- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,930
- 8,005
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
"seeking to anyone?" Not sure what you mean here.
I think he might mean speaking.
Upvote
0
"seeking to anyone?" Not sure what you mean here.
OIC...She just reminded you about a rule in Christian Forums. No more, no less.
Personally, I think it is better to take care of things like that ourselves than to have staff catch it and address it that way.
Again, within this conversation, it is important to remember that there are multiple reasonings for the different opinions. There also are different issues which may not match up. To name a few, one issue is authority, one is teaching / preaching to men, one is administering sacraments (Eucharist / communion, baptism, etc.), and one is keeping silent altogether. Grouping them into 2 opinions is erroneous, as not all have the same definition of pastor or priest. Catholics, Orthodox, traditional Protestant churches, Reformed, and Evangelical (I probably missed some) may fall into different opinions on a variety of the issues listed above. There are also different reasons behind our respective opinions.
Agreed Obviously, I adhere to the position of my church, but I definitely understand the reasoning for the other side. That said, there are some "reasons" for both opinions (female pastor or priest vs no female pastor or priest) that I disagree with, even if the end result is the same as my opinion. Honestly, I even agree with some (though not all) of the arguments of those who come to an alternative conclusion than my opinion.This is why I said earlier that those who don't approve of female pastors/priests shouldn't join churches that have them. There are valid reasons to support arguments on both sides of the issue. I obviously agree with those who say that women can and should be pastors and, as I said, I would not join a church that holds otherwise.
You are correct about other aspects of worship. In our church communion is distributed by the pastor assisted by members of church council who serve as deacon . The pastor provides the bread, the deacon provides the wine. Our current pastor is male, but the deacon could be female. So if you don't want to receive Holy Communion from a woman you might not want to attend my church or if you do attend you might want to skip Communion on days when a female deacon is serving.
Obviously, I adhere to the position of my church...
AnticipateHisComing said:We are one with Christ in the spirit, does that mean we are equal to him?
We are not all equal, meaning we do not all have the same roles in the family and church with our God given talents and spiritual gifts. This is exactly what 1 Cor 12 says. As for how much does God love one vs. the other because one has greater gifts than another, I think we should follow the advice of 1 Corinthians 12:25 and have equal concern/love for each other.I urge great caution in using this line of reasoning. We are not all the same but we are all of great worth to God our Father as was spelled out for us on Calvary. I would go so far as to say that I believe that we are all equal in the sight of God.
Division is one of the themes of this thread.
I would like to pause for a second on something you wrote: "I adhere to the position of my church."
What I'm going to present is not something I personally need to debate, because I believe I have complete understanding of it. What I want is just to give certain food for thought for people didn't think about it already. So, this is not argumentative, but explorative.
Here's what I mean: why do you say "my church"? Why have you presented yourself as Eastern Orthodox Christian in this forum and not as Christian? That same question is for all others who have identified themselves as part of their denomination and not as part of spiritual church of Jesus Christ.
Again, this is not argumentative, but explorative. Questions we can all ask ourselves, and search within ourselves for answers and understanding.
For example, if I presented myself as part of my denomination, does that mean that my denomination is bigger than spiritual church of Jesus Christ (being Christian)? Or more important? Or does it add something of value that is missing if I just say I'm a Christian (although at the same time I do belong to a denomination)?
The problem is, if me presenting myself as part of my denomination adds something to me being Christian, that means that me being Christian is not complete, not full, not good enough, so I need to add to it.
So, Christians who present themselves as part of their denomination don't really add value to their Christianity by presenting themselves through denomination, because being Christian is already full in value. What does then it mean to identify oneself with his or her denomination? Shouldn't I identify with all Christians?
Again, to repeat, this is not argumentative, but explorative.
I believe I understand the answer completely, but that's for another place. I can say, in short, that, essentially, it doesn't matter how one presents oneself, but that there are issues that most people don't realize about the distinction. And so, it can be nutritional, so to speak, to think for oneself about it, and get even deeper understanding of one's faith.
I mention this because one of the themes of this thread is division. Many divisions in our lives, including gender division discussed here, is connected (not necessarily exclusively, but nevertheless) to the fact that our Churches are divided. So it's good to see the forest too, when arguing about the trees.
Equal does not necessarily mean "same". No one, male or female, is exactly the same. That doesn't mean that we aren't of equal value to God. I doubt Philip means that we are all identical persons.We are not all equal, meaning we do not all have the same roles in the family and church with our God given talents and spiritual gifts. This is exactly what 1 Cor 12 says. As for how much does God love one vs. the other because one has greater gifts than another, I think we should follow the advice of 1 Corinthians 12:25 and have equal concern/love for each other.
If you have more than one child, you would realize that though each is different with different abilities, we love them all the same.
Now in regards to my post, the purpose for the discussion on equality was for those that use Galatians 3:28 to assert that women can be pastors. You cast "doubt" on my statement but don't refute anything said. I would like one that uses the Galatians passage for support of their position in regards to this OP to respond and argue where my argument is lacking.
AnticipateHisComing said:This reasoning may sound new to many, but if you doubt it, answer me how men and women are different spiritually such that men are in the image of God and women are in the image of men.
So I made multiple points to defend my position; your response is to just call it chauvinistic. Understand that your response does not refute a single point made, it only uses the tool of progressives to discredit and invalidate the points made by asserting it as being some bad label.I don't believe there is any spiritual difference between men and women at all. And it's chauvinistic to say women are more beautiful than men, if the flip side of that coin is that men are more spiritually excellent, which I think you were implying.
I am flawed by this statement. It seems to undermine any sense of meaning in creation in the image and after the likeness. I fail to see it's underpinning in Scripture, Tradition or Reason. Mind you I have been flawed by a number of the statements you have posted, and by the determination to presume no cultural filters are present in the written accounts of the Pauline Corpus.Further I want to add that I do not believe there is gender in heaven, so whatever different roles we have on earth because of gender, have no bearing to our roles in heaven.
Your statements go way beyond the view of complementarianism (which can be debated elsewhere), which supports the first part of your statement (women being nourishers). Instead of saying that men are leaders of the household, are supposed to lay their lives down for their wife and family, be the head of the family, etc., you state that men are the spiritual nourishers, while women are physical nourishers. This is where the chauvinism comes in (stating that your own sex is superior). Which is more important: physical or spiritual? Do you really believe women aren't also called to nourish spiritually? If one is focused on the spiritual life, while the other is focused on the physical life, which is the superior Christian? It is erroneous to state that one is spiritually focused while the other is physically focused.So I made multiple points to defend my position; your response is to just call it chauvinistic. Understand that your response does not refute a single point made, it only uses the tool of progressives to discredit and invalidate the points made by asserting it as being some bad label.
Is it chauvinistic to say women are better nurturers than men? Technically it is, even if this is the design from nature, that they bear and care for offspring. None are concerned with the statement that women are made to have children and are better at nurturing them, but if one says men are better at something, the feminists go crazy.
As I have already posted, men and women are biologically different. This design results in different roles for men and women. Nature dictates this, scripture reinforces it. Just because we have differences does not mean one is greater in God's eyes than the other.
It is easy to see that men and women have different biological differences, but how would one see any spiritual difference? Not so obvious and why I made multiple points in my post. Again, I am not saying that men are "more excellent" than women spiritually, only that if men and women have different "fleshy" roles, than it goes to say we may have different spiritual roles, as scripture does state.
This post may be a little harsh on you, but that is because you are educated professionally but use such a simplistic tool to discredit my post. You glaringly quote my reference to 1 Corinthians 11:7 but offer up no insight to what scripture means when it says men are in the image of God, but women are in the image of man. If you don't agree with my position, you must have one of your own. Care to offer it up and defend what you believe?
Further I want to add that I do not believe there is gender in heaven, so whatever different roles we have on earth because of gender, have no bearing to our roles in heaven.
After 13 pages of a discussion forum among Christians on this concept and yet while a few make mention of the main source text (1Tim 2:11-14) which deals EXPLICITLY with this topic, not one has done more than a cursory examination of the text.
Let me point out the obvious. First to quote the verses:
1Tim 2:11-14
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
For
1) Adam was formed first, then Eve.
2)And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
First, context - this begins his instructions to Timothy concerning chosing teachers and leaders in the church. Note he continues after this:
"Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task." 1Tim 3:1
So, no he's not limit his remarks to some husband/wife relationship.
Secondly, notice his explanation - the "For" statement, which has two parts.
The reason why people doesn't permit women to hold such positions are:
1. Because it goes against the order of creation and there against God's design of gender roles. This concept he brings up a number of times, such as 1Cor 14:34 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." Where does the Law say it? It "says" it, that is it implies it, in Genesis, the first book of the Law of Moses, alluding to the creation of genders. Jesus uses this kind of "proof" to argue against divorce and for the permanence of the marriage bond - because of God's design of marriage. Likewise we Christians use it against homosexual marriages and homosexual relationships - because it goes against God's design of gender. And while some of these concepts continue to be debated among Christians, what is disturbing is that much of the Christian community has caved with respect to feminism, to reject God's design of gender and reject (or otherwise discard or twist) gender specific commands in scripture, which to me is just as disgusting as endorsing homosexual behavior.
"Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path." Isaiah 3:12 Today many a Christian would ask, well, what's wrong with that.
Another verse supporting male headship:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." 1Cor 11:3
And notice again the explanation being founded in the creation of Gender:
"man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." 1Cor 11:8,9
I say this to discard any "that was then, this is now" attempts to discard these verses as if they were no longer relevant.
2. "Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
Paul's concern is about being "deceived", a word twice used in this one verse. Fact is women are more prone to being deceived than men. It's because of their nature. Men have generally known this throughout time. But dare not mention it to women, who just can't take criticism in this age of radical feminism. Paul says, "But reject profane and old wives‘ fables". Why doesn't he say "old husband's tales"? In the many decades in my life I have seen the truth of this principle all over the place. Women just can't characteristically reason, diagnose doctrine, analyze the way men can. And the fact that they can't characteristically handle criticism dispassionately the way men can makes it difficult to get them back on track.
No, don't put a woman in charge of doctrine![/QU Hi.There are just a few things I'd like to say.You said that women are prone to being deceived. However the adversary is still deceiving *men* and *women* today. You used Isaiah 3:12.This certainly doesn't apply to Deborah or the wise woman of 2 Samuel 20:16 or even Pilate's wife Matt 27:19. You say women can't reason or analyze.I thought Huldah did a pretty good job of that(2Chronicles 34:14-28) and there are plenty men who can't handle criticism.Constructive or otherwise.
You glaringly quote my reference to 1 Corinthians 11:7 but offer up no insight to what scripture means when it says men are in the image of God, but women are in the image of man. If you don't agree with my position, you must have one of your own. Care to offer it up and defend what you believe?
Further I want to add that I do not believe there is gender in heaven, so whatever different roles we have on earth because of gender, have no bearing to our roles in heaven.
I just thought she was trying to get me to remove my post in retribution. Sorry @Paidiske.
Is it chauvinistic to say women are better nurturers than men? Technically it is, even if this is the design from nature, that they bear and care for offspring. None are concerned with the statement that women are made to have children and are better at nurturing them, but if one says men are better at something, the feminists go crazy.
This post may be a little harsh on you, but that is because you are educated professionally but use such a simplistic tool to discredit my post. You glaringly quote my reference to 1 Corinthians 11:7 but offer up no insight to what scripture means when it says men are in the image of God, but women are in the image of man. If you don't agree with my position, you must have one of your own. Care to offer it up and defend what you believe?
In regards to Genesis: It's an interesting thought that Eve was deceived by Satan (who is a master at deception), while Adam just followed suit without question.Nah, I don't do retribution. I just thought you likely didn't realise that the way you'd posted wouldn't be received well. All good.
Well, actually, I am concerned with the statement that women are made to have children, better nurturers, etc. It tends to be one of the ideas which relegates women who work to the "pink collar" jobs; nursing, childcare, various service industry roles. It also leaves no room to account for the women whose strengths lie in different directions (we're not all the same!) or for men who are great nurturers.
In my marriage my husband is by far the more patient, nurturing parent (once we got past the biological stuff like breast feeding) and yet somehow he's not allowed to claim that as a strength... because biology? I resent the way this kind of statement tries to pigeon hole both men and women.
I think Paul was appropriating the text from Genesis in a way which supported his argument about order. But that we have taken that and applied it to an argument about power and authority in a way which is inconsistent with the Christian picture elsewhere in Scripture. For questions of power and authority we need to remember that part of Genesis that says that both male and female are made in the image of God; woman is not, in that sense, a reflection of a reflection, but equally shows forth something of the divine nature.
Oh, and given that we know that the Christian hope is for a resurrection in the body... I too would say that sex/gender is unlikely to be absent from the resurrection.
I am concerned with the statement that women are made to have children, better nurturers, etc. It tends to be one of the ideas which relegates women who work to the "pink collar" jobs;