I say they are female prophetess.
God judge between you and I.
Now it is up to Him.
I need not speak to you any further concerning this matterThey were prophetesses, certainly.
Prophetess means female prophets. It is unnecessary to say female prophetesses - the correct phrase is Prophetess, or female prophet.
Which is more important t you; their gender, or that they were called by God and proclaimed his word?
I don't know why you think God is judging between us.
King James bible:
Women are not prophets they are prophetess.
I need not speak to you any further concerning this matterSo what? Just because the King James Version translators used the word "prophetess" doesn't mean a thing.
=> Women have prophesied, are prophesying, and will prophecy <= The term that was used to describe them in early 17th Century Englyshe is irrelevant.
I need not speak to you any further concerning this matter
it is before God. All I have to say of it is posted for you.
So what? Just because the King James Version translators used the word "prophetess" doesn't mean a thing.
=> Women have prophesied, are prophesying, and will prophecy <= The term that was used to describe them in early 17th Century Englyshe is irrelevant.
I need not speak to you any further concerning this matter
it is before God. All I have to say of it is posted for you.
They were prophetesses, certainly.
Prophetess means female prophets. It is unnecessary to say female prophetesses - the correct phrase is Prophetess, or female prophet.
Which is more important t you; their gender, or that they were called by God and proclaimed his word?
I don't know why you think God is judging between us.
I don't think it does. He's dealing there with two different matters.Paul also wrote to the church at Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" which contradicts the distinction he made in the letter to Timothy.
There probably are some people, but this is a completely irrelevant matter to the historic churches that do not ordain women.Does anyone really think that a woman can't teach a man or be in authority over him? Really?
Why are Christians putting themselves back the law? One person wrote one sentence to one church thousands of years ago and people think: that's the new law!
There was a lot of hair-splitting recently in this thread over prophets vs. prophetesses. Yes, there are gender differences among male prophets and female prophetesses, but the Bible plainly indicates that their function is the same: they prophesy of God. Gender, in this specific context, matters only in distinguishing between the words used to describe what gender these people are, not what they do. The fact that they both prophesy of God, is clear in the Bible. A male prophet prophesies of God. A female prophetess prophesies of God. They are different genders, with different words, but with the same function.
But that's just from the prophesying angle. In regards to authority, I was the one who made the point that there is a difference among certain categories of church authority -- namely, that I believe women cannot hold positions of authority over men in church.
So a woman can prophesy (prophetess), and then she submits that prophecy to be evaluated by men in authority in the church.
A woman can also speak in certain church contexts, but not in positions of authority over men.
In sum:
1) Women can prophesy. This is not the same thing as having authority over men in church.
2) Women can speak in certain church contexts, like praying and prophesying. This is not the same thing as having authority over men in church.
3) Women cannot be pastors, because that is holding authority over men in the church.
I've learned it's very difficult to discuss the nuances of this topic. You have some who insist that women cannot prophesy -- or that what they do is somehow different from what a male prophet does; that silence in the church means never speaking ever; and then on the flip side those who say women can be pastors/priests.
In case of the Orthodox, however, I am not sure this would apply, as their rationale for not having female clergy is really very considerably more complicated, and I have found that simplistic answers, for example, to say that the Orthodox only ordain male priests because their tradition only allows them to do this and the Orthodox do not believe they have the authority to depart from tradition, while not inaccurate, are nonetheless entirely inadequete.
Because, frankly, if a church were to reject you, for example, I would argue they were unworthy of you, and God’s call would be better answered in a church that did value you and was prepared to equip you to respond to that call. For example, if you were from Sydney, to use a specific, local example, given the choice between trying to agitate for a change in the local archdiocese that could take decades and would likely only be partially implemented, due to the probability of a schism, or instead serving in the Uniting Church if you felt specifically called to minister in Sydney, or, if not, serving in one of the more authentically Anglican provinces in Australia, I would think either of those two options would be more productive.
By the way, one of my best friends died; his widow is staying with me, but she in her shock did fall and bruise her hip; I am also still in shock about it as I found him unresponsive, so if you could please pray for all of us @Paidiske I would really appreciate it.
For what it worth, I certainly understand your perspective on this. I am strongly against sexism, and can see where this looks like it. I can’t post very long right now due to it being work time, but I can say that despite my opinions on that, I don’t see the Orthodox teaching to be promoting that. It isn’t as simple as some churches teachings, as @The Liturgist said, but I don’t consider it to be a form of disrespect or sexism.This may be true - and I will confess I am less expert on the Orthodox view than the Catholic - but I am not willing to concede that just because something is complicated or mystical or whatever is enough to let it off the hook of a charge of sexism. It's quite possible to be sexist in a complicated and mystical way.
I also see arguments about "But we treat women so well in this role over here" as problematic; because often they are about keeping women in tightly defined and controlled boxes. "Well, okay, you may become a schemanun or staritsa (if you can), but should your gifts and calling lie elsewhere we will ignore it," doesn't really cut it.
This is an interesting question, and one I have often pondered. I was fortunate that when I had my vocation I was already a member of a church that ordained women. I didn't have to fight that battle. I have known women who became Anglicans (from Catholicism) or moved from Sydney to Melbourne to pursue their vocations, and I've seen that those transitions were painful and difficult; I'm glad I wasn't called on to make them. I have also known women with vocations who chose to stay Catholic, or Lutheran, or in Sydney, and work towards change; and while that is also painful, difficult, and costly, and I'm glad I wasn't called on to do that, either, I honour their patient and self-sacrificing work; because that is the only way this change will ever come.
Incidentally, I do know what it is to offer ministry in a context where it won't be accepted from a woman, and I know what it is to advocate for change in that environment (para-church and extra-ecclesial contexts being one arena of ministry). Even though I was ultimately unsuccessful in that, and it was personally costly, I don't regret putting everything I could into standing for what I believe God was trying to do in that context.
I am going to avoid the delicious temptation to air my views on Sydney at length, as that is rather off-topic to the thread as a whole.
Of course I will.
This can actually happen.and churches will either change or become pariah and then illegal organisations.
For what it worth, I certainly understand your perspective on this. I am strongly against sexism, and can see where this looks like it. I can’t post very long right now due to it being work time, but I can say that despite my opinions on that, I don’t see the Orthodox teaching to be promoting that. It isn’t as simple as some churches teachings, as @The Liturgist said, but I don’t consider it to be a form of disrespect or sexism.
That said, there are some groups within Orthodoxy (albeit not the faith as a whole) that have some beliefs that are very difficult to accept from my position. I am glad that they are not the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church.
Sometime I’d be happy to discuss it - but I don’t want you to think that I am applying any negativity towards you or others, as you have a really good ministry. I don’t want that to be ignored or anything like that, as I really respect what you do, your vocation and your ministry for God. My beliefs apply to Orthodox context specifically.
At the end of the day though it's pretty binary isn't it. There's either discrimination against women or there isn't. I suspect that employment law will determine this issue once it's tested and churches will either change or become pariah and then illegal organisations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?