Women Pastors?

[Cearbhall]

I said your thought process
you lack of respect for the truths of the Faith, your lack of just.... faith...

Aye, there's the rub. You think it's a problem that I didn't accept certain "truths" without question. I didn't "respect" that certain things are above being challenged. Guilty as charged. Think about that for a second and consider all the trouble the world is in because some people go along with that.

Would you prefer that I had remained Christian only because I hadn't put any thought into my faith? I'm not at all saying that those who are Christian have not put thought into their faith, but that's what it would have taken for me to remain Christian. Sticking my fingers in my ears. I personally don't see the value in that sort of faith.

 

[Paulie079]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, friends.

Speaking personally, as the Church historically has understood it: No polygamy and no serial marriages (seeing as polygamy was forbidden under Roman law, the latter was most likely what the author has in mind). Within the context it says that a presbyter (or deacon, or bishop) should have his own house in order. Someone who, for example, has been remarried multiple times could indicate a lack of discipline on their own part, while situational and individual circumstances ought to be observed, as a rule of thumb someone who has had multiple marriages probably has something they might need to deal with, and thus probably isn't fit to serve as a spiritual father over the congregation. Recognizing female clergy would understand this as well. If we understand the purpose of the Pastoral Epistles--as pastoral guidance from one pastor to another--then we can more readily understand how the passage ought to be read and how it ought to be applied.

So basically you're saying that no distinction was intended to be made between men and women in this case. Am I understanding that correctly?

Good question! Don't worry, I don't think you are too offensive here, I understand your concerns!

Here is my take on this… The thing is, if you look at the way the modern church is organized, it differs in many ways from Church back in Biblical times. The reason for this is obviously because our modern society is very different from society during the time of the apostles. A different society means that the church necessarily will be organized differently too.

You know, Paul has admonitions about how Christian slave owners should treat their slaves, but this is obviously an advice that is given in a special cultural context, right?

There are no deep, spiritual reasons in the Bible why women cannot be teachers, but it is true that society back then was different, that there were different norms and expectations when it comes to gender. Males and females were largely separated, women had to wear veils in public and so on… Is this really what we want?

To sum things up... Not everything in the Bible have a direct, modern, equivalent. We cannot always construct a general theology out of advice that were given in a specific, historic setting.

I definitely understand what you're saying, and I do agree. I am just not sure that it applies to this topic, the reason being that when you see role distinctions made in various parts of the New Testament, the appeal isn't to the culture. Instead, the appeal is to Christ's relationship to the church and the church's relationship to Him, and the appeal is also made to creation. That this is how God designed things to function.

Well, I was raised Roman Catholic, and I can't speak for all Catholics, but there wasn't this constant anxiety of "But the Bible says right here!!!" that I see on this website. Frankly, my response would have been "So what? A human wrote down their best interpretation of what God told them. I'm another human who has a relationship with God, and I have my own ideas abut what he wants."

The Bible was a nice launching point for discussion and a useful source of the history of Judaism and early Christianity in my theological education, but it was just a fraction of the reading material that I was given in my 18 years in Catholic schooling.

So really you don't see the Bible as divinely inspired, or in the very least it isn't entirely reliable because we don't know what was inspired and what wasn't. Am I understanding you correctly?

To me personally, this is where it becomes obvious that the authors were just writing down their culture, rather than something God told them. Even when I was Christian, I wasn't going to agree with something if I couldn't see the reasoning, even if it's in the Bible.

If you're willing to humor me for a second--What if this wasn't just cultural and this was the way that God designed for things to be?

 

[SnowyMacie]

What if this wasn't just cultural and this was the way that God designed for things to be?

Then we shouldn't have women pastors or roles in church leadership, and it would be something that existed on the fringes of Christianity and not accepted as orthodox in the mainstream.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So basically you're saying that no distinction was intended to be made between men and women in this case. Am I understanding that correctly?

In its application, correct.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

so maybe even have polygamy as an option?

I think there are plenty of good arguments to be made against polygamy.

since we can not be so black and white about everything
and depending on the culture?

Culture offers us relevant context for understanding Scripture and things in history--so I believe we can't ignore culture and context. I'm not suggesting that we use culture as a means to modify the faith.

But, yes, I am saying that in the real world things are not always black or white.

you basically add quantifiers until that bible verse is meaningless
saying it is not about men, that it is not even really about divorce and remarriage either
you just water it down till the words are meaningless

Except that I haven't watered the passage down into meaninglessness--I've made two cases in this passage:

1) That the contextual meaning is serial marriage and
2) Being able to apply care and discernment to individual cases

The first I even demonstrated as an understanding in historic Christian exegesis of the passage, and the second is hardly novel or radical in its approach or scope. In the Church there is a time for rigidity and a time for flexibility--wisdom and discernment measures where one or the other is applicable. And, no, I'm not saying I should be the one to make those decisions or that I know how to wisely apply one or the other--I entrust such things to persons far more qualified than myself.

But let's offer a scenario:

Christ teaches us that what God has put together let no man separate. So no divorce, except in the case of infidelity. But now we have a real life circumstance happen, a woman is in an abusive marriage. I have known of churches who insist that, because Christ said "What God has put together let no man separate" she must remain with him and submit to him and basically she has to keep being his punching bag. As far as I'm concerned that's evil--and I have no doubt that you would also agree that telling a woman to stay with her abusive husband and just put up with it is nothing short of evil. I'd argue that the correct pastoral and ecclesiastical course of action is to protect this woman to the best of the church's abilities, work with civil authorities to bring the man to justice before a court of law, and (especially) if there are children involved recognize that a divorce and giving sole custody of the children to the woman is the compassionate, just outcome here. Because to invoke the words of Christ to help perpetuate destruction, harm, and injustice is evil, and to understand that Christ's words were never intended to keep a victim of abuse in an environment of abuse, but were given here to keep men (who wielded virtually all the power) from abusing that power and to protect women (who virtually had no power) from being the victims of that power.

Because if we understand the Jewish and rabbinical context going on we might recognize that the topic of divorce was one of the areas of dispute between rabbinical schools, namely between House of Hillel and House of Shammai. Jesus, more or less, sides with Beit Shammai. And, in the time, divorce meant the husband giving his wife a written certificate of divorce, and under Jewish law the wife had precisely zero say in the matter.

If we understand that historical and cultural context then it frames Jesus' words far better.

So the Church, if she is to seek compassion and justice, will understand these things and pursue a course of action that is in keeping with the royal command of love.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timewerx]

Aye, there's the rub. You think it's a problem that I didn't accept certain "truths" without question. I didn't "respect" that certain things are above being challenged. Guilty as charged. Think about that for a second and consider all the trouble the world is in because some people go along with that.

Would you prefer that I had remained Christian only because I hadn't put any thought into my faith? I'm not at all saying that those who are Christian have not put thought into their faith, but that's what it would have taken for me to remain Christian. Sticking my fingers in my ears. I personally don't see the value in that sort of faith.

We share that line of belief.

I also grew up in a Christian family. We were Catholics before and then became Charismatic, then Baptist, and finally, Pentecostal and Evangelical.

Today, I'm secretly a skeptic of religion but still believes in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is why I take great care not to show anyone exactly how I look like!

I know how it is to accept the Bible with and without scrutiny.

Indeed, the part with scrutiny is the more difficult part. You're practically on your own and there's no solid/trustworthy/unbiased theory you'll find in the internet. Anyone is biased in one form like one side virtually worships the Bible, while the other wants to burn it (I think the Bible is a test, not a guide). One side thinks Apostle Paul is a best apostle while another side thinks he's the antichrist. I'm actually in between and I still think of Paul as something of a mystery, not evil (because I have no solid proof of that like who knows, it wasn't Paul, but someone deliberately messed up his letters).

 

[timewerx]

If you're willing to humor me for a second--What if this wasn't just cultural and this was the way that God designed for things to be?

The countries where women are not being treated as equals, not respected enough or they don't feel safe are the worst countries in the world - among the lowest in quality of life (in surveys), worst in corruption, highest in crime rates, and highest in human rights abuses.

The statistics actually include Christian countries which generally believe in the Gender-based family hierarchy. In many third world Christian nations, that wives must submit to husbands is a universally accepted belief.

There's a pattern and correlation that is undeniable. That corruption is a symptom of mistreating women or that mistreatment of women is a symptom of corruption. Either way, they are both bad.

Everything, even the numbers (statistics) tells the old Patriarchal culture is definitely more corrupt than a more gender-equal culture.

Like why give man the authority when a man is 90% more likely to break the law than a woman (FBI incarceration statistics). It's absurd. I'm not vouching for a Matriarchal culture either. I think the best results are gathered when both genders are allowed to work together on an equal basis.

Upon much scrutiny and facts available, I don't think God taught such culture. Maybe God did but I don't think it was meant for us to look up to as a guide but to test humanity just as God maybe using the Bible to test humanity.

 

[Cearbhall]

So really you don't see the Bible as divinely inspired, or in the very least it isn't entirely reliable because we don't know what was inspired and what wasn't. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes. Now, I'm not claiming that the Catholic Church supports this viewpoint, but in my experience, that's how its followers regard it. We all knew for a fact that things like Creation and the flood were not meant to be taken literally (though they revealed theological truths about God), so it wasn't too difficult to imagine that there were other things that shouldn't be taken at surface value.

If you're willing to humor me for a second--What if this wasn't just cultural and this was the way that God designed for things to be?

I was taught that patriarchy and gender inequality is a consequence of human sin, as expressed in the story of the Garden of Eden, and that it's not the way things are supposed to be. Essentially, I believed that God "designed" it this way only in the sense that we have free will.