Empathy, feminism, and the church [women’s ordination]

[Rose_bud]

Y'know. Kroeger & Kroeger ... ... I've mentioned Catherine Kroeger

Hi 2Philo

Yes you have and I finally decided to have a look at the book you mentioned. Although I only read the preface, I can already see that the results complement the work a friend of mine was doing, which I had the privilege of reading. He did a socio- rhetorical analysis of the Timothy passage, and came to the same conclusion. It was about false teaching, and the false teaching concerning Eve. He did a comparison of the verses alongside the "forbidden texts".

Thanks, I'll let ask him if he read their work. Although I didn't see the name in his references. But thanks again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Appeals to authorities are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.


No, it's just an appeal to an authority. Appealing to facts or arguments would require presenting their arguments.

And I'm not going to present their arguments---or their facts---- until I know an interlocuter is truly interested in having those arguments and facts presented .............................. Let's just say that unlike some posters here or on any public forum, I'm not about to waste my time writing a 1,000 word essay as a post only to have it summarily ignored and/or face palmed.

Do you believe that there was no good thief because he only appears in Luke? Where else do you apply such logic?

You're missing the potentiality that I actually do have hermeneutical studies and points to make about 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14 and other similar scant passages regarding women in the Church.

This is, prima facie, a very bad argument, "Paul doesn't doesn't discount women pastors in Romans 1, therefore women pastors are fine." Not only is the methodology invalid, but beyond that Romans 1 is not dealing with questions of the Church in any obvious way. There are other places in Paul's writings where he deals with questions of the Church explicitly. That is where we would expect him to speak to this issue, and that is where he does speak to this issue.

Of course it is a bad argument, "prima facie." No one is relying on sheer quips of deduction here to prove anything......................................... we all know that it takes time and research to gather all of the source material and present it. I mean, who here on this entire CF forum is up for taking the time to find, read and analyze the many scholarly sources we'll need to dive into in order to get to the nitty-gritty.

Answer: Other than maybe you, very very few.

I can drink to that! Actually I don't know if it is permissible for you to argue for women's ordination in the Traditional Theology forum, so I will probably leave off this topic rather soon.

Here ye, Here ye! A toast.

 

[zippy2006]

Here ye, Here ye! A toast.

Cheers, and I will eventually get back to the other threads (e.g. Malebranche, Kierkegaard, etc.).

 

[FireDragon76]

Quite.

I don't think that's what's happening here, exactly. I do think that part of the problem is that we still have a very patriarchal model of ministry; for example, we assume that married clergy have a spouse at home managing all the domestic and child-wrangling stuff, and freeing up the clergyperson to be totally available to the church. In my experience the church pays lip service to the idea of your responsibility to your family, but completely disregards it in the demands it makes of you. That doesn't always work so well for women, and so we find it harder to make our way in a world designed in a way that we (and our families) don't quite fit. And then they blame us as not being as "committed" or "serious" as the men!

And of course there are still gatekeepers along the way - seminary lecturers, examining chaplains, whomever else - who don't really support women and either place obstacles in our way, or don't help us the way they help the men. All unofficial, of course, but endemic, and the cumulative effect of that over time is real.

In the US, quite a few women pastors in mainline churches are older and no longer have children at home.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi 2Philo

Yes you have and I finally decided to have a look at the book you mentioned. Although I only read the preface, I can already see that the results complement the work a friend of mine was doing, which I had the privilege of reading. He did a socio- rhetorical analysis of the Timothy passage, and came to the same conclusion. It was about false teaching, and the false teaching concerning Eve. He did a comparison of the verses alongside the "forbidden texts".

Thanks, I'll let ask him if he read their work. Although I didn't see the name in his references. But thanks again.

I appreciate the consideration, Rose_bud. Thank you! And in return, I'd be interested in knowing what your friend has found out in his own socio-rhetorical analysis of the Timothy passage (or even that of 1 Corinthians 14).

Anyway, you're welcome!

 

[Rose_bud]

I appreciate the consideration, Rose_bud. Thank you! And in return, I'd be interested in knowing what your friend has found out in his own socio-rhetorical analysis of the Timothy passage (or even that of 1 Corinthians 14).

Anyway, you're welcome!

You welcome. I'll ask if I can do a summarized share, as it's part of a more detailed paper he is writing for his degree.

 

[Paidiske]

Actually I don't know if it is permissible for you to argue for women's ordination in the Traditional Theology forum, so I will probably leave off this topic rather soon.

It's not really meant to be a forum for arguing. But denominations which ordain women - at least some of them, such as my own - have just as much place in this forum as any others.

In the US, quite a few women pastors in mainline churches are older and no longer have children at home.

Well, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that our social structures around parenting are gendered, and that this impacts women's participation in the church.

 

[zippy2006]

But denominations which ordain women - at least some of them, such as my own - have just as much place in this forum as any others.

You're wrong because Christians have not traditionally "ordained" women. Traditional theology is not so much a matter of denomination but doctrine. Folks of any denomination can promote beliefs and practices that have no place in the traditional history of Christianity, but that promotion certainly doesn't belong in the Traditional Theology forum.

 

[seeking.IAM]

But denominations which ordain women - at least some of them, such as my own - have just as much place in this forum as any others.

You're wrong because Christians have not traditionally "ordained" women.

Methinks somebody has not read the statement of purpose for this forum, including this part:

Do not state or imply that another poster who has identified himself or herself as traditional Christian, is not in reality truly a traditional Christian because of belief, practice, or their affiliation with any particular denomination.​

 

[zippy2006]

Methinks somebody has not read the statement of purpose for this forum, including this part

Again, it has nothing to do with denomination, it has to do with what is being promoted. Here is the part you overlooked:

Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today.​

​

If promoting doctrines that had no place in traditional Christianity is "Traditional Theology," then "Traditional Theology" truly has no meaning at all.

 

[public hermit]

Again, it has nothing to do with denomination, it has to do with what is being promoted. Here is the part you overlooked:

Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today.​

​

If promoting doctrines that had no place in traditional Christianity is "Traditional Theology," then "Traditional Theology" truly has no meaning at all.

Doctrine? You say that as if ordaining women or not is a matter of salvation. Plenty of those who confess the ancient faith of the early church agree with the ordination of women. Are they not saved since it's a matter of "doctrine"?

 

[zippy2006]

Doctrine? You say that as if ordaining women or not is a matter of salvation.

I have no idea what you are talking about. My distinction has been doctrine vs. denomination. My posts reflect that. You are reading something into it.

 

[public hermit]

I have no idea what you are talking about. My distinction has been doctrine vs. denomination. My posts reflect that. You are reading something into it.

Maybe, but you definitely seem to be saying the ordination of women is not fitting for those who hold to the traditional faith. Obviously, you're wrong. But that's okay since we aren't debating that point.

 

[zippy2006]

Maybe, but you definitely seem to be saying the ordination of women is not fitting for those who hold to the traditional faith.

No, and you should stop putting words in my mouth to try to get me in trouble.

I am saying that women's "ordination" is not part of traditional doctrine or theology; and that it does not follow that merely because someone is an Anglican therefore all of their opinions will be theologically or doctrinally traditional. This would be a bad argument: "I am Anglican, therefore I can say anything I want in the Traditional Theology forum."

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[public hermit]

No, and you should stop putting words in my mouth to try to get me in trouble

Nice try. Let's do this again.

Ordination of women has nothing to do with theology or doctrine. If you cannot show that ordination of women pertains to salvation, then it's mere opinion.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for review and will likely be moved.
Please read the Statement of Purpose for this forum. ​

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread was moved to General Theology. Most of those posting were not part of the churches who hold Tradion as important as scripture.

Reopening.​