Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?


  • Total voters
    60

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But maybe why many feel that way is because this is what we have been told becuase of the way society promotes the importance of getting work and buying things. Maybe there is just as much meaning in being with your child in the early years but as a society we have made this less important becuase of the pressure of having to work.

The thing is what we in the west regard as being the fulfilment of the meaning of life with pursuing careers, getting the best job and earning better-paid positions may not be the best for family and community wellbeing. It may not equate to the true meaning of life and we have been deluded into thinking that all meaning in life comes down to what career and job we get. I would say that in a western society that bases everything on capitalism we equate meaning with material gains which require people to have a good career and jobs.

In a collective society, they will not equate meaning with career and jobs but with supporting the family, group and community. So it depends on what you use as a measure of meaning and happiness. It seems to me that it is the western cultures who have the highest unhappiness and lack of meaning because we measure everything with materialism and individual happiness. I am not saying we should not get a career but rather what priority we put on getting that career and job to make that money to get that life.

What about all those who cannot get that good job and career. It seems the system is causing more unhappiness and we are being pushed into having to get better careers, higher paid jobs just to pay for the increasing cost of living. Years ago it took one wage to look after a family. Then it took a wage and a half. Now it's taking more than two wages. When does it stop? It is consuming all our time and we have little left for the family. It seems a bad way to measure success as there will never be enough for all. Maybe we should use something else to measure what can give meaning in life and to what is regarded as important.
The point is that what each person finds meaningful will be different and a healthy society allows both mothers AND fathers to focus on raising children during those developmental years. I agree wholeheartedly that materialism and “getting ahead” are destructive values. But that is a separate issue from gender roles. People have dreams, aspirations, and drives that have nothing to do with getting ahead or materialism. Scientists, pastors, social workers, artists, doctors, and inventors are often driven by natural desires to make the world better. I am all for reducing the hours people work but not for devaluing the pursuit of science or spirituality. And as we’ve seen in history, when a society deems childcare to be a woman’s “role,” it by default deems more public roles to be “male,” to the detriment of all.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
And as we’ve seen in history, when a society deems childcare to be a woman’s “role,” it by default deems more public roles to be “male,” to the detriment of all.
Some of us saw the opposite , historically, especially in the USA the last 80 years or so.

Mother's are better mother's than day cares are,
and a lot better than the government is.
 
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Some of us saw the opposite , historically, especially in the USA the last 80 years or so.

Mother's are better mother's than day cares are,
and a lot better than the government is.
I’m not sure what the opposite of my scenario is that you refer to. I think most would agree that parents, grandparents, and other family are better than daycare is.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,004
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,110.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But maybe why many feel that way is because this is what we have been told becuase of the way society promotes the importance of getting work and buying things. Maybe there is just as much meaning in being with your child in the early years but as a society we have made this less important becuase of the pressure of having to work.

The thing is what we in the west regard as being the fulfilment of the meaning of life with pursuing careers, getting the best job and earning better-paid positions may not be the best for family and community wellbeing. It may not equate to the true meaning of life and we have been deluded into thinking that all meaning in life comes down to what career and job we get. I would say that in a western society that bases everything on capitalism we equate meaning with material gains which require people to have a good career and jobs.

In a collective society, they will not equate meaning with career and jobs but with supporting the family, group and community. So it depends on what you use as a measure of meaning and happiness. It seems to me that it is the western cultures who have the highest unhappiness and lack of meaning because we measure everything with materialism and individual happiness. I am not saying we should not get a career but rather what priority we put on getting that career and job to make that money to get that life.

What about all those who cannot get that good job and career. It seems the system is causing more unhappiness and we are being pushed into having to get better careers, higher paid jobs just to pay for the increasing cost of living. Years ago it took one wage to look after a family. Then it took a wage and a half. Now it's taking more than two wages. When does it stop? It is consuming all our time and we have little left for the family. It seems a bad way to measure success as there will never be enough for all. Maybe we should use something else to measure what can give meaning in life and to what is regarded as important.

Steve, were you ever the stay-at-home parent of your children for any length of time? Do you know what that's like?

This idea that women want to work because we want material things is, in my experience, a red herring. Women mostly want to work because being at home full time is exhausting, draining, and boring; in my case at least, a fast track to clinical depression. Work provides much more scope to actually use our gifts and talents and make a positive contribution to society.

I'll tell you something I've found, though; it's perfectly possible to be a one-income household. For most of my marriage, we've been a one-income, (or at times one-and-a-bit income, certainly less than two full-time incomes) household. And during that time we've been paying off a mortgage, and if we haven't had everything we wanted, we certainly had more than we needed. It's all about living within your means.

Publicly educated children routinely worship demons instead of the one true God. Their parents do routinely, as do the school administrators and the teachers and those who support them. (as does society according to Scripture) ....
Home schoolers also may do this.

Some publicly educated children, and some home schooled children,
serve the one true God. Some parents do also.
Yahweh knows each one by name; He Knows who IS HIS .

Jeff, honestly, this sort of comment about people being involved in public school routinely worshipping demons is just ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The point is that what each person finds meaningful will be different and a healthy society allows both mothers AND fathers to focus on raising children during those developmental years. I agree wholeheartedly that materialism and “getting ahead” are destructive values. But that is a separate issue from gender roles. People have dreams, aspirations, and drives that have nothing to do with getting ahead or materialism. Scientists, pastors, social workers, artists, doctors, and inventors are often driven by natural desires to make the world better. I am all for reducing the hour's people work but not for devaluing the pursuit of science or spirituality. And as we’ve seen in history, when a society deems childcare to be a woman’s “role,” it by default deems more public roles to be “male,” to the detriment of all.
What you have mentioned seems to be about pursuing an interest and caring for others rather than a job for the sake of a job. I would say the majority of people in a capitalist system have to work and find little meaning in their job because they have to get money to pay for bills, buy food and pay rent or a mortgage. That's how it works. The question is about whether we live to work or work to live.

The jobs you mention seem to be about caring for others such as spirituality which I would say most people are not concerned about careers and money but peoples welfare. People can be artists or have a number of interests that are not associated with jobs or careers which will give meaning such as helping at your local church or joining the many community groups. In fact, if it was not for the many volunteers especially in the care industry we would be in trouble. So people can find meaning without paid positions.

The many people that stay home and look after the disabled and their children do not have much choice and they could be doing something else like getting a career. But they choose to take care of their loved ones as they see this is more important. So a capitalist neoliberal society caters to some more than others and is individualistic in the sense that only those who push for their own needs first will get ahead. It just depends on what situation you are in and seems very unfair and therefore not a good way to do things.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Steve, were you ever the stay-at-home parent of your children for any length of time? Do you know what that's like?
Yes I have as my wife and I had a business so we could swap positions. But it was hard and took a toll on everyone. In the end, I look back and it was not worth it. I understand that staying at home is not easy but there are also ways you can do some things to make things a little better as you have said with part time work or maybe working from home. But we have to remember that some things in life involve a sacrifice of our personal wants so we can support the needs of others. That should be how I think a good caring society works and not one that makes individual interests the most important thing which is how a neo-liberal society operates.

Like I said there are thousands of people who do not get much of a choice and have to stay home and look after the needy or have to volunteer their time to care for others because society does not support the needy enough. So all these people lose the chance to have a career. In an individualistic society only those who are lucky enough to be in a position to do so get the chance. But I hear no one too concerned about these.

Of course, all this does not mean women does not have the right to have a career. It is merely to point out that it comes down to what importance you place on a career and that there are times when we have to sacrifice what we want and that this is OK as this is also meaningful and important.

This idea that women want to work because we want material things is, in my experience, a red herring. Women mostly want to work because being at home full time is exhausting, draining, and boring; in my case at least, a fast track to clinical depression. Work provides much more scope to actually use our gifts and talents and make a positive contribution to society.
Because I say that a mother bonding with a child during a specific time from around 2 to 7 years is important does not mean they should stay at home their whole life. But people focus in on someone even saying that women should stay at home for a good reason discriminatory and do not want to even hear what others have to say. There needs to be balance. I am all for women having a career and working and for men being at home to be more involved in their children's lives but we recognise that there are times when we have to sacrifice our time, that is what having a family is all about.

Sometimes and not just women we have to sacrifice what we want and I think many women are intelligent enough to realize this anyway and actually are doing this. In fact, the trend has been that women are putting off having children to get a career. But this is now causing other problems where women may have left it too late have difficulty in finding a partner or in getting pregnant. For me, this just shows difficult it is to have both a career and family in modern society and therefore it comes down to priorities and what is the most important thing in life.

Unfortunately, the way a capitalist society works it forces people into these difficult positions. It then becomes who goes out to work if one needs to stay home with the kids and brings up the issue of women and mens rights. I just think if the science says it is best for a infant to have his mum in those first years that also needs to be considered and this has nothing to do with being descriminatory against women but is just a fact of what is best. Then later women can go out and work and get a career.

I'll tell you something I've found, though; it's perfectly possible to be a one-income household. For most of my marriage, we've been a one-income, (or at times one-and-a-bit income, certainly less than two full-time incomes) household. And during that time we've been paying off a mortgage, and if we haven't had everything we wanted, we certainly had more than we needed. It's all about living within your means.
Good for you and you have identified an important point. Living within your means is the key and depending on your job you may be able to do that on one income. I guess it will depend on how many things you want and what quality of things. Just having the basics and not the best of everything or 3 cars instead of two or not the biggest TV etc. The problem is society often causes most to want these things and they even buy this with credit and get into debt.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,004
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,110.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Because I say that a mother bonding with a child during a specific time from around 2 to 7 years is important does not mean they should stay at home their whole life. But people focus in on someone even saying that women should stay at home for a good reason discriminatory and do not want to even hear what others have to say.

The problem I have with this is that - if I'm understanding you correctly - you seem to be taking a general observation and wanting to turn it into a blanket rule that women "should" be at home for a certain portion of their children's lives.

I do think it's discriminatory not to trust the parents of those children to work out what is best for their household, which won't always fit the general observation. We don't need suffocating blanket rules, we need flexibility and support in that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The problem I have with this is that - if I'm understanding you correctly - you seem to be taking a general observation and wanting to turn it into a blanket rule that women "should" be at home for a certain portion of their children's lives.

I do think it's discriminatory not to trust the parents of those children to work out what is best for their household, which won't always fit the general observation. We don't need suffocating blanket rules, we need flexibility and support in that.
But do you think it is important to point out that something may not be the best. To give both sides of the situation and consequences and informing them of all the facts. Is that not what the government and church does now with certain things.

I do not say these things as a blanket rule or any rule that everyone should follow no more than anyone would try to force a theocracy on secular society even though they may believe that it is for the best. It is like the church believing that believing in Christ will save. You can only inform them but you cannot make them do anything. We have moved on from those times. It is important for people to make their own decisions. But it is also important for people to make informed decisions based on all the facts and not just go along ignorant of what may be.

I am merely pointing out what science has said is best and that's all we can do. It would be amiss of me not to point this out similar to not pointing out that science says other things may be not for the best like too much work or not enough sleep. It is up to the individuals to decide what they want to do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0