church.

I am pointing out that this is Paul's preferred term for those alongside whom he worked in ministry. That he uses the term of people like Luke and Mark - people we know had significant roles in the early church - and uses the same term of quite a number of women, suggests that those women also had significant roles.

You have not basis for this.

I do, but mostly in scholarly works - and not all in English - that I don't have links to online. It was relevant to a thesis I've put aside for the time being, so I did a lot of reading on leadership and ministry in the first century or so of the church.

A host is a host and they don't necessarily lead but host.

In the cultures we're talking about, though, that's not how it worked. The host presided over the prayers and worship in their home.

Then why did God and Christ both support it in saying that slaves must submit to their masters.

What do you suppose would have happened, if the church in its first decades had encouraged slaves to rebel and leave their masters? Do you suppose those slaves might have been hunted down and killed?

But stop and think, steve. Stop and really think about what slavery means. What the reality of one human being holding another human being as property to be exploited really means. Is that truly what you want to argue for? Do you see that as consistent with the dignity of every human being, being created in the image of God?

Are you really so filled with anxiety at a changing world, so terrified at not being in control, that you would willingly argue for this as an alternative?

Have you considered that if, in some sort of Christian fundamentalist theocratic dystopia, slavery were reinstated as a part of the social fabric, you might in fact be a slave? Are you willing to pay that price, for some sort of pyrrhic culture war victory?

Do you realise how this comes across as madness?

Yes they do.

No, they don't. Like I said, in one breath you say it's not about abuse or control, but in the next breath you seem to be back to arguing for controlling dynamics in marriage.

I am not misunderstanding it at all.

Well, you certainly keep making claims about it which are wildly inaccurate.

For example, theological egalitarianism is not about LGBTI+ issues, but you keep claiming that it is.

I gave you the evidence from your own church of wives who have lived under these teachings for years and they have no issues.

And yet you pay no attention to the evidence of profound harm in many marriages.

Actually its not. Your reading a bunch of stuff that is not there. The leaders you refer to as women were not disciples or bishops of the church and there is never a black and white statement that says they are,

That's not what we were discussing at that point. We were talking about considering a person's track record in leadership when they offer for ministry.

First as the clear teachings say which the Anglican diocese of Sydney fully supports and is relected in their liturgies say

Again, this is irrelevant to the point we were discussing, which was your claim that the same role of protection of the teachings applied to the role of husband in marriage."

Why did it happen then. Explain how these false teachings were allowed to enter the Anglican church without using egalitarianism.

Here's the thing you don't quite seem to understand. There were gay men in leadership in the church, long before there were ordained women. And there were other men who supported those gay men. It is those men - often men who opposed the ordination of women - who were most active in pushing for changes around sexuality.

How could you have seen this when it happened in the US as well as NZ and other parts of the world in the Anglican church. The Anglican church is not just Australia.

No, it's not, but I am reasonably well connected, for a parish priest in a little country parish. Especially in these days when things like synod motions are discussed and commented on at length online, it's not hard to keep a finger on the pulse of what's going on.

What were the issues that caused this split. SSM and gay and lesbian priests.

That's the surface excuse. The underlying issue is, bluntly, that we have a church constitution that's not fit for purpose, and that doesn't give us robust mechanisms for dealing with issues which need to be resolved. But it would be well nigh impossible, now, to get agreement to revise the constitution, so in the end it became easier to split.

The same logic is being used for women priests. Its certainly not based on any biblical teachings.

Whether you find the arguments convincing or not, there are many people, who read the Bible, and come away genuinely convinced that it witnesses to the full participation of women in leadership in the early church, and that there is no Scriptural barrier to women participating fully in leadership now. For us, it absolutely is based on Biblical teachings.

Why.

I told you why. "God's law and order" cannot excuse abuse and blatant harm. When we see abuse and blatant harm resulting from what some people claim is "God's law and order," it profoundly calls their claim into question.

Like I said, we have seen many other instances of "God's law and order" being used to justify evil. It's not good enough.

I must have missed it. What was your reply that even the early church heads and fathers from the first disiciples and bishops after the disciples in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries all declared it impossible for women to be priests ie Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, ect.

I made two key points. One is that we have evidence - documentary, in artworks, in inscriptions, and so on - of women in these roles. The other is that the fact that these people found it necessary to argue that women couldn't be priests, suggests that in at least some places, the practice had persisted until that time. Which is consistent with the other evidence.

That's a problem them that subjectivity is causing the church to end up with two completely different teachings for the church. Its a contradiction in belief.

You're only just discovering this now? Have you read no church history?

How do you know when you have not read them.

Because I am asking you to spell out your understanding. To set forth how, in your view, the patriarchy you are arguing for can be lived out, without any limitation, abuse or control of women. To answer specific questions of how this should play out, in practice. But every single time I ask, you dodge the question.

Only with teachings.

But you don't seem to understand that that can end up meaning anything he decides it means.

What you are doing is generalising to imply I am advocating abuse by not adding in my clarification which is dishonest to be honest.

I think your clarification is, in practice, pretty meaningless. And every time I invite you to spell out exactly what, in your view, it would mean in practice, you don't.

Your saying that its ok for your church to split on doctrine and still be under the one church.

My church has an understanding that there are particular doctrinal matters which are not negotiable, but that there are many others on which we can disagree. Things like the ordination of women, which we do not understand to be a salvation issue, is a matter on which our highest legal authority has ruled that we can disagree.

You cannot deny this under the heading of DEI which basically says we have to include sin as a matter of diversity, equity and inclusion.

I have not once mentioned DEI in this thread. I have not been arguing for DEI. It's not part of my position here.

I have also been very clear that I am not discussing issues of morality, on which it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate for a church to have standards, codes of conduct, and so on.

 

[Paidiske]

The latest issue was over the Sydney dioces adding the word 'submit' to the marriage vows held by the church.

No, that really wasn't the latest issue.

The church heads tried to bully the Sydney diocese into remitting the change when they had a right to under Anglicans allowance of independence of each diocese.

Really? Which church heads? By which mechanism? There is no process for such a thing.

There was a fair bit of grumpy comment from various people, online and in person, but Sydney was free to totally ignore that comment.

How can it meet the definition when you own church is divided over the definition.

I wasn't providing a church definition. I was providing a basic, shared definition that should apply in any tradition or setting.

The church putting their foot down and stopping this teaching or anyone who promotes it is not abusive control.

The church can stop people from promoting particular positions with the (apparent) authority of the church. But if they were to try to stop people not holding their authority from speaking or writing (or whatever) yes, it would be abusive control.

This is a false representation of what is happening.

I wasn't attempting a representation of what is happening. I was pointing out, again, why sexuality is a completely different issue from women's participation. Because with sexuality the issue is one of morality, but with women it is one of identity.

But heres the problem for the egalitarian. The logic extension of allowing women priests means that the gay man or lesbian women who may want to be married cannot marry like a man or women can in the church. Therefore the church is forced to allow SSM which your church is doing.

No, it is not "forced." And in fact, in Australia, at least, my church does not solemnise same-sex marriages.

And this, and the ordination of women, are completely separate arguments.

Otherwise its saying women priests are ok as a egaliatrain and moral right but gay and lesbains don't have the right to marry. Do you see how it becomes a moral issue in denial of the same rights.

But it's not the same. They are completely different issues.

Which therefore means that there can be a hiearchy that looks like an abusive one but when we qualify it though it seems similar its actually not abusive but a natural result of gender differences.

When I talk about hierarchy, I am talking about a structure of uneven power where one person controls another. That's where the abuse is. Your arguments about there being more men who are bricklayers or whatever, are just not relevant to the discussion at all.

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.

That is exactly what the CC and I have been saying.

It really is very funny. When you read the whole piece, she is saying the exact opposite of what you've been saying.

The problem with attacking the person or source is that all the other indpenedent evidence says the same.

No, it really doesn't. That's why this thread is still going; these very points are very much in dispute.

But because that may happen doesn't mean the teaching is false.

The teaching creates the conditions for it, excuses it, and provides no appropriate mechanism to address it. So yeah, the teaching is a very big part of the problem, there.

A Godly man under Gods order will not argue for control

Great. Then let him practice mutual submission with his wife, and we have no argument.

The minute he's arguing for a "tie-breaker," though, or the right to make decisions over against her, or authority over her, or any of that... he's arguing for control.

So your saying there is never a situation where even one spouse can take more power and authority over the other say in safety issues where one spouse is clearly wrong.

I have allowed that there are extreme situations, such as when one spouse's competence is compromised. But otherwise, no.

Yes and. How is standing on clear teachings if the other is wrong using spiritual belief to control another.

Well, like I invited you to do several times, by all means please spell out exactly what it means to "stand on clear teachings." Does it mean forbidding or preventing the other spouse from doing something? Does it mean controlling them in any way?

If not, what does it mean?

That is a form of control. The persons narrative is shut down and they have to conform to teachings.

How would you do that? By what means would you shut down the narrative? Physical force? Emotional outburst? Financial coercion?

Again, what does this mean in practice?

I am not playing those games.

Then I take it you have no answer. Which is exactly why your position is so dangerous and harmful.

 

[stevevw]

As I have tried to explain to you, they are not using egalitarian in the theological sense that I am using it.

As I linked evidence for there is no other egalitarianism. Theologiocal egalitarianism is the same thing. It clashes with the biblical teachings of men being head and women submitting to men. Because egalitarianism is about making men and women equal in all ways. Its the same hermeneutics used by your church to support SSM and gay and lesbian priests.

Even Wiki recognises this.

Christian egalitarianism
Theological egalitarianism, which posits equal roles and authority for men and women in the church and society, is often seen as conflicting with certain interpretations of biblical teachings, particularly those emphasizing male leadership and hierarchical structures.

Christian egalitarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On Gender and the Bible: Where Does Egalitarianism Lead? (Part 9)

In the church, egalitarian philosophy finds itself in conflict with hierarchies found in Scripture like male headship in marriage (Eph. 5:3), a dad's leadership in families (Eph. 6:4), and elderships in churches (1 Tim. 3:1ff).

On Gender and the Bible: Where Does Egalitarianism Lead? (Part 9)

We are not seeing health in men and women when it comes to our unchecked egalitarian culture. We are seeing greater and greater dysfunction.

renew.org

https://renew.org/on-gender-and-the-bible-where-does-egalitarianism-lead-part-9/#:~:text=In the church, egalitarian philosophy,3:1ff).
The Leaven of Egalitarianism

The Leaven of Egalitarianism | Zachary Garris

A Review of The Toxic War on Masculinity by Nancy Pearcey

americanreformer.org

It might be a salvation issue to wilfully do so, but that is not the same as reading the texts and coming to a different understanding.

If that understanding poisons the clearf teachings with vague and unclear antidotes then yes its a salvation issue as it leads to further comprinises and allowing sin and false teachings into Christs church. Something Paul was very serious about. Enough to not allow women authority over men on.

What about it? That doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong (we know they did), or that the patriarchal society in which they lived was perfect (we know it wasn't).

No one is saying that. The point is to not conflat Gods order with the failings of those great men or the abuse that happened outside of Gods order and plans to bring about Christ and salvation.

Just simply look at the overall picture. We can clearly see Gods use of men in the line from Adam to Christ. How is this line God chose to bring about His promises and order abusive. Don't conflate the sins of man with Gods divine ways in using our differences and representation of men and women.

You really have no idea.

I have a hands on experience of what is lived reality. Whenever there is such trouble the place goes into lockdown and the police are called who always send a male lead when it involves men. But also the majority are men.

In situations where people are confronted with a male agressor who is threatening violence men are always called to be up front or present to signal to the agressor that he is matched. If there is physical agression a man will always stand up in defense of a women. A women could not match a physically agressive and violent man of the same statue which men are usually bigger. THis is just commonsense and nature. Men aaare natural protectors. Its in their God given makeup.

When you call the police, they send an available team of officers. That might or might not include a man.

So do you think if a violent agressor was threatening a wife and family that it is best that a man take the front and stand up for his wife and family.

This is just blatantly false, and ridiculous. And irrelevant, since we should neither expect nor require our clergy to be getting into physical altercations with dangerous people.

Yes we should. In this day and age where the mention of Gods word is a trigger. If we truely stand on that word just as Christ and the disciples did then we should expect trouble.

Did not CHrist say that brother will hate brother, a son their father, and we will be persecuted even to death for standing with Christ. That is how far gone the church is and has been consumed by the world that its forgot to stand up for Christ. We have made Him a weak and watered down version.

And yet they did. Women were martyred along with men.

Yeah many mum and dads and children were martryed by Nero.

These days, workplace safety laws mean the church has an obligation to provide a safe workplace for all clergy (men and women). And that is a good thing.

Yes that is what I was referring to above with lockdowns and of course workplace health and safety and codes of conduct. But thats a different kind of code to Gods law and order and CHrists teachings which have their own penalties for breaching them that is not necessarily administered by secular codes and laws.

But the idea that clergy need to be men in order to stand up to physical violence is based on some fantasy completely detached from the reality of ministry on the ground.

Its not the only but its one component that cannot be denied. God used mascullinity within His plans and ways to bring about His plans and promises. He installed this natural instinct into men who naturally standup and want to protect because God made them that way..

I am pointing out that this is Paul's preferred term for those alongside whom he worked in ministry. That he uses the term of people like Luke and Mark - people we know had significant roles in the early church - and uses the same term of quite a number of women, suggests that those women also had significant roles.

Yes it suggest significant roles which can be other than priesthood. Your wanting it to be that so you turn an unclear suggestion into a clear teaching that it means Paul was saying women could be priests and have authority over men in the church. Which completely poisons clear teachings. How many times do I have to say this lol. Your drawing a long bow and grasping at straws.

I do, but mostly in scholarly works - and not all in English - that I don't have links to online. It was relevant to a thesis I've put aside for the time being, so I did a lot of reading on leadership and ministry in the first century or so of the church.

Yet you can't provide on 1st century bishop. Did you include as part of your research all the males who were the first church leaders and bishops. The declarations they made clearly stating that women could not be priests which aligned with the lived reality of all male bishops. Or did you skip this bit because it did not align with the egalitarian worldview.

In the cultures we're talking about, though, that's not how it worked. The host presided over the prayers and worship in their home.

Why would Paul contradict himself. He said a women cannot have authority over a man in teaching. Your trying to make unclear verses which is against your own churches formularities. Vague and unclear readings cannot contradict clear scripture.

What do you suppose would have happened, if the church in its first decades had encouraged slaves to rebel and leave their masters? Do you suppose those slaves might have been hunted down and killed?

THis clearly shows the egalitarian hermeneutics blinds poople from the clear teachings. Peter and Paul were referring tothe Christ like submission even to an unruley master. This was a powerful refelection of Christ which changed the world and led to the undoing of wrong.

We see a similar approach with Mandella, Ghandi and Dr KIng and all great people who reflected Christ who were abused by the oppressors but remained quiet and did not retaliate or complain and changed nations.

But stop and think, steve. Stop and really think about what slavery means. What the reality of one human being holding another human being as property to be exploited really means. Is that truly what you want to argue for? Do you see that as consistent with the dignity of every human being, being created in the image of God?

Not that is not what I am arguing for and I have made that clear as well as try to explain to you obviously without success that the only reason you keep seeing the submission the disciples and Christs example is talking about in not about abuse. Its about a relationship that is reflected in Christs submitting to His father, the church, and us and how that is reflected in marriage and the church and Gods natural order.

At the end of the day no matter how you want to frame my position there are many in your own church, the entire CC, and millions of CHristians who agree with me. We are not all advocating abuse and because we stand on the same clear teachings that have been upheld for 2000 years we are standing on what has already been acknowledged as truth.

Are you really so filled with anxiety at a changing world, so terrified at not being in control, that you would willingly argue for this as an alternative?

Then take that up with your own church lol. If you think it so bad then deal with your own members who agree with the CC and myself.

Have you considered that if, in some sort of Christian fundamentalist theocratic dystopia, slavery were reinstated as a part of the social fabric, you might in fact be a slave? Are you willing to pay that price, for some sort of pyrrhic culture war victory?

What are you talking about its already here lol. Do you honestly thing the world is not a form of slavery. Is still promoting the same evils as it did from the start.

Tell that to the millions in jails or slaving to their masters, the big corps and State who tell them how to live by binding them up in a lifetime of debt which they are controlled by. lol. It hasnot changed. We just call it something different today.

But if I was enslaved then I would do as Christ said and submit just like Christ as I know this will bring Him glory and will be more powerful in changing hearts than fight against them. Remembering that God will ensure no abuse or unjust harm will come to me as He did with slaves in the past.

Do you realise how this comes across as madness?

Then Christ is my madness. Actually it was Christs rocck Peter who taught this specifically that we must submit to masters, governments, to show Christs example which is a powerful way to change people.

No, they don't. Like I said, in one breath you say it's not about abuse or control, but in the next breath you seem to be back to arguing for controlling dynamics in marriage.

You keep taking it to the egalitarian worldview which assumes what I say is about abusive control. Just like you use unclear and vague measures for clear teachings you use unclear and vague antedotes to make out Gods order for Marriage as taught into abuse. If it is vague then how can you assume its about abuse when you have no clear evidence and it could also not be abuse.

This exposes your bias that you want to make it into abuse over the other poissibility that as many have testified it is not this way and not about abuse.

Why take your own vague musings over the clear words of the people who stand on these clear teachings and state they are not about abuse. If there is any reasonable doubt it should go with those good Christians who testify and are telling you, many in your own church. But you reject them for the sake of building your false case against the teachings.

 

[stevevw]

Well, you certainly keep making claims about it which are wildly inaccurate.

For example, theological egalitarianism is not about LGBTI+ issues, but you keep claiming that it is.

But the evidence shows rather than my claim being as you say wildly innaccurate it turns out to be spot on according to the evidence. Please refer to post #353. Even Wiki said that theological egalitarianism conflicts with the clear teachings.

Theological egalitarianism, which posits equal roles and authority for men and women in the church and society, is often seen as conflicting with certain interpretations of biblical teachings, particularly those emphasizing male leadership and hierarchical structures.

Christian egalitarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It clearly says theological egalitarian coinflicts with Pauls teachings that men have authority over women. So its exactly the same as secular egalitariamism.

And yet you pay no attention to the evidence of profound harm in many marriages.

Can you show me where I have done this. I can show you where I have not done this and acknowledged the potential abuse. You are once again making false accusations which is showing you cannot be trusted in your claims.

Stevev said Post #265
Look I am very aware of aabuse and all the horrible stuff that goes on when people move away from Gods law and order. I am talking about a Godly marriage. The one Christ and the disciples taught.

What you fail to understand is that I have been acknowledging the reality of abuse of women by advocating for their protection under Gods law and order and Christ and the disciples teachings.

That's not what we were discussing at that point. We were talking about considering a person's track record in leadership when they offer for ministry.

That is the business model of leadership. That they are judged on their performance (works) rather than the clear teachings.

Again, this is irrelevant to the point we were discussing, which was your claim that the same role of protection of the teachings applied to the role of husband in marriage."

Well it has to be because the same qualification for priest applies to being head of the home. So here must be some similar responsibilities. I would say one of those is the keeping and protection of the teachings and leading the way based on those teachings.

Here's the thing you don't quite seem to understand. There were gay men in leadership in the church, long before there were ordained women. And there were other men who supported those gay men. It is those men - often men who opposed the ordination of women - who were most active in pushing for changes around sexuality.

That cannot make sense as it contradicts their own position but the other way around. If they advocate for gay and lesbian priests and not women what is the biblical basis. If theres none then this must apply to women based on the same egalitarianism that allowed gay and lesbain priests. See how egalitarian doesn't work no matter which way you look at it.

All I know is that its a fact that when feminism became influence in society thats when there was a spike in women priests and women calling to be priests. The same spike has happened in since with LGBTIQ+ and its not a coincident. I provided the evdience. You have not responded to that evidence as yet.

Then, starting in the early Seventies, the feminist push for equality of the sexes crept into theology schools, seminaries and convents, giving birth to the second branch, known as spiritual, religious or Christian feminism.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/chr...an-feminism-theology-re-imagining-conference/

What people don't realise that what the philosophy that the church teaches women priests to be women priests is based on the feminisation of the church. So the curicullum is already ssskewed in an egalitarian feminist worldview. What women have been taught and indoctrinated with is the same false feminist ideology that started the womens movement in society.

No, it's not, but I am reasonably well connected, for a parish priest in a little country parish. Especially in these days when things like synod motions are discussed and commented on at length online, it's not hard to keep a finger on the pulse of what's going on.

The facts remain, the Anglican church is divided all over the world and its a serious matter trhat undermines them and God as a whole. Its bad fruit. A house divided is a house that will fall.

That's the surface excuse. The underlying issue is, bluntly, that we have a church constitution that's not fit for purpose, and that doesn't give us robust mechanisms for dealing with issues which need to be resolved. But it would be well nigh impossible, now, to get agreement to revise the constitution, so in the end it became easier to split.

Just as they did from the CC and will do again when further compromises are made as they are being done now.

Whether you find the arguments convincing or not, there are many people, who read the Bible, and come away genuinely convinced that it witnesses to the full participation of women in leadership in the early church, and that there is no Scriptural barrier to women participating fully in leadership now. For us, it absolutely is based on Biblical teachings.

Well then they are biased by their egalitarian hermeneutics

I told you why. "God's law and order" cannot excuse abuse and blatant harm. When we see abuse and blatant harm resulting from what some people claim is "God's law and order," it profoundly calls their claim into question.
Like I said, we have seen many other instances of "God's law and order" being used to justify evil. It's not good enough.

It is not the fault of Gods law and order or Christs and the disciples clear teachings that this is distorted and abused just like people marriage. Its when the clear teachings are denied that abuse happens. If husband and wife lived under the clear teachings there will be no abuse. Plain and simple. Your not differentiating between a Godly marriage and an unGodly one.

I made two key points. One is that we have evidence - documentary, in artworks, in inscriptions, and so on - of women in these roles.

No we don't the artwork you refer to which you have already been defeated on was not of a women bishop but of the mother of a bishop who was affectionately known as the bishopess. But not actually a bishop. Each of these examples have been shown to be unclear and at best a false representation of women priests and bishops.

The other is that the fact that these people found it necessary to argue that women couldn't be priests, suggests that in at least some places, the practice had persisted until that time. Which is consistent with the other evidence.

No it was the same continued declaration by Paul which his successors also repeated. It was just standard teaching. The times it was declared just as it was later in history with the declarations of the CC were made when there was talk or defiance of these clear teachings.

This only shows that people have been trying to undermine Christs church from soon after Christ left. He did warn the disiciples that the wolves would be coming and Paul specifically mentions women are to remain quiet and have no authority because they were promoting false teachings.

You're only just discovering this now? Have you read no church history?

I am well aware of the subjectivity of the postmodernist church. Its changed with the change in secular society becoming more relativistic. Gods truth is now determined by humans own relative experiences and now His unchanging law and order.

Thats why your church is having increasing problems as the relativity takes hold rationalising sin as good and good as sin because the unchanging foundation has been rejected.

Because I am asking you to spell out your understanding. To set forth how, in your view, the patriarchy you are arguing for can be lived out, without any limitation, abuse or control of women. To answer specific questions of how this should play out, in practice. But every single time I ask, you dodge the question.

I am not dodging the question. I am saying that your asking the wrong question. Your commiting a category error with the hermeneutics. So I cannot logically answer it without you interpreting everything as abuse. You already said that the words wive submit to husbands is abuse. Yet these words are the teachings. So if you see the idea of submit in relationships as abuse then anything I say about this you will say is abuse.

That is why it is best that I don't not say this but the very women who are in these marriages give testimony of this. That way there is no charge of a male being bias or promoting abuse because if a wife testifies that the meaning of submission in a Godly marriage is not abusive but uplifting they cannot be charged with bias. They are 1st hand witnesses. Their testimony stands in court as being the most worthy.

But you don't seem to understand that that can end up meaning anything he decides it means.

But you don't understand that this is not the fault of the clear teachings. Your own church stands on these teachings and you don't say that they are being abusive. Rather you say that this is part of the happy disagreement within your church thats allowed to flourish.

I think your clarification is, in practice, pretty meaningless. And every time I invite you to spell out exactly what, in your view, it would mean in practice, you don't.

I gave you ample links which gave you the answers. Did you bother to read these womens testimonies and your own church teachings on this which agree with my position that this is not abusive.

In 2012, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney introduced a new marriage vow that included the option for the bride to promise to "submit" to her husband, replacing the old vow for the woman to "obey".

They said this more closely aligns with Pauls teachings that wives should submit to their husbands. So your own church teaches the same.

'Submission' to my husband allows us both to flourish in our marriage
We've never sat down to work out how it is that I "submit" and he "leads" in our marriage. To do so would seem artificial, rather than a natural overflow of love for one another. However on my part, there is a willingness to let him lead us, and on his part, a desire to put my needs above his own.

It is precisely the Bible's teaching on freedom which so transforms a person's thinking once they become a Christian that they are ready to submit to others.

'Submission' to my husband allows us both to flourish in our marriage

I am a Christian woman who has been married for eight years. I have never restrained myself in any way to subordinate myself to my husband.

www.smh.com.au

My church has an understanding that there are particular doctrinal matters which are not negotiable, but that there are many others on which we can disagree. Things like the ordination of women, which we do not understand to be a salvation issue, is a matter on which our highest legal authority has ruled that we can disagree.

Thats the problem then. Because this is a clear and important teaching. The evidence of this is that its split the church and is leading to more splits.

First it was women priests and now its SSM and gay and lesbian priests and bishops and abortion rights. Its the churches that allow women priests who are the ones allowing SSM and LGBTIQ+ ideology into the church. Plain and simple. Those who don't allow women priests don't have the issue of LGBTIQ+ issues dividing them.

I have not once mentioned DEI in this thread. I have not been arguing for DEI. It's not part of my position here.

But ideologies like trans and DEI are being pushed as part of liberalising the church. You can't support LGBTIQ+ ideology without supporting DEI egalitarian ideology on which the LGBTIQ+ ideology is based on.

I have also been very clear that I am not discussing issues of morality, on which it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate for a church to have standards, codes of conduct, and so on.

You do realise that the CC, the majority of people including members of your own church see those pushing for womens priests as being morally equivelent to allowing SSM, and gay and lesbian priests. That its disobeying God which is basically sin and a moral issue. But also poisoning scripture which is a moral and church law issue.

The problem the Anglican church has is that its lost all credibility. You cannot take seriously anything it says as its conflicted with bias and division of teachings.

 

[Paidiske]

As I linked evidence for there is no other egalitarianism.

There are several types of egalitarianism (as even a quick google would have told you). Political, legal, economic, social, theological (for example); and in the sense that I would claim to be egalitarian, it is purely a theological anthropology which treats men and women as equal. Egalitarianism as I am discussing it is not about sexuality, at all.

No one is saying that.

Then you can't point to the Biblical patriarchs as an example of non-abusive patriarchy. In many ways, they were abusive.

We can clearly see Gods use of men in the line from Adam to Christ. How is this line God chose to bring about His promises and order abusive.

You do realise women were involved, too, right?

Whenever there is such trouble the place goes into lockdown and the police are called who always send a male lead when it involves men.

Not true. Last time I had to call police to deal with a difficult man, they sent two women. Who were more than capable of dealing with him, by the way.

Your whole premise is both false, and also ridiculous, in that you're arguing we need men for a reason that is simply not true.

In situations where people are confronted with a male agressor who is threatening violence men are always called to be up front or present to signal to the agressor that he is matched. If there is physical agression a man will always stand up in defense of a women. A women could not match a physically agressive and violent man of the same statue which men are usually bigger. THis is just commonsense and nature.

You might think it's common sense, but it's not true. In some ways, trying to match the physical aggression of a threatening person only escalates the situation; what you want is to face him with someone who is able to be calm, and confident, and de-escalate his defensiveness. That can be a man or a woman.

Yes we should.

No, we shouldn't. Churches, as workplaces, have an obligation for the safety of their workers, including clergy. That does not include expecting them to be caught up in physical altercations.

Yes that is what I was referring to above with lockdowns and of course workplace health and safety and codes of conduct. But thats a different kind of code to Gods law and order and CHrists teachings which have their own penalties for breaching them that is not necessarily administered by secular codes and laws.

That does not change that churches should have systems and policies in place for dealing with potentially dangerous people, other than expecting their clergy to risk trying to physically restrain someone.

Its not the only but its one component that cannot be denied.

I have been a priest for over ten years, and I'm telling you it's irrelevant. It is not a significant part of what we do, in any way.

Yes it suggest significant roles which can be other than priesthood. Your wanting it to be that so you turn an unclear suggestion into a clear teaching that it means Paul was saying women could be priests and have authority over men in the church.

I'm actually just saying that you don't have to be a priest, to have authority. Other people in significant roles did as well. Including the men and women Paul names as his co-labourers.

Yet you can't provide on 1st century bishop.

We were talking about patrons who hosted worship gatherings also presiding over that worship.

Why would Paul contradict himself. He said a women cannot have authority over a man in teaching.

He didn't contradict himself. This is how we see that the forbidding of a woman in a specific situation domineering (not having normal authority) was not forbidding women to exercise healthy authority in any capacity; by the fact that they did do so, and he commended them when they did.

We see a similar approach with Mandella, Ghandi and Dr KIng and all great people who reflected Christ who were abused by the oppressors but remained quiet and did not retaliate or complain and changed nations.

Remained quiet and did not complain? Are you joking? Every single one of these figures had a great deal to say!

Not that is not what I am arguing for

Then why on earth are we discussing slavery as if it were some kind of good thing?!

If it is vague then how can you assume its about abuse when you have no clear evidence and it could also not be abuse.

I keep asking for specific clarification, and not getting it...

Why take your own vague musings over the clear words of the people who stand on these clear teachings and state they are not about abuse.

The legions of abused women who show the truth of where Christian patriarchy ends up speak more than eloquently.

It clearly says theological egalitarian coinflicts with Pauls teachings that men have authority over women.

With one interpretation of Paul's teachings.

So its exactly the same as secular egalitariamism.

Secular egalitarianism is not concerned with Scripture, not concerned with theology, not concerned with a Christian ethic of gender relationships.

Can you show me where I have done this.

How about the post just above this one, where you take the view of people who have testified that "it is not this way," but nowhere, not once, have you taken seriously the lived reality of women who have been abused, and whose abuse has been justified with the teachings you're promoting.

What you fail to understand is that I have been acknowledging the reality of abuse of women by advocating for their protection under Gods law and order and Christ and the disciples teachings.

But that's not what happens. Again I implore you to look into survivor testimony.

Well it has to be because the same qualification for priest applies to being head of the home.

Well, no. A priest might need to be (among other things) demonstrated to have healthy relationships at home, but all the other qualifications don't apply to being "head" of the home.

But that's not even my point. My point was simply, you were making a claim that is not in Scripture. You might rationalise that it "has to be" that way, but in doing so, you are going beyond what the Scripture actually says.

That cannot make sense as it contradicts their own position but the other way around. If they advocate for gay and lesbian priests and not women what is the biblical basis.

And yet that was how it was. There were gay men in ministry - some of them more public about their sexuality than others - long before there were women. And some of them were the fiercest opponents of women in ministry. I think they saw it as threatening their boys' club.

All I know is that its a fact that when feminism became influence in society thats when there was a spike in women priests and women calling to be priests.

You assume that women didn't have vocations before then. They did, they just had no avenue to pursue them.

What people don't realise that what the philosophy that the church teaches women priests to be women priests is based on the feminisation of the church.

By which you mean what, precisely?

It is not the fault of Gods law and order or Christs and the disciples clear teachings that this is distorted and abused just like people marriage.

But when we see harm resulting, that's a good indicator that the teachings are being distorted. So when we see abuse arising from gender hierarchy, that's a good indicator that that's a distortion of Christ's teachings.

No we don't the artwork you refer to which you have already been defeated on

(That got you an eyeroll. I'm not "defeated").

was not of a women bishop but of the mother of a bishop who was affectionately known as the bishopess.

That's not the only artwork I'm referring to.

I am well aware of the subjectivity of the postmodernist church.

It's been going on since the earliest times. It's not a postmodern phenomenon.

I am not dodging the question.

Well, you're sure not answering it.

I am saying that your asking the wrong question.

To me, it's the only one that really matters.

You want to argue for male headship, male authority, male decision-making power, and you want to claim that doesn't end up being abusive? Then you'd better demonstrate exactly how that works, because that does not match the evidence we have.

So I cannot logically answer it without you interpreting everything as abuse.

If you cannot argue for your position without there being dynamics of power and control identifiable, what does that tell you?

You already said that the words wive submit to husbands is abuse.

Note: that is not what I said. I said the abuse came in how these words were understood and applied.

But you don't understand that this is not the fault of the clear teachings.

Then spell out the limits that make it non-abusive and safe!

I gave you ample links which gave you the answers.

No, they didn't.

But ideologies like trans and DEI are being pushed as part of liberalising the church.

Maybe some people are pushing those ideologies. In this thread, I am simply arguing against patriarchal control of women. The rest is off topic, and I am not interested in it.

You do realise that the CC, the majority of people including members of your own church see those pushing for womens priests as being morally equivelent to allowing SSM, and gay and lesbian priests.

Equivalent? No. That position would lack any nuanced understanding of any of the issues.

The problem the Anglican church has is that its lost all credibility.

In your humble opinion. But thankfully, we're free to ignore that opinion and get on with being faithful Christians in Anglican communities.

 

[stevevw]

There are several types of egalitarianism (as even a quick google would have told you). Political, legal, economic, social, theological (for example); and in the sense that I would claim to be egalitarian, it is purely a theological anthropology which treats men and women as equal. Egalitarianism as I am discussing it is not about sexuality, at all.

They all still carry the same prinicple of equality. You can't apply that priniciple to some and not others. If say for example you only applied egalitarianism to women under legal egalitarianism but not gays and lesbians that would be an injustice.

But if your applying egalitarianism to womens rights to be priests your talking about sex as a womens rights. So denying lessbain women those same rights is a contradition in terms. Denying trans men who identify as women is a contraditcion in principle. No version of egalitarianism works with Gods law and order and Christs representation to us of submission.

It is hard to see how the egalitarian impulse differs in its attempts to push back on natural law to those who affirm concepts like same sex marriage for those in the LGBT community or the ability to change one’s sex. The argumentation is largely the same and it is not a surprise to see a disproportionately high number of female clergy tend to also affirm a revisionist understanding of marriage too or even objecting to calling and identifying God as our Father. This is because, at its heart, it is the same argument. This is something Lewis in his tract on the topic perceived in the argument even before its acceptance within the Church of England.

I think it’s fair to say that if such ambiguity, silence or even promotion of egalitarianism continues to develop in this way (which I hope they don’t), will lead to further decline in church numbers.

Egalitarianism and the Church of England

Awhile ago I wrote something about my developing views on women in ministry yet I hadn’t really thought out how this impacts how I interact with my church, The Church of England. Women’s Ordination…

ontheruinofbritain.wordpress.com

Then you can't point to the Biblical patriarchs as an example of non-abusive patriarchy. In many ways, they were abusive.

The Patriarchs for the purpose of Gods plan were not abusive. When Moses led the people out of Egypt this was not abusive. When he gave the laws this was not abusive but to stop the abuse. When God appointed David as King to rule over others was that abusive in itself. Did God appoint David in order that he could abuse. Ddi God appoint Abraham to leadership in order to abuse. NO.

You do realise women were involved, too, right?

Of course. But in a different way to men. Thats the point I think that God uses our maleness and femaleness. There are important differences that God used. It would have been weird and abhorrent that an army of women went through cities mutilating people. It goes against our natural instincts that women are not like this. Plus they would have been overcome by the far stronger men of the evil nations.

Not true. Last time I had to call police to deal with a difficult man, they sent two women. Who were more than capable of dealing with him, by the way.

I guess it depends on the situation. Nowadays we have modern tech like tazers abd pepper spray. But your missing the point. A women in a physical fight like for like would always be defeated based on male superior strength. This is the basic priniciple we have lived with for all history.

Men are protectors because of their superior size and strength and women being child bearers and volunurable as the weaker vessel need that protection. God designed us this way.

Your whole premise is both false, and also ridiculous, in that you're arguing we need men for a reason that is simply not true.

Its ultimately not and spot on and the science, Gods design and reality are evidence of this. Ultimately Christ said Christians will be persecuted in His name. Its starting to happen now. Churches are being attacked and fire bombed. Preachersd are being shot in the streets, Christians cancelled and then destroyed online and their livihoods taken. Christian persecution is reaching genocidal levels around the world.

Its not that this is going to happen to some church in a remote twon but that its a real thing happening for many churches and Christians around the world. Its ultimately what Christ was preparing His church for and taught the disciples about regarding the wolves. Just like GOd used men against wicked nations He designed men to protect their wife, family and the church.

Which can also mean protecting against the non physical threats such as attacks on the truth of teachings and keeping the church on track in these trying times. Men are designed by God for this specific role and you want to deny them that which is God given to them only. THis is exactly the same egalitarian hermeneutics as secular feminism uses to make men and women the same and interchangable. It dishonors GOds design and order.

You might think it's common sense, but it's not true. In some ways, trying to match the physical aggression of a threatening person only escalates the situation; what you want is to face him with someone who is able to be calm, and confident, and de-escalate his defensiveness. That can be a man or a woman.

In principle yes and this is the radical reverse psychology of the idea in submission in Christ. Christ did not fight back. Though we should defend ourselves and family if someone is trying to harm or kill us the principle of submission in appealing to the agressors conscience rather than escalating is wise.

But that is different to how Christ and the disciples were harrassed, physical attacked and why ultimately they were martryed. That is its a spiritual battle. The wolves will do anything in the end to stop Christ. So there is no doubt that Christians and the church will be spiritually attacked and there is no limits to the physical harm that will inflict in the end.

Christ tells us many will be killed in His name let alone harmed, harrassed, intimidated. So ultimately the modern church is unprepared being feminised. It no longer takes the strong and bold masculline aspect seriously and in fact demeans and excludes it. The church needs strong and bold men to stand up for whats coming to protect and lead.

No, we shouldn't. Churches, as workplaces, have an obligation for the safety of their workers, including clergy. That does not include expecting them to be caught up in physical altercations.

1 Peter 5:8 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.
Matthew 7:15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
Matthew 10:22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

ACT.5.40-42
The Council (Sanhedrin, Jewish High Court) took his advice; and after summoning the apostles, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and released them. So they left the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy [dignified by indignity] to suffer shame for [the sake of] His name. And every single day, in the temple [area] and in homes, they did not stop teaching and telling the good news of Jesus as the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed).

Persecution and Suffering for Jesus Christ

Persecution and Suffering for Jesus Christ - C.S. Lewis Institute

Tom Tarrants raises the important, albeit disturbing, topic of persecution for the sake of the gospel during the process of discipleship.

www.cslewisinstitute.org

That does not change that churches should have systems and policies in place for dealing with potentially dangerous people, other than expecting their clergy to risk trying to physically restrain someone.

I don't think satan will care for such things.

Sevenfold increase in attacks on church properties in one year, new report finds

https://catholicleader.com.au/news/world/sevenfold-increase-in-attacks-on-church-properties-in-one-year-new-report-finds/

When it starts to get to this level it gets dangerous and this is where men step up to lead the way. We do the same thing in secular society. Its a natural disposition for men as God designed them.

I have been a priest for over ten years, and I'm telling you it's irrelevant. It is not a significant part of what we do, in any way.

But it will be in the coming years. You cannot say its not a potential life and death situation for many Christians and churches.

Report Shows Christian Persecution Worsening Worldwide

Report Shows Christian Persecution Worsening Worldwide - International Christian Concern

A report released on Tuesday shows that Christians around the world are enduring increased levels of violence, discrimination, and other human rights abuses.

www.persecution.org

6 trends in modern-day Christian persecution

6 trends in modern-day Christian persecution

New report from Open Doors reveals the drivers behind the suffering of believers living in the 50 most dangerous countries to follow Jesus

www.opendoorsus.org

Just like in the time of the old testament and in Christ and the disciples time Godly men will rise up against satan persecutes of the church in Christs name standing boldly on Gods Word until the death. The bible says that the enermy will come and force people to renounce their faith on threat of death. This is the time when men will be needed to lead the way.

Luke 21:16-17
You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you will be put to death. / And you will be hated by everyone because of My name.

I'm actually just saying that you don't have to be a priest, to have authority. Other people in significant roles did as well. Including the men and women Paul names as his co-labourers.

Yes I agree, Other leadership roles had just as much importance in their own way. I mentioned that men cannot lead as women in motherhood. THis was something Mary could fullfill that men can never even experience. Well actually men do claim they can nowadays but that is not the same thing as the actual cells in the body designed for motherhood.

But heres the problem with this egalitarian worldview. Your taking a corporate or legal rights view when you make it about authority in that sense of one having authority over another. This is not how Paul is talking about authority or head or submission.

We were talking about patrons who hosted worship gatherings also presiding over that worship.

Yes and I said that is an assumption and there is no evidence for making that assumption.

In fact if any inferences can be made it is that as Paul clearly stated that the man was the head of the home in this regard it is very likely Aquilla lead the home church as Paul also says a women cannot have authority over a man in teaching. So your using an ambigious and unsupported assumption to poison a clear teaching that applies.

He didn't contradict himself. This is how we see that the forbidding of a woman in a specific situation domineering (not having normal authority) was not forbidding women to exercise healthy authority in any capacity; by the fact that they did do so, and he commended them when they did.

But it does not say that Pricilla did so. She may have participated as an assistent in the teachings s sharing the words of God. But women were not to teach as Paul did and said in the church whether that was a home or traditional church.

That you bring in the domineering, forbidding and capacity shows you are interpreting this in egalitarian equal rights hermeneutics and not as Peter and Paul means in regards to submission and head within the relationships of the body of Christ, church and marriage. You cannot use egalitarian hermeneutics to understand these texts.

Remained quiet and did not complain? Are you joking? Every single one of these figures had a great deal to say!

Yes but it was never retaliatory or political. It was spiritual and about submission of self for others. That was the radical difference compared to other groups like BLM or DEI ideology that makes it about race, gender and sex rights over the greater good of the beloved community as Dr King mentions.

Christ gives the ultimate example and the disciples specifically say to follow His example especially Peter the Rock.

This is such a profound and radical teaching. It is a massive trigger for the egalitarian and no amount of rationalisation can deminish its implications for Christs representation and example to us in this world.

1 Peter 2:11–25
Submission to Authority

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

 

[Paidiske]

They all still carry the same prinicple of equality. You can't apply that priniciple to some and not others. If say for example you only applied egalitarianism to women under legal egalitarianism but not gays and lesbians that would be an injustice.

I'd say, it's not that I'm applying it to some and not others, but that I am applying it to particular circumstances (biological sex) and not others (immoral behaviour). And yes, you absolutely can make that kind of distinction.

But if your applying egalitarianism to womens rights to be priests your talking about sex as a womens rights.

We are having a much broader discussion about egalitarianism as an alternative to patriarchy. It's not just about ordination (although that is one issue within that).

The Patriarchs for the purpose of Gods plan were not abusive.

That's not a valid distinction. You can't kind of pick one thread out of history, say that was "God's plan," and exclude any instance of abuse from it; and then say that should be the model for every society and culture.

The patriarchal era was not free of abuse. You cannot uphold it as an example of non-abusive patriarchy.

Of course. But in a different way to men.

No two people made identical contributions. It's not really about gender.

It would have been weird and abhorrent that an army of women went through cities mutilating people.

Because of course it's not weird and abhorrent when men do it? Good grief.

I guess it depends on the situation.

Which really renders this whole ridiculous line of argument moot.

Men are designed by God for this specific role and you want to deny them that which is God given to them only.

Just pause here. I'm not wanting to deny men anything. If men are called to ministry, and want to take up that calling, great. We need more good people. If men want to exercise leadership in the home and the community, great. We need more good husbands, fathers, and community leaders.

I'm just arguing that it can and ought to be a shared responsibility. Partnering with women is not denying men.

When it starts to get to this level it gets dangerous and this is where men step up to lead the way. We do the same thing in secular society.

Actually, what you do is things like having policies that no one should be in the building alone with the doors open. Having monitored duress alarms. Giving your staff training in dealing with difficult people. That's what we do in secular workplaces, and it's what we do in churches where there is noted risk.

The gender of your staff is just not an issue.

But it will be in the coming years. You cannot say its not a potential life and death situation for many Christians and churches.

Maybe. As I've said before, the most significant assault I've experienced as a priest was from Christian men taking issue with me as a woman in this role. I have had reason to fear violence from misogynistic men.

Perhaps I should take them as training for further persecution to come.

Just like in the time of the old testament and in Christ and the disciples time Godly men will rise up against satan persecutes of the church in Christs name standing boldly on Gods Word until the death.

You keep saying this, as if the women weren't martyred right alongside them. As if you think women won't stand boldly even now. But there is no reason to make such a claim.

Yes I agree, Other leadership roles had just as much importance in their own way.

Then it's ridiculous, in the face of this evidence, to say that women are forbidden from exercising authority.

I mentioned that men cannot lead as women in motherhood.

I'm not talking about motherhood.

Your taking a corporate or legal rights view when you make it about authority in that sense of one having authority over another.

My understanding of authority in the church is not actually about "authority over." It's about authority to take up particular forms of service.

Yes and I said that is an assumption and there is no evidence for making that assumption.

Well, when you read about worship in the 1st century Mediterranean world, there is, but like I said, a lot of what I have on that is not readily available online. I can only recommend that you do a fair bit of reading in that direction.

But it does not say that Pricilla did so.

It specifically says that others did, though. Phoebe, Junia, Lydia, and so many others.

That you bring in the domineering, forbidding and capacity shows you are interpreting this in egalitarian equal rights hermeneutics

Or that I'm actually paying attention to the Scriptures, instead of taking one verse out of context and applying it completely inappropriately.

Yes but it was never retaliatory or political.

It was never political? Again, every one of these figures was massively political.

Here's Dr. King on submissiveness (emphasis mine): "Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles. Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right?"

 

[stevevw]

Then why on earth are we discussing slavery as if it were some kind of good thing?!

Because its not the slavery that is the point but the spirit and heart of being a servant or slave as Christ was. Peter uses the example of a slave being submissive despite some masters being unkind. He says that it is this relationship examples by Christ and what Christ taught Himself that is the point. You keep dragging this point doiwn the the gutter of power and egalitarianism and sin. It dishonors God.

1 Peter 2:11–25
Submission to Authority
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

I keep asking for specific clarification, and not getting it...

I have given ample and you refuse to read them or engage in any reasoning about their content. So I am not interested in your games.

But I want to try a little thouhjt experiement. If I don't give any details to your demands and satisfaction does that mean that what the CC, myself and your own church believes is abuse. Because they are not spelling things out. Is that what you are saying.

The legions of abused women who show the truth of where Christian patriarchy ends up speak more than eloquently.

Yeah and we have legions of aborted souls, fatherless kids, broken marriages, insanity, suicide, war, sex trafficking, child abuse ect ect. They are all bad and all sin and fall very short of Gods law and order. What do you expect from a sinful world.

We would hope that Godly men and marriages set the example as Peter was talking about. But if there are some who are not Godly then don't blame Goids divine order for marriage and the church. Because its false and dishonors God and good Godly men and marriages. You have been doing this all thread and I am surprised that someone in your position would imply such a thing. And I know exactly what you will say lol.

With one interpretation of Paul's teachings.

That implies no truth in teachings. That they can be socially constructed according to social norms and not Gods one and only truth.

Can you explain in theological egalitarian terms how the interpretation works in regards to Peter and Pauls teachings. I will give you a hint. Its not just about how we submit to each other in Christ.

Peter and Paul mention that the body is made up of various relationships of submission. Address this truth about submission in Pauls teachings in egalitarian terms.

Secular egalitarianism is not concerned with Scripture, not concerned with theology, not concerned with a Christian ethic of gender relationships.

Secular egalitarianism is Christian egalitarianism, Egalitarianism comes out of the political rights movement. Its a modern day principle. The church did not make this up. They adopted it and used it to interpret the bible when feminism exploded into the church. This is a fact.

Before that there was not egalitarianism as men and women being the same and equal. The majority recognised the clear biblical understanding and lived it out. It was the sexual and womens revolutions that challenged this norm and all the political ideologies and language came about.

If Secular egalitarianism is not concerned with Scripture then this implies Christian egalitarianism is. So how can they be concerned with scripture if they poison it by their egalitarian hermeneutics. The only concern I see is that of changing scripture to fit the egalitarian worldview.

How about the post just above this one, where you take the view of people who have testified that "it is not this way," but nowhere, not once, have you taken seriously the lived reality of women who have been abused, and whose abuse has been justified with the teachings you're promoting.

If you knew how ironic this is for those who believe on the clear teachings. By advocating for the clear teachings we are more than any other world movement ever in the history of human kind have proposed such a radical Godly order that not only stops the abuse of women but of children and the family and is ultimatly the most joyful and fullfilling way to be for marriage, and women in society.

What modern egalitarian and other secular ideologies that have crept into the church offer is more abuse, more culture wars, violence and the breakdown of society and the church.

But that's not what happens. Again I implore you to look into survivor testimony.

I am not deminishing the experiences of women who have been abused. Like I said I work with all sorts of abuse, ie mothers abusing kids, kids without fathers, men absuing women, women abusing men, others abusing their own bodies with drugs and thus abusing their family. I have experiences abuse, my wife and my son have all experienced abuse. So I know the experience.

But my point is not about experience but Gods law and order and clear teachings where submision in relationship is based on Christs submission.

Are you are saying that a couple living under Gods marriage and the teachings cannot make a Godly marriage in which abuse is non existent. Don't use womens experience of these sinful examples as representing a Godly marriage. Its a false equivelence. This is what happens in the modern church and secular society where experiences and feelings are trumping truth and reality.

Well, no. A priest might need to be (among other things) demonstrated to have healthy relationships at home, but all the other qualifications don't apply to being "head" of the home.

But that's not even my point. My point was simply, you were making a claim that is not in Scripture. You might rationalise that it "has to be" that way, but in doing so, you are going beyond what the Scripture actually says.

Once again your manipulating clear scripture and this is one of the tactics. To change single words or emit words to change the meaning. You hange the clear word manage to healthy relationships which is completely different to what Paul is talking about. He is saying a priest must be able to manage his home because that is a miniture version of managing the church.

1 Timothy 3:5
For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

This is supported by 1 Corinthians 14 when Paul says that women have not authority over men in the church on teachings and must ask their husbands at home. Paul is giving the authority to men at home as well. These verses together and others similar from Peter and Moses all support the clear teachings.

Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.e

And yet that was how it was. There were gay men in ministry - some of them more public about their sexuality than others - long before there were women. And some of them were the fiercest opponents of women in ministry. I think they saw it as threatening their boys' club.

So why would we listen to someone who also is breaching Gods law and order. Two wrongs don't make a right. The same churches that allow women priests are the most proactive to allow gay and lesbian priests, SSM and abortion. This is fact.

The relationship is undeniable. Allowing women priests is based on the same ideology. So allowing gays will lead to allowing women priests and allowing women priests will lead to allowing gay and lesbian priests. Its the hermeneutics and it logically follows. I gave you the evidence.

You assume that women didn't have vocations before then. They did, they just had no avenue to pursue them.

Because it was heretical to the clear teachings and church. This is a good example how before the womens movement and the politicising of the church the common and universal norm was women could not be priest. The churh ruled on this several times from the 1st century to as recent as late 20th century. Everyone knew this was against offical orthody.

It was the renegade women and churches that defied this universal decalration that we see before the womens movement. Each time being declared heretical and excommunicated.

These sporadic examples were not legitimate examples no more than the push for gay priests or other heretical beliefs and movements. An entire sect under Nestorian was excommunicated from the church and they formed the foundation for the Eastern Church which influenced Islam.

So just because people or defy the church does not make for legitimate examples for women priests. It waas outlawed and they were breaching not only what was accepted as the church norm but defying the clear teachings they were based on. They are not good examples for womens priest but examples of disobedience.

By which you mean what, precisely?

Feminism is more or less egalitarianism. Its a political ideology and not biblical. It posons the bible. For one it hates the idea of mascullinity. Feminism has influenced churches to make gender neutral in language in the bibel.

Denying Christs mascullinity as represented in His submission to to God. This is a core teaching of submission in relationships. And of courses egalitarians and feminist hate submission especially when it involves men.

But when we see harm resulting, that's a good indicator that the teachings are being distorted. So when we see abuse arising from gender hierarchy, that's a good indicator that that's a distortion of Christ's teachings.

Yes that is exactly right and this is for everyone a clear sign of not following clear teachings. The signs of following Gods way are all good, pure and fullfill and enhance rather than abuse.

As Peter says just the idea of submission of a wife to a husband who may not believe or has lost belief will cause them to see Christ. Thats how powerful both spouses within Gods divine order for marriage can be.

(That got you an eyeroll. I'm not "defeated").

I mean in your arguements. I have provided clear evidence. Your logic that people stranding on the clear teachings to submit based on egalitarianism is incoherent. It cannot work no matter which way you rationalise it.

Your own church proves this. You cannot call your own church abusive for standing on the same clear teachings. Your own church also stood on them until they didn't. So your argument has no credibility and its full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Classic signs of a weak arguement.

That's not the only artwork I'm referring to.

Ok. But you did use that one earlier and it was defeated like all the others egalitarians put up. So your grasping at straws.

It's been going on since the earliest times. It's not a postmodern phenomenon.

Yes it is. If we look at a graph we will see a spike in the womens movement within the church becoming activists for women priests at the same time as feminism spiked in secular society. And of course why not as feminism became dominant in societies thinking over the years.

Church feminism
During the early 20th century, some activists sought equal representation for women both in society and in the church. Agnes Maude Royden, Louise Creighton, Edith Picton-Turbeville and Ursula Roberts were prominent Anglican feminists.

Feminism and religion

Learn about our collection of primary source material related to feminism and religion.

www.lse.ac.uk

Until about 1985, I was aware that the feminist movement was making itself felt in the Catholic Church, in women's demands for ordination, girl altar servers and so forth. Then, in 1985, a kit of discussion papers (hereinafter referred to as "the Kit"), entitled, Women in the Church, was published by the Administrative Board of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB).1

This bibliography, composed almost solely of the works of religious feminist authors, plunges one right into the midst of feminist thinking within the Church. It soon became obvious to me that this movement, which is now very powerful, has truly frightening ramifications.

Library : The Feminist Agenda within the Catholic Church

The Feminist Agenda within the Catholic Church This pamphlet written by Cornelia Ferreira in 1987 summarizes the often subtle, even hidden, radical feminist agenda working to undermine the Catholic Church. The author provides a closer examination of a publication by the Canadian Conference of...

www.catholicculture.org

Feminism In The Reformed Churches: 4. The Tactics, In Church

 

[Paidiske]

Because its not the slavery that is the point but the spirit and heart of being a servant or slave as Christ was.

And do you not see the difference between freely choosing to offer your time, strength, talents, gifts, and so on, in service to a greater good, and being coerced into serving someone else's power?

I have given ample

I am not asking for other people's waffle. I am asking you to lay out specific answers as to how what you believe should be lived out in practice.
I am asking you to explain how what you are arguing for, plays out without any dynamics of abuse and control.

That's not a game. You're here arguing for the subjugation of women, then trying to tell me it won't result in abuse. I'm giving you an opportunity to explain how that can be possible, because without that explanation, your claim lacks any credibility.

If I don't give any details to your demands and satisfaction does that mean that what the CC, myself and your own church believes is abuse.

I've already said that any ideology which limits or controls women is a form of abuse. I'm giving you the opportunity to explain how your ideology doesn't do that. Because on the face of it, it looks like it does.

Yeah and we have legions of aborted souls, fatherless kids, broken marriages, insanity, suicide, war, sex trafficking, child abuse ect ect.

They are all bad and all sin and fall very short of Gods law and order. What do you expect from a sinful world.

The difference is, there is a very clear causal relationship between gender inequality, and abuse. The one drives the other. So to argue for gender inequality is to provide the groundwork for abuse.

That implies no truth in teachings.

It just is the reality that people disagree. It's not a crisis or a disaster; Christians have disagreed about all sorts of things since Christ rose, and will continue to do so.

Can you explain in theological egalitarian terms how the interpretation works in regards to Peter and Pauls teachings. I will give you a hint. Its not just about how we submit to each other in Christ.

That's a necessary first step, though. Without seeing first that submission is mutual, you cannot make any sense of the texts you're referring to.

Peter and Paul mention that the body is made up of various relationships of submission.

Ah, no. The body is made up of various members, with different functions. That's not the same as "various relationships of submission."

Secular egalitarianism is Christian egalitarianism, Egalitarianism comes out of the political rights movement.

Christian egalitarianism is, however, profoundly Scriptural, is able to argue from a coherent, orthodox systematic theology, and is concerned with a Christian moral framework. In that sense, they are not at all the same thing.

So how can they be concerned with scripture if they poison it by their egalitarian hermeneutics.

That's your accusation. I'd say it's completely false.

I am not deminishing the experiences of women who have been abused.

You're not acknowledging the ways they were driven by patriarchal ideology, though.

Are you are saying that a couple living under Gods marriage and the teachings cannot make a Godly marriage in which abuse is non existent.

I am saying that if one spouse is limiting or controlling the other in any way, that is a form of abuse. I believe marriages should be free of such controlling dynamics, under God's ideal, but some seem to be arguing for them; and I would say to them that you cannot have control, and not have abuse.

You hange the clear word manage to healthy relationships which is completely different to what Paul is talking about. He is saying a priest must be able to manage his home because that is a miniture version of managing the church.

I change the terms because households today are not the same as ancient households. Today we do not, generally, have households of extended family as well as paid workers and slaves. An ancient household was almost more like a small business enterprise. And today we do not own people, or have the power of life and death over them, the way the heads of households did in the ancient world.

What we do have is adults whose marriages and parenting can be assessed as to whether their style of relating is free of abuse, is healthy, whether they are able to resolve conflict, to communicate, and so on. And those things are assessed. Because we recognise that those are the key attributes that translate from home to church, that matter in leading a church.

This is supported by 1 Corinthians 14 when Paul says that women have not authority over men in the church on teachings and must ask their husbands at home. Paul is giving the authority to men at home as well.

Paul is pointing out that ignorant women need not disrupt the worship gathering to ask their questions. He's not saying all husbands are expected to be an authority at home.

So why would we listen to someone who also is breaching Gods law and order.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm simply describing the history to you. You seemed to think women opened the door for gay men in ministry; I am pointing out that the gay men were there long before women.

Yes that is exactly right and this is for everyone a clear sign of not following clear teachings.

Right. So. When a man controls and abuses his wife, and claims a God-given authority to do so, because he has "headship" or whatever, we see the problem. The belief in gender hierarchy is driving abuse.

I have provided clear evidence.

You've made unconvincing claims. I'm certainly not taking them seriously.

You cannot call your own church abusive for standing on the same clear teachings.

If you think I imagine my church has no problems, let me tell you, I am not so naïve.

Yes it is.

If we're simply talking about disagreement in the church, no, it's not. Like I said, go back and look at the disagreement between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch on how to interpret Scripture. Christians disagreeing is not some sudden crisis or change; disagreement has always been a reality we've had to deal with.

Feminism is not the enemy of the gospel. It can be a powerful ally. But if you only see women as a threat, you'll end up crippling the church.

 

[stevevw]

Well, you're sure not answering it.

Because its unanswerable in egalitarian terms. As one of the articles I linked from an Anglican women who has lived in a GOdly marriage for 20 years. Her husband and herself have never say down and thought what exactly does Gods marriage order mean in practical terms.

Because in doing so would then make Gods marriage order artificial. Its questioning Gods mystery for specific answers. She says when they are in a GOdly marriage they each are on the same page and nothing needs to be spoken about. It flows and because each is following GOds way it naturally is in harmony. The wife can confidently trust and follow her husband knowing he loves her like Christ did the church.

To me, it's the only one that really matters.

I would have thought Gods law and order came first.

You want to argue for male headship, male authority, male decision-making power, and you want to claim that doesn't end up being abusive? Then you'd better demonstrate exactly how that works, because that does not match the evidence we have.

So were Peter and Paul forced and demanded to demonstrate exactly how it works when their made these clear teachings. Does God have to demonstrate how denying SSM in church exactly works because its denying gays and lesbians and is against the egalitarian worldview.

If you cannot argue for your position without there being dynamics of power and control identifiable, what does that tell you?

Does Gods order for marriage have any identifiable abuse within it. Can you tell me of anything that remotely will cause abuse if we follow Gods law and order and Christs teachings. I have given you tons of evidence from scholars, your own church and women who tell you there is no abuse in a Godly marriage. If you say there is then you doubt Gods word. It is by faith God says trust in me and follow my way.

Note: that is not what I said. I said the abuse came in how these words were understood and applied.

The words conjure up abuse no matter how they are applied for the egalitarian. Any submission is a trigger for them as no one is to submit to anyone or any thing. The mear mention triggers them.

Look at what happened in your own church. The Sydney diocese adds one word 'subit' to the marriage vowes and the egalitarians Anglicans go crazy with Anglicans writing in condemning them as promoting abuse. Just a single word sparks hysteria to the egalitarians. Even you said just the words "wives submit" is abusive.

Then spell out the limits that make it non-abusive and safe!

Conforming to Gods law and order. Trusting in God and He will show the way. Each spouse will intuitive know they are in good hands and will work together. The wife will confidently follow her husband just as we conflidently follow Christ because the husband will be like Christ. Thats guarenteed. Unless you don't trust God.

No, they didn't.

'Submission' to my husband allows us both to flourish in our marriage
We've never sat down to work out how it is that I "submit" and he "leads" in our marriage. To do so would seem artificial, rather than a natural overflow of love for one another. However on my part, there is a willingness to let him lead us, and on his part, a desire to put my needs above his own.

It is precisely the Bible's teaching on freedom which so transforms a person's thinking once they become a Christian that they are ready to submit to others.

'Submission' to my husband allows us both to flourish in our marriage

I am a Christian woman who has been married for eight years. I have never restrained myself in any way to subordinate myself to my husband.

www.smh.com.au

Maybe some people are pushing those ideologies. In this thread, I am simply arguing against patriarchal control of women. The rest is off topic, and I am not interested in it.

YOur own church is pushing such ideology. So how can we take serious anything the Anglican church says on this matter.

Equivalent? No. That position would lack any nuanced understanding of any of the issues.

Equivalent. The CC, parts of your own church and the majority of people see the push for women priests as the same as the push for gay and lesbian priests and SSM in the church. They are both breaching clear teachings and using egalitarian ideology to undermine scripture and are being disobedient to God.

Why do you think the CC excommunicated women who defied these teachings. This same position is help many today including your own church.

In your humble opinion. But thankfully, we're free to ignore that opinion and get on with being faithful Christians in Anglican communities.

Isn't that ironic. One part of the Anglican church is condemning the other part as being unfaithful. And you said they happily disagreed. Shows that the reality is that they don't get along or agree to disagree.

Another point. I offered to agree to disagree and you refused. Yet you allow people to agree to disagree in your church. Another contradiction. The egalitarian hermeneutics is incoherent and divisive to Gods law and order and Christs teachings.

 

[Paidiske]

Because its unanswerable in egalitarian terms.

See, I look at that, and it comes across as, "I know the position I'm advocating for is controlling and abusive, so I won't spell it out so that the controlling dynamics can be identified."

Its questioning Gods mystery for specific answers.

Well, for heaven's sake, if it doesn't have specific answers to real life situations, what on earth is the point of it?

I would have thought Gods law and order came first.

But we are arguing about what God's law and order is. I am arguing that it cannot have abuse as its fruit. You say your position doesn't result in abuse. I say please demonstrate your claim, and you refuse. So your position is discredited by your refusal.

So were Peter and Paul forced and demanded to demonstrate exactly how it works when their made these clear teachings.

Presumably they were available for ongoing conversation, even if only by letter.

Does Gods order for marriage have any identifiable abuse within it.

I would say no, because God's order for marriage absolutely excludes one spouse limiting or controlling the other. But if you want to argue for male control, then you have a problem.

The words conjure up abuse no matter how they are applied for the egalitarian.

I can read those words, affirm them as God-inspired Scripture, and still insist that they don't justify any dynamic of control or abuse.

Conforming to Gods law and order. Trusting in God and He will show the way. Each spouse will intuitive know they are in good hands and will work together. The wife will confidently follow her husband just as we conflidently follow Christ because the husband will be like Christ.

This is not what I mean, when I say spell out the limits. I am looking, for example, for a clear statement from you that a husband must never control his wife. Never use physical force, emotional duress, financial pressure, spiritual beliefs, or any other mechanism, to attempt to limit her choices, or to coerce her behaviour. That she is free to live, speak, believe and practice her faith as seems best to her before God.

That "headship," or "authority," or whatever other term you want to use for what you see as a husband's role, can never be lived out in any such controlling behaviour. (Although then I'd ask, in what practical sense is their marriage different from an egalitarian marriage, anyway?)

That would be a limit which would allow for a safe, non-abusive marriage. But it is hard to see how that is compatible with your position.

Isn't that ironic. One part of the Anglican church is condemning the other part as being unfaithful. And you said they happily disagreed. Shows that the reality is that they don't get along or agree to disagree.

There are many matters on which we happily disagree. Like I said, we've always argued about how big the tent should be and where the limits are, but we have never been a church of rigid conformity, either in belief or practice.

I offered to agree to disagree and you refused.

Yes. I refused to agree to disagree with a position I see as promoting abuse. That's true whether it's you or anyone else espousing it.