Church of England votes women bishops

[andrewlittle]

It seems like this news should be considered archaic in the Anglican tradition, but it isn't. Now the "traditionalists" are talking about a split over women bishops in the Church of England. It also appears that the vote to omit a clause for having male "super-bishops" or special dioceses for those who need a special provision for "living in dignity" (read:denying the image of God in women) occurred against the wishes of Rowan Williams. He wanted to appease - oh, excuse me - accomodate the traditionalists more robustly. I don't know about manhood - since I could give a rat's behind about that - but he seems to be loosing more and more of his humanity and spine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7494517.stm

[BruceChris]

Hey Andy, cut him a little slack.

Edit: See my entry #9, below.

And it's only a matter of time until they have their own Katheryn Jefferts-Schori. The women will see to that. We should all learn that women too are made in the image of God:

http://edwinasandys.com/sculpture/scultureChrista.html

BC

[BruceChris]

In what was deemed an irregular ordination, 11 women priests were ordained in the Episcopal Church in the United States in 1974. This only happened in England in 1994, and not surprisingly, they have 20 years of catching up to do.

I predict that the Anglican Church in England will survive in some reasonable form, and the women will succeed in their new office.

Namaste', Bruce Chris

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I rejoiced hearing this news this morning. I can kind of see where ++Rowan is coming from, but I disagree with him. There can be no appeasing (quite the right word) the traditionalists. Justice is more important than trying to please all sides.

[Daniel]

That's what the whole thing is. At least, that's how the matter strikes me reading about it. Rowan is only going to piss off everyone. And what a fine legacy he will have left then. The man fairly stumbles forward.

I agree with Andy. Where's the man's bloody spine?

The Times article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/world/europe/08anglican.html?hp

[Gregory_de_Bois]

In defence of ++Rowan, he had a lovely sermon about GLBT members in the Global Anglican Communion.

Catholic response: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/church_of_england/reactions_to_the_actions_of.html

++Rowan's Sermon:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/archbishop_of_canterbury/what_would_jesus_do_where_woul_1.html

I just pray that the Archbishop does the right things. I love this church, and I understand his desire to keep it unified, but I also see where the line needs to be drawn and justice upheld. Pray for him.

[nmwolfboy]

Finally! What a welcome decision. Too bad that appointments of female bishops are unlikely before 2014.

The Bishop of Fulham, the Right Reverend John Broadhurst, who is a traditionalist, told Newsnight that the vote could lead to a split.

"I think a lot of us have made it quite clear if there isn't proper provision for us to live in dignity male privilege, inevitably we're driven out," he said.

"It's not a case of walking away."

Boy, that's familiar dissembling.

Whether it's debate over the role of women or lgbt people in the church, i can't get past the notion that there often seem to be blinders on the folks claiming to defend 'tradition'. Namely, their position seems to be predicated upon denying or at least downplaying the vital role that women (and lgbt people) have played and continue to play in the life and mission of churches.

Then they talk about defending 'tradition,' or their own 'dignity,' or what they perceive as the non-validity of women's callings, whether to the priesthood or the episcopate. :disagree:

Neo-donatists, the lot of 'em. :headbang:

"Accommodation," indeed. Andy, you used the correct word to start with.

For all the threats of church splits, does anyone know how that would play out with an officially established church like the C of E? Especially if it's true (as i've read) that most of the clergy threatening to split are actually retired.

As for ++Rowan, i'm still a bit inclined to charity. He's arguably no worse than his predecessor, Lord Carey. The upcoming Lambeth Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Conference) may really test his mettle, and hopefully he will lead with more decisiveness than previously.

Pax,
scott

[BruceChris]

I would like to hear from some women in response to this thread. - BC

[BruceChris]

http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=19397

Edit: He does seem to say different things to different audiences.

Bruce Chris

[nmwolfboy]

Some reactions in the British press:

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/09/anglicanism.religion)
The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article4296436.ece)
The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/09/dl0902.xml)
The New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/07/women-bishops-church-priest)

Pax et Bonum, :dove:
scott

[Vanessa White]

I am sure that a break/schism in the church would spiritually be a hurtful thing, but I guess I wonder in reality, what that would really LOOK like in terms of the church and its dynamics. If that is what is to be the doomsday reaction by those that are traditional in their views, what would really happen if the church split? To me, for women to have allowances to be Bishops is no different, in terms of represented ministry than to actually be ordained as a minister as a woman, in terms of the potential "damage" it could do according to those that disagree. It is still a person of the faith ministering the word of God, the word of Jesus Christ, in a loving and compassionate way.

Something that always strikes me as odd, and frustrates me in these debates, is the fact that, if a positive, appropriate change such as this can happen, and it will ultimately mean that we could grow our numbers in our churches, which I think are dwindling everywhere, why not do it? That is part of the approach that I am seeking with my own church on the issue of gays and lesbians as open members of our congregation: if we presented ourselves as more welcoming, therefore possibly increasing our numbers, isn't that what we want so that we can stay vital?? I think women in all positions of the church could send a message of hope to some that don't even attend church right now.......

Too idealistic????:rolleyes:

[Daniel]

Too idealistic????:rolleyes:

Not too idealistic at all, at least not for me. While I like boys, I don't want to join a boy's club. ;)

Nothing more boring than a party of all gay men, or all anything for that matter. Yes, I am putting the matter is secular terms, but what is true of a great party is, I think, true of great church. The more diversity, the better.

Letting people in rather than keeping them out make all the sense in the world.

Let there be female Bishops. And let there be Light!

[livewithsoulandfreedom]

hey,
the more the merrier isn't that what they say?
I never truly understood the traditionalists argument
for not having women as bishops but I believe that it
may have something to do with the fact that all of
Jesus' disciples were men. One thing they don't understand
is that the reason Jesus chose men wasn't because he saw
them personally as more valuable but that politically men
had the upper-hand and therefore a group of men could
do a lot more to spread the word of God than women at
the time. NOT because women were less worthy but because
men politically had more power... if that makes sense...
so you see, the traditionalists argument isn't truly sexist, its
just very VERY flawed. :)

[J.D.]

I never truly understood the traditionalists argument
for not having women as bishops but I believe that it
may have something to do with the fact that all of
Jesus' disciples were men.

Ha! I'm not sure I've heard that line of logic before...and I'm quite the traditionalist/fundamentalist. :D

Clearly, anyone basing their reasoning off of Christ's choices for his apostles could draw all sorts of strange conclusions...you have to be a tax collector/fisherman/etc to be a bishop, or you have to be jewish, or whatever...that certainly makes no sense.

I think, in general, you'll find us discruptive fundamentalists appealing to specific New Testament scripture that speaks directly to issues of church leadership and their qualifications, such as in the books Timothy and Titus.

[Alecto]

In Catholic school, I was taught that priests must be men because they were representing Jesus, and Jesus was a man. WHen I asked why we don't require them to be ethnic Jews as well, the teacher repeated what he said and called on someone else.

[J.D.]

In Catholic school, I was taught that priests must be men because they were representing Jesus, and Jesus was a man. WHen I asked why we don't require them to be ethnic Jews as well, the teacher repeated what he said and called on someone else.

Clearly you and I both see this as ridiculous, so I'm preaching to the choir here, but I've never heard of that kind of reasoning whatsoever.

There is no scriptural basis for what he is saying. The only reference to a male directly illustrating Christ is the husband to his wife in the Pauline epistles, demonstrating Christ's relationship to the church.

It's dissapointing to see this particular position so poorly illustrated.
:unhappy:

[Steven E. Webster]

Clearly you and I both see this as ridiculous, so I'm preaching to the choir here, but I've never heard of that kind of reasoning whatsoever.

There is no scriptural basis for what he is saying. The only reference to a male directly illustrating Christ is the husband to his wife in the Pauline epistles, demonstrating Christ's relationship to the church.

It's dissapointing to see this particular position so poorly illustrated.
:unhappy:

J.D.

So, where do you personally stand on the question of women being ordained as ministers, deacons, pastors, priests or bishops? Are you for it or against it? What role does Scripture play in your answer to this question? Can there be other considerations besides Scripture?

Would you belong to a church that ordained women? What church do you belong to?

Steven Webster

[J.D.]

J.D.
So, where do you personally stand on the question of women being ordained as ministers, deacons, pastors, priests or bishops? Are you for it or against it? What role does Scripture play in your answer to this question? Can there be other considerations besides Scripture?

Would you belong to a church that ordained women? What church do you belong to?

Steven Webster

I doubt I'll be able to answer all of your questions in depth, so I'll keep things simplified.

As I said previously, I am a conservative Christian, likely fitting the "fundamentalist" terminology constantly in weboard dialogue. That being the case, I believe strongly that women, according to scripture, are created equal with men but for different roles. The example of church leadership is clearly illustrated, as previously stated, in Titus and Timothy.

We all have an authority. Mine is the Word of God. Plain and simple. If you want to dispute worldviews and the like...I'll be glad to discuss, as long as that is understood.

Do I "belong" to a church, Stephen? Not in the least. I chuckle on the inside at the though of belonging to a certain denomination, where members are seemingly traded amongst brother and sister churches. I believe in the Word, the God who wrote, and the Christ that fullfills it.

[keltic63]

Do I "belong" to a church, Stephen? Not in the least. I chuckle on the inside at the though of belonging to a certain denomination, where members are seemingly traded amongst brother and sister churches. I believe in the Word, the God who wrote, and the Christ that fullfills it.

paging Groucho Marx: I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.

so, since your chuckle prevented you from answering, do you attend worship services? if so, where? is this an independent church, or does it have a denominational affiliation?

[livewithsoulandfreedom]

J.D. could you please explain to me in more detail (as I am not familiar with it) what exactly it says in the books of timothy and titus that prohibits women from serving as priests. Or, what is interpreted to prohibit women from serving as priests... ??

[J.D.]

paging Groucho Marx: I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.

so, since your chuckle prevented you from answering, do you attend worship services? if so, where? is this an independent church, or does it have a denominational affiliation?

It was a chuckle and an answer, friend. :)

Sure, I actually just completed a move with the family, and we've been attending a local baptist church. I don't have a problem with denominations or anything, I've just never chosen to be a member of a certain affiliation. I don't see the necessity, relevance, or scriptural basis for it.

J.D. could you please explain to me in more detail (as I am not familiar with it) what exactly it says in the books of timothy and titus that prohibits women from serving as priests. Or, what is interpreted to prohibit women from serving as priests... ??

Sure thing. Pardon my "tone" as it is coming from the standpoint more in line with certainty than questioning. I feel that may make things far more understandable than questioning my own explanation all the way through :)

First of all, it is very important to not view this issue as men versus women. Obviously there are men and women on both sides of the issue, so I want to clarify that this isn't about chavinism or discrimination, but rather Biblical interpretation.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “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.”
In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created (1 Timothy 2:13) and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:14). God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

(To clarify: the direction to "be silent" in the church by Paul was related to repeated incidents in the Cretian church, where there were too many voices of authority, and thereby clarity and truth were both being lost in the noise...this is recognized as specific instruction to the Cretian church.)

The very structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the "reason" perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with "for" and gives the "cause" of what Paul stated in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because - "Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived."
That is the reason. God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a "helper" for Adam. This order of Creation has universal application to humanity in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church.

The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is laregely unbased, and quite debateable; if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are "supposedly" more easily deceived)?
That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. This deception did not have some kind of mental affect on the entire female sex for all time. Still, due to this particular result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is certainly not the case...women are very capable). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership – in their lives and through their words.
Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would include women serving as pastors / preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with how God has gifted them.

[dsdrane]

I will let others with sharper quills in these matters than I rebut J.D.'s regurgitation of biblical text...and will enjoy it thoroughly. :cool:

For the moment, however, I'll add my applause to those in Anglican Communion who everyday fight the good fight against those who would amputate Reason from the three-legged stool of Anglican theology. :applause:

[Nyshana]

My view on your argument, J.D., may well turn out to be one of those annoying cases where foundational beliefs are at loggerheads, and neither party can create useful discussion because they're basing their points on different worldviews - but we'll see. I'll say it anyway. :p

Your view is backed up by scripture, but not by logic. I've never found God to command anything without logic, and good reason behind it - I don't see why women clergy should be any different. Can you also back up your view with logic? I'd be interested to hear it.

I also looked up that Timothy passage - and there's an interesting footnote (I'm reading the CEV), on verse 13 (But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy and modest) that the passage could also be translated as "Women will be saved by the birth of a child/of Jesus". I know this isn't the exact passage you referenced, but context is important (!), and it could well change the interpretation of the whole kaboodle. I read that to suggest that women are saved, and made equal, by Jesus - this idea seems far more congruent with the rest of the Bible, wherein Jesus never treats a woman as inferior to a man - he even pauses in a meal with a group of men in order to talk to a woman who just wanders in.

My last point has gone from my head completely. =/
Ah, yes, there it is. Jesus' intention was always, in everything he did, to help people - any people, and as many people as possible. The passage in my signature proclaims faith, hope and in particular love to be above all else. It is impossible to deny that female clergy, missionaries et al. can and do give people great hope, spread love like wildfire, and bring faith to people of all walks. Why would God forbid something so beneficial to his people - so in keeping with what Christianity is supposed to be about?

And thankyou for being possibly the only person I've ever met to pitch a traditionalist view without hyperbolé and whinging!
Emma

[Steven E. Webster]

The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is laregely unbased, and quite debateable; if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are "supposedly" more easily deceived)?
That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. This deception did not have some kind of mental affect on the entire female sex for all time. Still, due to this particular result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church.

J.D.

Do you consider the narrative about Adam and Eve in Genesis to be historical fact or a mythical narrative?

Are Adam and Eve the literal and historic parents of the entire human race, or are they mythical figures in a story that may have some spiritual truth, but which is not historical fact?

How do you derive instructions for modern day church organization from texts that were letters to ancient local churches? Couldn't we assume that these instructions were for the historical setting in which they were written, and not necessarily the basis for universal church rules for all time?

Steven E. Webster

[Matt Algren]

It was a chuckle and an answer, friend. :)

Sure, I actually just completed a move with the family, and we've been attending a local baptist church. I don't have a problem with denominations or anything, I've just never chosen to be a member of a certain affiliation. I don't see the necessity, relevance, or scriptural basis for it.



Sure thing. Pardon my "tone" as it is coming from the standpoint more in line with certainty than questioning. I feel that may make things far more understandable than questioning my own explanation all the way through :)

First of all, it is very important to not view this issue as men versus women. Obviously there are men and women on both sides of the issue, so I want to clarify that this isn't about chavinism or discrimination, but rather Biblical interpretation.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “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.”
In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created (1 Timothy 2:13) and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:14). God, through the Apostle Paul’s writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

(To clarify: the direction to "be silent" in the church by Paul was related to repeated incidents in the Cretian church, where there were too many voices of authority, and thereby clarity and truth were both being lost in the noise...this is recognized as specific instruction to the Cretian church.)

The very structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the "reason" perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with "for" and gives the "cause" of what Paul stated in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because - "Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived."
That is the reason. God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a "helper" for Adam. This order of Creation has universal application to humanity in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church.

The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is laregely unbased, and quite debateable; if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are "supposedly" more easily deceived)?
That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. This deception did not have some kind of mental affect on the entire female sex for all time. Still, due to this particular result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is certainly not the case...women are very capable). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership – in their lives and through their words.
Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would include women serving as pastors / preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with how God has gifted them.
Generally speaking, it's considered good manners to acknowledge the source when you're copy/pasting big chunks of (http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html) someone else's writing.

[J.D.]

Generally speaking, it's considered good manners to acknowledge the source when you're copy/pasting big chunks of (http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html) someone else's writing.


My fault. I honestly thought I had the link in the beginning of the page. :eek: It's a fundamentalist view point..so the idea was to show you guys where I was coming from.

Here's the site (http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html). My sincerest apologies. I need a personal editor. :(

So, to review, those paragraphs were not my personal words. My responses here in a minute are...just so we are all onthe same page.

[Alecto]

I don't really understand how "Eve was decieved, so women can't be priests" is any different from "Jesus was a man, so priests must be men". It's the inverse, and logically equivalent.

[J.D.]

I apologize up front for slow responses. Work is crazy right about now :smashy: with different long term projects, big change of command coming up...etc...

Your view is backed up by scripture, but not by logic. I've never found God to command anything without logic, and good reason behind it - I don't see why women clergy should be any different. Can you also back up your view with logic? I'd be interested to hear it.


DISCLAIMER: I love logic. It's a fan of mine. Books, articles, everything...even testing on it.

However...

I've learned, a long time ago, that man's logic is far superceded by the word of God. To rely on something as my own line of thinking would not only be arrogant, but foolish, and unscriptural. How many times do we see verses such as the remindeer that "the fear of the Lord" is the beginning of wisdom, or that Christ's cross is "foolishness."

There is a delicate balance between learning and studying the Lord, and trying to hurdle his divine direction through my own reasoning and logic.


I also looked up that Timothy passage - and there's an interesting footnote (I'm reading the CEV), on verse 13 (But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy and modest) that the passage could also be translated as "Women will be saved by the birth of a child/of Jesus". I know this isn't the exact passage you referenced, but context is important (!), and it could well change the interpretation of the whole kaboodle. I read that to suggest that women are saved, and made equal, by Jesus - this idea seems far more congruent with the rest of the Bible, wherein Jesus never treats a woman as inferior to a man - he even pauses in a meal with a group of men in order to talk to a woman who just wanders in.

Ah ha! And see, here is where miscommunication begins.

If you noticed what the article said (article? yes, I know, look at my first response...) above, women ARE equal. There is no redemption necessary specifically for women. Women have not lost some position due to the fall of mankind and sin entering the world.
And you're exactly right! Christ did treat women equally. So did Paul, the writer of the scripture I referenced! He had fantastic relationships with women, such as Lydia and Priscilla. I would say that would lend more credence to what I'm attempting to communicate.

God has created us equal, men and women. He has also created each unique, each with certain roles designed. Can there be crossover? Is there an ability to do so? Absolutely...but that doesn't mean that was the original, created purpose. That's all.


My last point has gone from my head completely. =/
Ah, yes, there it is. Jesus' intention was always, in everything he did, to help people - any people, and as many people as possible. The passage in my signature proclaims faith, hope and in particular love to be above all else.
It is impossible to deny that female clergy, missionaries et al. can and do give people great hope, spread love like wildfire, and bring faith to people of all walks. Why would God forbid something so beneficial to his people - so in keeping with what Christianity is supposed to be about?

Again, look at what I said previously. On one hand, there CAN be crossover, absolutely. Women are quite capable in taking the place of men. It's even happened in scripture...look at when Deborah takes over because guys won't step up! God can use women, of course!

(Remember, also, that particular situation was a response to the disobedience of the Hebrews.)

However, again, this doesn't mean that this is the role God created them for. I would argue, even, that some of the most influential Christian women in our history didn't have to preach a single word to make the great, beneficial impact you have mentioned.

I would say, also, that staying in line with God's plan, while sometimes working directly against our own logic, will eventually lead to the greatest results of all...because that is what God planned for us from the beginning.


And thank you for being possibly the only person I've ever met to pitch a traditionalist view without hyperbolé and whinging!
Emma

Ha. You're welcome. :)

[Matt Algren]

My fault. I honestly thought I had the link in the beginning of the page. :eek: It's a fundamentalist view point..so the idea was to show you guys where I was coming from.

Here's the site (http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html). My sincerest apologies. I need a personal editor. :(

So, to review, those paragraphs were not my personal words. My responses here in a minute are...just so we are all onthe same page.
You made enough little 'personalizing' changes to make me question that.

You might also think twice before quoting a site that says (http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-Christian.html) "If the phrase 'gay Christian' refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle – no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian."


Whatever. What I'm interested in is what YOU think, not what some website you found thinks. Based upon YOUR experience, YOUR understanding, YOUR knowledge, what is YOUR opinion?

[keltic63]

who made us? who created our brains? why do we accept some of our own reasoning and knowledge, perhaps in regards to medical science for example, yet turn away from that when regarding scriptures? I've met others who agree with me on every point of conversation, only to conclude that since it is their own human brain that agrees with all these points, that it must, of necessity, be wrong. And all because some ancient text doesn't specifically address the topic at hand.

why don't we worry about what the Bible says about brain or heart surgery?

why don't we care about what the Bible says about fuel efficiency of our cars?

why don't we worry about what scriptures say about replenishing the forests that we cut down to build our houses?

why shouldn't we ignore contractors who advise us to insulate our homes, when it makes sense in our own brains, yet the Bible doesn't speak about it?

[u-dog]

JD,

Is there a text in scripture somewhere of which I am unaware (after 25 years of preaching) that explicitly suggests that women are not allowed to teach because Eve was "deceived"?

Eve says that she was "tricked" but thats only after God confronts her... its a pathetic rationalization. Eve is NOT deceived in that story. She know PRECISELY what she is doing. The serpent offers the chance to be equal to God and she takes it. her sin is NOT being stupid. Its NOT being disobedient. Her sin is IDOLATRY. Trying to make herself God.

She is, however, no more or less culpable then her companion, ADAM. He is Standing right there the whole time and hears everything the serpent says and when Eve passes him a piece of the fruit that will supposedly make him God's equal he doesn't hesitate to take a big bite. He is not deceived either. he knows what he's doing.

If you diagram this story and all of the interactions between people it is very interesting.

1. Snake tempts eve.
2. Eve tempts Adam.
3. Adam eats.

4. God confronts Adam and Adam blames Eve
5. God confronts Eve and Eve blames the snake
6. God confronts the Snake.

7. God punishes the Snake.
8. God punishes Eve
9. God punishes Adam.

Point of the story? every one sinned. everyone evades responsibility. everyone bears the consequences. A very wise story indeed! So much like real life. But it has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT WHETHER WOMEN SHOULD TEACH IN CHURCH!!!! THATS JUST A TOTAL ABUSE OF SCRIPTURE (not to mention Women!!)

U-dog

[J.D.]

J.D.

Do you consider the narrative about Adam and Eve in Genesis to be historical fact or a mythical narrative?

Are Adam and Eve the literal and historic parents of the entire human race, or are they mythical figures in a story that may have some spiritual truth, but which is not historical fact?

I do.

Would you be surprised to know that Paul also felt the same way (likely, the other apostles and pretty much everyone else held to this view as well)?

How do I know? Let's check out some scripture here...

"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

This is Paul, directly, in Romans 5:14.

Adam is also mentioned by name in the Old Testament (De. 32:8; 1 Ch. 1:1; and Job 31:33).

He's also in the direct line of Christ's genealogy (Luke 3:16-23) and referenced in other New Testament scriptures.


How do you derive instructions for modern day church organization from texts that were letters to ancient local churches? Couldn't we assume that these instructions were for the historical setting in which they were written, and not necessarily the basis for universal church rules for all time?
Steven E. Webster

If you'd like to begin with that assumption, then we might as well throw aside 90% of the teachings and basic principles derived form the Bible. That radical viewpoint incorrectly creates an illegitimate scripture.

True Bible study and spiritual formation is being able to identify the surrounding context of the scripture, and identify the areas that are relevant only to the day while identifying bridging principles into our era.

[livewithsoulandfreedom]

Here's the site (http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html). My sincerest apologies. I need a personal editor.

Having looked further into this website, I do not much care for it.

[J.D.]

JD,

Is there a text in scripture somewhere of which I am unaware (after 25 years of preaching) that explicitly suggests that women are not allowed to teach because Eve was "deceived"?

Eve says that she was "tricked" but thats only after God confronts her... its a pathetic rationalization. Eve is NOT deceived in that story. She know PRECISELY what she is doing. The serpent offers the chance to be equal to God and she takes it. her sin is NOT being stupid. Its NOT being disobedient. Her sin is IDOLATRY. Trying to make herself God.

She is, however, no more or less culpable then her companion, ADAM. He is Standing right there the whole time and hears everything the serpent says and when Eve passes him a piece of the fruit that will supposedly make him God's equal he doesn't hesitate to take a big bite. He is not deceived either. he knows what he's doing.

If you diagram this story and all of the interactions between people it is very interesting.

1. Snake tempts eve.
2. Eve tempts Adam.
3. Adam eats.

4. God confronts Adam and Adam blames Eve
5. God confronts Eve and Eve blames the snake
6. God confronts the Snake.

7. God punishes the Snake.
8. God punishes Eve
9. God punishes Adam.

Point of the story? every one sinned. everyone evades responsibility. everyone bears the consequences. A very wise story indeed! So much like real life. But it has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT WHETHER WOMEN SHOULD TEACH IN CHURCH!!!! THATS JUST A TOTAL ABUSE OF SCRIPTURE (not to mention Women!!)

U-dog

U-dog...ha, cool name.

I think one thing that you missed entirely was that this is not my opinion, but the words of Paul to Timothy. That is quite important to keep that in mind.

There is no disagreement here that Adam, standing right near her (check the verses...he's right there!) doesn't step up and take charge of the situation. He falls flat on his face. No doubt.

Still...Eve is decieved. It's hard to argue that. She is told that she'll be like God, however, she is never told of the horrifying affects not only to herself, but to all of humanity after her and Adam take of the fruit. She realizes this horror after eating (as you can see through her and Adam being ashamed, and hiding) even before they are confronted by God.

[J.D.]

Having look further into this website, I do not much care for it.

Fair enough. I wouldn't expect you to agree much. It is however, a mostly-accurate description of the fundamentalist viewpoint I hold to.

(I say mostly because I'm SURE there is something I disagree with there :p)

[J.D.]

You made enough little 'personalizing' changes to make me question that.

You might also think twice before quoting a site that says (http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-Christian.html) "If the phrase 'gay Christian' refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle – no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian."


Whatever. What I'm interested in is what YOU think, not what some website you found thinks. Based upon YOUR experience, YOUR understanding, YOUR knowledge, what is YOUR opinion?

Again, Matt, I apologize. Thank you for your understanding.

My attempt to demonstrate what I think will be pretty clear through all of these responses. I simply wanted to put a quick brief out that basically summarizes where I'm coming from.

[J.D.]

who made us? who created our brains? why do we accept some of our own reasoning and knowledge, perhaps in regards to medical science for example, yet turn away from that when regarding scriptures? I've met others who agree with me on every point of conversation, only to conclude that since it is their own human brain that agrees with all these points, that it must, of necessity, be wrong. And all because some ancient text doesn't specifically address the topic at hand.

why don't we worry about what the Bible says about brain or heart surgery?

why don't we care about what the Bible says about fuel efficiency of our cars?

why don't we worry about what scriptures say about replenishing the forests that we cut down to build our houses?

why shouldn't we ignore contractors who advise us to insulate our homes, when it makes sense in our own brains, yet the Bible doesn't speak about it?

Keltic, I'm sorry that I couldn't have explained myself more efficiently so you wouldn't have had to waste your time with this post.

You see, there are responses to each of those.

On one hand, there is scripture that speaks to issues such as the caretaking of our environment. That can certainly be applied to, say, "cutting down trees," as you mentioned.

However, in some of the other situations ("brain surgery" you mentioned) where there is no direct or applicable scripture, then our logic certainl can be used as long as it does not conflict with the word of God. Certainly I will submit my lifestyle and decision-making to the authority of God.

And that, sir, is where you and I disagree; I see the Bible to be the Word of God, and you see it to be an "ancient text" only.

[Steven E. Webster]

I do.

Would you be surprised to know that Paul also felt the same way (likely, the other apostles and pretty much everyone else held to this view as well)?

How do I know? Let's check out some scripture here...

"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

This is Paul, directly, in Romans 5:14.

Adam is also mentioned by name in the Old Testament (De. 32:8; 1 Ch. 1:1; and Job 31:33).

He's also in the direct line of Christ's genealogy (Luke 3:16-23) and referenced in other New Testament scriptures.


J.D.,
I grant that all of what you write above is factually true about the TEXT of the Bible. But at the same time it would still be possible that the Adam and Eve narrative is a mythic narrative which teaches a spiritual truth, but which is not at all historical.

As for what Paul thought, I doubt that Paul ever addressed the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve. I don't believe what Paul teaches really relies upon the historicity of Adam and Eve. Paul is teaching spiritual truths which do not depend on the existence of an historic Adam and Eve.

I don't believed that Paul was an historian or a teacher of history.

Steven Webster

[J.D.]

Friends,

I know that was a barrage of responses...I apologize ahead of time if I've irritated any of you. I've enjoyed the conversation (thanks for the kind words, Nyshana).

Feel free to PM me if you'd like. :)

[J.D.]

J.D.,
I grant that all of what you write above is factually true about the TEXT of the Bible. But at the same time it would still be possible that the Adam and Eve narrative is a mythic narrative which teaches a spiritual truth, but which is not at all historical.

As for what Paul thought, I doubt that Paul ever addressed the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve. I don't believe what Paul teaches really relies upon the historicity of Adam and Eve. Paul is teaching spiritual truths which do not depend on the existence of an historic Adam and Eve.

I don't believed that Paul was an historian or a teacher of history.

Steven Webster

Hey Steven,

(do you prefer Steve or Steven, by the way?)

The interesting thing in this particular discussion of Adam's authenticity as a real person, simply, is that your position is not derived from scripture whatsoever. This concept was simply and originally created as an attempt to reconcile scripture to the Evolutionary theory.

In other words, there is no reason to take it for fact or foundation other than to discredit other scripture throughout the Word. And seemingly, you would take that discrediting to view becuase it fits a convenience, rather than taking the Word for what it simply says.

That's all. :)

[keltic63]

And that, sir, is where you and I disagree; I see the Bible to be the Word of God, and you see it to be an "ancient text" only.


sorry, but that is what I call a smartass response. using "sir" in that sentence is not a term of respect, but of derision. don't tell me differently, this is not my first time at the rodeo.

HOW DARE YOU PRESUME TO TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT THE BIBLE!

[Matt Algren]

If you'd like to begin with that assumption, then we might as well throw aside 90% of the teachings and basic principles derived form the Bible. That radical viewpoint incorrectly creates an illegitimate scripture.That's not true. Not in the least.

We know, for example, that 1 Corinthians is a letter that Paul wrote to a baby church full of baby Christians who were also Jewish being led by (say it with me) baby Christians in a world that didn't have many Christians.

Might not some of the substance (as opposed to the underpinnings) of that letter be applicable to them but not to someone who, for example, has always been a Christian, whose parents and grandparents have always been Christians, who attends and is intensely involved in a 200 year old church full of relatively (as compared to the Corinthians) mature Christians?

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:35 says "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

Taken at face value, this verse seems pretty cut and dried. But Paul said earlier in his letter that the people of Corinth were "mere infants" in regards to Christianity. He "gave [them] milk, not solid food, for [they] were not yet ready for it. Indeed, [they] are still not ready." (1 Cor. 3:2)

So here we have Paul implying that he's still giving these infant Christians a lighter-weight version of Christianity that they can understand and carry out. Doesn't it make sense that he would give them (people brought up in the Jewish laws, customs, and traditions) rules that pertained to the Jewish law that they were used to? Doesn't it make sense that he, in his wisdom, might have been mitigating the potential damage until they grew up a little in the faith?

And if so, how does that strategy relate to the theology and church practice that we teach today? Might we be able to prop up baby Christians by using rules they already understand until they can understand the freedom they have in the Christ? In short, doesn't this verse (1 Corinthians 14:35) say something other than "no women preachers"?

I think it does. I think that by taking Paul's first letter to the congregation at Corinth as a whole, rather than chopped up into chapters and sections and verses, we can learn important practical considerations for bringing up an inexperienced Christian.

But only if we're willing to apply some brain power.

[Nyshana]

I've learned, a long time ago, that man's logic is far superceded by the word of God. To rely on something as my own line of thinking would not only be arrogant, but foolish, and unscriptural. How many times do we see verses such as the remindeer that "the fear of the Lord" is the beginning of wisdom, or that Christ's cross is "foolishness."

There is a delicate balance between learning and studying the Lord, and trying to hurdle his divine direction through my own reasoning and logic.
Ah, yes, this is true - I'm not suggesting that God's word should be ignored. I'm pointing out a pattern that I have seen - that has never yet failed; I have never seen God say something illogical. It might take a while for us to get the logic behind what's said, but it is always there, without fail. Not that logic is superior to scripture - but they always exist in tandem.

...women ARE equal. There is no redemption necessary specifically for women. Women have not lost some position due to the fall of mankind and sin entering the world.
Yes, miscommunication indeed. I don't mean equality in terms of importance, not at all. I mean equality - as in, the only differences between men and women being physical.

Again, look at what I said previously. On one hand, there CAN be crossover, absolutely. Women are quite capable in taking the place of men. It's even happened in scripture...look at when Deborah takes over because guys won't step up! God can use women, of course!

(Remember, also, that particular situation was a response to the disobedience of the Hebrews.)
I don't know that story - I'll have to look it up at some point. However, if women can substitute for men in a situation, and do just as well; why should they not take the role on as a primary role? I suppose that goes back to the logic point, though.

I would argue, even, that some of the most influential Christian women in our history didn't have to preach a single word to make the great, beneficial impact you have mentioned.
And the same is true for men.

I would say, also, that staying in line with God's plan, while sometimes working directly against our own logic, will eventually lead to the greatest results of all...because that is what God planned for us from the beginning.
God created logic.. and so, theoretically, logic will only be incorrect if it is flawed. The trick is flawless logic. This brings me onto the next, actually...

This concept was simply and originally created as an attempt to reconcile scripture to the Evolutionary theory.
No reconciliation is needed - the two are not incongruous. Especially if you look at the Aramaic - in particular, that the Aramaic word used for "day" can also mean "indeterminate period of time".

Emma

[Matt Algren]

Hey Steven,

(do you prefer Steve or Steven, by the way?)

The interesting thing in this particular discussion of Adam's authenticity as a real person, simply, is that your position is not derived from scripture whatsoever. This concept was simply and originally created as an attempt to reconcile scripture to the Evolutionary theory.

In other words, there is no reason to take it for fact or foundation other than to discredit other scripture throughout the Word. And seemingly, you would take that discrediting to view becuase it fits a convenience, rather than taking the Word for what it simply says.

That's all. :)
How old is the Earth? Which version of the Bible, in your opinion, is inerrant (a theory that I question, by the way)?

[keltic63]

How old is the Earth? Which version of the Bible, in your opinion, is inerrant (a theory that I question, by the way)?

not to mention, which version of the creation story is true? is it the one in Genesis 1, or the one in Genesis 2? if the Bible is indeed, inerrant, how are there 2 contradictory creation stories?

[Steven E. Webster]

Hey Steven,

(do you prefer Steve or Steven, by the way?)

The interesting thing in this particular discussion of Adam's authenticity as a real person, simply, is that your position is not derived from scripture whatsoever. This concept was simply and originally created as an attempt to reconcile scripture to the Evolutionary theory.

In other words, there is no reason to take it for fact or foundation other than to discredit other scripture throughout the Word. And seemingly, you would take that discrediting to view becuase it fits a convenience, rather than taking the Word for what it simply says.

That's all. :)

J.D.
I am very much concerned about what the Scriptures say and what they tell us about God and spirituality. My point is that if we mistakenly assume that chapters two and three of Genesis are intended to be an accurate, historical account of the origins of the human race, then we are going to miss entirely what the authors of Genesis are really trying to convey in their adaptation of what are more ancient Mesopotamian myths.

Steven Webster

[J.D.]

That's not true. Not in the least.

We know, for example, that 1 Corinthians is a letter that Paul wrote to a baby church full of baby Christians who were also Jewish being led by (say it with me) baby Christians in a world that didn't have many Christians.

Might not some of the substance (as opposed to the underpinnings) of that letter be applicable to them but not to someone who, for example, has always been a Christian, whose parents and grandparents have always been Christians, who attends and is intensely involved in a 200 year old church full of relatively (as compared to the Corinthians) mature Christians?

For example, 1 Corinthians 14:35 says "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

Taken at face value, this verse seems pretty cut and dried. But Paul said earlier in his letter that the people of Corinth were "mere infants" in regards to Christianity. He "gave [them] milk, not solid food, for [they] were not yet ready for it. Indeed, [they] are still not ready." (1 Cor. 3:2)

So here we have Paul implying that he's still giving these infant Christians a lighter-weight version of Christianity that they can understand and carry out. Doesn't it make sense that he would give them (people brought up in the Jewish laws, customs, and traditions) rules that pertained to the Jewish law that they were used to? Doesn't it make sense that he, in his wisdom, might have been mitigating the potential damage until they grew up a little in the faith?

And if so, how does that strategy relate to the theology and church practice that we teach today? Might we be able to prop up baby Christians by using rules they already understand until they can understand the freedom they have in the Christ? In short, doesn't this verse (1 Corinthians 14:35) say something other than "no women preachers"?

I think it does. I think that by taking Paul's first letter to the congregation at Corinth as a whole, rather than chopped up into chapters and sections and verses, we can learn important practical considerations for bringing up an inexperienced Christian.

But only if we're willing to apply some brain power.

Certainly, we need to understand the author's intended audience to understand. That's important in good, biblical scholarship.

However, what's also important is understanding the context of all scripture. You have assumed that, if your view on this particular verse is accurrate, that in some way nullifies the entire issue of women leadership in the church. :confused:
The problem with that statement is you have yet to address the entirety of scriptrue regarding the issue. You've hit only on one part. There are other verses in both Timothy and Titus regarding church leadership specifically, and other verses in the NT letters that speak to gender roles.

Observing scriptural context is key in these issues.

Good points, though. :)

[Daniel]

All I have to say is that this thread is rather interesting to watch unfold, nonetheleast of which is the musing about inerrancy.

[J.D.]

sorry, but that is what I call a smartass response. using "sir" in that sentence is not a term of respect, but of derision. don't tell me differently, this is not my first time at the rodeo.

HOW DARE YOU PRESUME TO TELL ME WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT THE BIBLE!

Let's see.

First of all Keltic, I'm sorry to have drawn your ire. That was why I posted right before these responses.

I don't, however, believe I "presumed" to tell you what you believe about Scripture. I beleive I directly quoted what you said. If not, there is a link in the quote box, I believe.

You have, however, gone to presume the tone of my comment over an internet message. That doesn't seem to make any sense to me, whatsoever.
I happen to work in a military setting, where "sir" is practically used as a comma for those we here hold in respect. While I have not used the term much on the board (ha...probably not at all :p) I gurantee you that there was no harmful intent by adding in that word.

Hope that clarifies. :D

[J.D.]

Sorry if my responses are short, Nyshana :( I have quite a few to work with here.

Ah, yes, this is true - I'm not suggesting that God's word should be ignored. I'm pointing out a pattern that I have seen - that has never yet failed; I have never seen God say something illogical. It might take a while for us to get the logic behind what's said, but it is always there, without fail. Not that logic is superior to scripture - but they always exist in tandem.

Certainly, you're going to find logic and scripture co-existing. I would just state that when they come to conflict, the word of God trumps.


Yes, miscommunication indeed. I don't mean equality in terms of importance, not at all. I mean equality - as in, the only differences between men and women being physical.

Now I'm confused...what do you mean in "equality" of physical differences? Sorry I'm not getting it...:confused:

I don't know that story - I'll have to look it up at some point. However, if women can substitute for men in a situation, and do just as well; why should they not take the role on as a primary role? I suppose that goes back to the logic point, though.

The story of Deborah can be found in Judges 4 and 5, if you would like to look it up :) Bible gatweay is nice, too.

Again, because God created men and women for specific roles. I'm fearful of using an analogy, as all certainly have their limits and never fully explain the situation...


God created logic.. and so, theoretically, logic will only be incorrect if it is flawed. The trick is flawless logic. This brings me onto the next, actually...

No reconciliation is needed - the two are not incongruous. Especially if you look at the Aramaic - in particular, that the Aramaic word used for "day" can also mean "indeterminate period of time".
Emma

Ha...except the OT word is Hebrew, not Aramaic. And the Hebrew word, when used in phrases such as "evening and morning", mean an actual revolving of the Earth. But that is an entirely seperate discussion (one that I love, actually :) ).

Thanks again. I'm enjoying our conversation :)

[J.D.]

not to mention, which version of the creation story is true? is it the one in Genesis 1, or the one in Genesis 2? if the Bible is indeed, inerrant, how are there 2 contradictory creation stories?

Keltic,

This is entirely new topic, no? Good times.

The two chapters do not contradict themselves...one is simply a detailed look at the 6th day of creation.

I'm sorry I can't respond so in depthly as I'd like with work and everyon'e elses (as you can see, my responses are rather short :( )...but I've learned quite a bit on this particular source, and this is an arctilce (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp) that I hope you can appreciate.

If this unacceptable, for any reasons, feel free to PM me and I'll get back to as soon as I can. Don't be surprised, though to see that my answer will line up very near to this information, still.

[J.D.]

J.D.
I am very much concerned about what the Scriptures say and what they tell us about God and spirituality. My point is that if we mistakenly assume that chapters two and three of Genesis are intended to be an accurate, historical account of the origins of the human race, then we are going to miss entirely what the authors of Genesis are really trying to convey in their adaptation of what are more ancient Mesopotamian myths.

Steven Webster

Interesting. There isn't much for me to say here.

May I ask why you are so convinced that the Hebrew writings are founded in Mesopatamian myths?

To be honest, I believe we are likely to be at an impassable situation here. But I would still enjoy the conversation, all the same.

[J.D.]

I would just like to point out, on a note of humor, that the title of this thread, in it's current state, makes me laugh.

:)

[Matt Algren]

However, what's also important is understanding the context of all scripture. You have assumed that, if your view on this particular verse is accurrate, that in some way nullifies the entire issue of women leadership in the church. :confused:No I didn't.

The problem with that statement is you have yet to address the entirety of scriptrue regarding the issue. You've hit only on one part. There are other verses in both Timothy and Titus regarding church leadership specifically, and other verses in the NT letters that speak to gender roles. I'm pretty sure I used the phrase "for example".

[keltic63]

Let's see.

First of all Keltic, I'm sorry to have drawn your ire. That was why I posted right before these responses.

I don't, however, believe I "presumed" to tell you what you believe about Scripture. I beleive I directly quoted what you said. If not, there is a link in the quote box, I believe.

You have, however, gone to presume the tone of my comment over an internet message. That doesn't seem to make any sense to me, whatsoever.
I happen to work in a military setting, where "sir" is practically used as a comma for those we here hold in respect. While I have not used the term much on the board (ha...probably not at all :p) I gurantee you that there was no harmful intent by adding in that word.

Hope that clarifies. :D

plenty of wiggle room for you to deny what you have done. then turn the accusation around on me. fine.

you made a leap from what I said about the Bible, to assume that it was a definitive statement of my belief, and that is just not true.

[Matt Algren]

Let's see.

First of all Keltic, I'm sorry to have drawn your ire. That was why I posted right before these responses.

I don't, however, believe I "presumed" to tell you what you believe about Scripture. I beleive I directly quoted what you said. If not, there is a link in the quote box, I believe.

You have, however, gone to presume the tone of my comment over an internet message. That doesn't seem to make any sense to me, whatsoever.
I happen to work in a military setting, where "sir" is practically used as a comma for those we here hold in respect. While I have not used the term much on the board (ha...probably not at all :p) I gurantee you that there was no harmful intent by adding in that word.

Hope that clarifies. :DSorry son, your 'sir' was Smartass 101.

[dsdrane]

I just knew this was going to be good!

:weee:

[We really need an icon for rapt attention...perhaps with a tub of popcorn.]

[J.D.]

No I didn't.

Sorry, Matt. What I said was based off of when you said this...

And if so, how does that strategy relate to the theology and church practice that we teach today? Might we be able to prop up baby Christians by using rules they already understand until they can understand the freedom they have in the Christ? In short, doesn't this verse (1 Corinthians 14:35) say something other than "no women preachers"?

..and clearly I misinterpreted your conclusion. My apologies.

[J.D.]

plenty of wiggle room for you to deny what you have done. then turn the accusation around on me. fine.

you made a leap from what I said about the Bible, to assume that it was a definitive statement of my belief, and that is just not true.

Sorry son, your 'sir' was Smartass 101.


I don't really understand why there must be some kind of constant level of hostility.

I think my explanation is pretty clear. Keltic, you were, and well...still are, being a bit agressive towards me; I think that's fairly clear. You "presumed" to know my tone. I think that's a little silly.

This is an internet conversation. I didn't bold, italicize, underline or CAP any of the words. It's hard enough to know "tone" on the 'net...so why should we presume we know?

There's no reason to focus on this kind of stuff...there really isn't. I have, and will contine to domy absolute best to remain monotone and neutral while stilll respectful and certain in my wordings and responses. We'd all do a lot better if there was some some benefit-of-the-doubt being passed around, I think :)

[keltic63]

I don't really understand why there must be some kind of constant level of hostility.

I think my explanation is pretty clear. Keltic, you were, and well...still are, being a bit agressive towards me; I think that's fairly clear. You "presumed" to know my tone. I think that's a little silly.

This is an internet conversation. I didn't bold, italicize, underline or CAP any of the words. It's hard enough to know "tone" on the 'net...so why should we presume we know?

There's no reason to focus on this kind of stuff...there really isn't. I have, and will contine to domy absolute best to remain monotone and neutral while stilll respectful and certain in my wordings and responses. We'd all do a lot better if there was some some benefit-of-the-doubt being passed around, I think :)

ok, so read my responses in your monotone robotic voice.

as far as being respectful and certain in your wording and responses, I don't feel you've done that with me. "sir" is one instance in which your response was disrespectful, and making the assumption that one phrase I made about an ancient text as being my definitive opinion on such, was another instance in which you read beyond my words. You certainly didn't give me benefit of the doubt in that situation.

I'm sorry you think I'm being aggressive. I think of it as being candid and honest. I'm not hiding my opinion, I'm not being so vague as to accuse others of misinterpreting what I said when questioned. I find it best to say what I mean, and mean what I say.

[J.D.]

ok, so read my responses in your monotone robotic voice.

as far as being respectful and certain in your wording and responses, I don't feel you've done that with me. "sir" is one instance in which your response was disrespectful, and making the assumption that one phrase I made about an ancient text as being my definitive opinion on such, was another instance in which you read beyond my words. You certainly didn't give me benefit of the doubt in that situation.

I'm sorry you think I'm being aggressive. I think of it as being candid and honest. I'm not hiding my opinion, I'm not being so vague as to accuse others of misinterpreting what I said when questioned. I find it best to say what I mean, and mean what I say.

And that is clearly a double-standard.

You can't expect to hold me to one standard of having to hold my breath constantly, where I am as careful as possible and still manage to step on other's toes, while you are allowed to be "candid and honest."

I don't see how any of this creates a friendly, engaging environment, Keltic. If I'm to be muffled and accused of wrongdoing while any one else may be free to run rampant, in ways that I personally think are far more agressive (and openly so), then I'm not sure how you would expect anyone with broader views than your own to learn here at this 'board.

So. As I said in the previous response, let's keep to the content. It'll be a much more enjoyable dialogue between all parties, I think :D

[Matt Algren]

And that is clearly a double-standard.

You can't expect to hold me to one standard of having to hold my breath constantly, where I am as careful as possible and still manage to step on other's toes, while you are allowed to be "candid and honest."

I don't see how any of this creates a friendly, engaging environment, Keltic. If I'm to be muffled and accused of wrongdoing while any one else may be free to run rampant, in ways that I personally think are far more agressive (and openly so), then I'm not sure how you would expect anyone with broader views than your own to learn here at this 'board.

So. As I said in the previous response, let's keep to the content. It'll be a much more enjoyable dialogue between all parties, I think :D
Sorry, JD, you have enough history with enough people that they've seen the pattern. As keltic said earlier, this isn't his first rodeo. I'd say that holds true for most of us. We've dealt more than once with feigned respect and troll baiting, and we've learned to recognize their hallmarks.

Now climb down off that cross and stop trying to make yourself out to be a martyr. If you expect respect from others, you need to demonstrate it yourself.

Just to be clear, showing respect does not include:

1. Pretending to be respectful.
2. Plagiarizing a post to make yourself sound smart.
3. Being vague about specific opinions, especially when asked directly.
4. Feigning ignorance when people call you out on your behavior.

You're a grown up now. Time to put away those childish things if you want to sit at the grown up table and have a real conversation.

[keltic63]

So. As I said in the previous response, let's keep to the content. It'll be a much more enjoyable dialogue between all parties, I think :D

umm, I'll do the moderating, thank you.

[J.D.]

Sorry, JD, you have enough history with enough people that they've seen the pattern. As keltic said earlier, this isn't his first rodeo. I'd say that holds true for most of us. We've dealt more than once with feigned respect and troll baiting, and we've learned to recognize their hallmarks.

Now climb down off that cross and stop trying to make yourself out to be a martyr. If you expect respect from others, you need to demonstrate it yourself.

Just to be clear, showing respect does not include:

1. Pretending to be respectful.
2. Plagiarizing a post to make yourself sound smart.
3. Being vague about specific opinions, especially when asked directly.
4. Feigning ignorance when people call you out on your behavior.

You're a grown up now. Time to put away those childish things if you want to sit at the grown up table and have a real conversation.

So you would rather hold to a stereotypical view of myself, and not even give me the time of day because you have had enough experience to sign, seal, and send me off down the river? I'm astonished, honestly.

You want to talk about sitting at the grown up table? What I have come to understand is that, at the grown up table, men and women can disagree with each other civilly, without presumptions and stereotypical condemnations.

For some reason, you are very quick to group me into an overwhelmingly large, incredibly negative group that I don't believe I am a member of. I would have thought that a level of respect would have existed initiallly.

And then, to proverbally nail this list of wrongdoings, despite the fact that I have answered to each one, is downright rude. I have done my absolute BEST to respect each individual on this board, despite your best efforts to rile my patiences. I have apologized, extensively, for the mistake regarding my article post. I have answered every single remark so far on this thread (no small feat). I have NOT feigned ignorance, but rather confidently returned these negative remakrs and questioned their foundings...as any honest human being would when his or her character has come to be under question.

Please. All I am asking is that you would relieve your preconceptions, and give me an opportunity to speak for myself...and who I am. Don't file me away as just another fundamentalist...just as I refuse to file any of you away as just another liberal.

I want to learn, and understand your point of view. And I believe that this can be achieved without compromising my character or my beleifs.

[keltic63]

Please. All I am asking is that you would relieve your preconceptions, and give me an opportunity to speak for myself...and who I am. Don't file me away as just another fundamentalist...just as I refuse to file any of you away as just another liberal.

I want to learn, and understand your point of view. And I believe that this can be achieved without compromising my character or my beleifs.

then I suggest you say what you mean honestly and in the best way possible. I've been watching your posts, and you do have a way avoiding direct questions, as well as making vague general statements. When questioned on those vague statements, you claim to be misunderstood, that in the very nature of the question put to you, you find offense. I suppose that is why Matt has referred to you as a martyr.

In the same way, you presumed that one phrase offered by me, was the basis of a vast difference in our own opinions. When I called you on it, you were offended at my offense.

As I've noted before, you also throw out a bombshell of a statement, then run and hide, claiming that the number of responses and questions are too overwhelming for you.

You want to understand our point of view? Imagine the visuals gay and lesbian people see everyday, in the media, movies, television, internet, magazines, ads on the subway and bus, couples walking hand in hand, kissing in public, and in some cases much much more. Gay & lesbian people are bombarded with heterosexual images; talk about overwhelming. You get 3 or 4 members asking you questions and you feel overwhelmed?

Add to that the constant cries of "christian" organizations like Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, et al. The accusations of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell, and many others who place the blame for 9-11, terrorism and natural disasters squarely on the shoulders of gay and lesbian people.

Note, that I have not told you that you can not state your opinion. I merely want you to engage our members in an open and forthright fashion. At no point have I edited your posts, sent you a pm, or locked a thread. There is no reason for you to cry foul about how I've treated you here. Aggressive? you bet I am. I'm charged with guarding this sanctuary for lgbt people. When I feel someone is about to violate that sanctuary, I will indeed step forward and confront. that's my job here.

[Matt Algren]

So you would rather hold to a stereotypical view of myself, and not even give me the time of day because you have had enough experience to sign, seal, and send me off down the river? I'm astonished, honestly. I didn't say anything about a stereotypical view. I'm talking about cause and effect. You act a certain way toward others and they learn from that experience. So do the people watching.

No idea what you're talking about in regard to the river. I have neither the power nor the inclination to send anybody off down the river, even if I knew what river you were talking about.

[Nyshana]

*studiously ignores the arguing, knowing my temper as I do...*
Sorry if my responses are short, Nyshana :( I have quite a few to work with here.
No worries, I don't sit raptly waiting for a response - take your time.

Certainly, you're going to find logic and scripture co-existing. I would just state that when they come to conflict, the word of God trumps.
Well indeed, but this is so far the only example I have ever seen of an assumed 'truth' of God being in conflict with logic - save for many peoples' views on LGBT issues and similarly radicalised ideas, and we know where that hogwash ends up.

Now I'm confused...what do you mean in "equality" of physical differences? Sorry I'm not getting it...:confused:
I meant that my definition of equality is one in which the only difference between genders is the physical difference - in everything else, they are equal and the same. Just like the equality we hope for between races - that the only difference between a black person and a white person is the colour of their skin, in every other regard they have the same opportunities, responsibilities, etc.

Again, because God created men and women for specific roles. I'm fearful of using an analogy, as all certainly have their limits and never fully explain the situation...
I'm not using an analogy, I'm using your example. But as said, I think this goes back to the point about logic.

Ha...except the OT word is Hebrew, not Aramaic. And the Hebrew word, when used in phrases such as "evening and morning", mean an actual revolving of the Earth. But that is an entirely seperate discussion (one that I love, actually :) ).
Ah, it may well have been Hebrew, I was told that a long time ago - and I wouldn't put it past the woman who first explained it to me to have had her original languages mixed up. :lol:

Thanks again. I'm enjoying our conversation :)
Me too - I'm glad of it, both because I love to debate things, and because being forced to spell out my reasoning has the happy effect (usually) of reminding me why I'm right about something. :p

Emma

[Daniel]

I've been reading this thread and shaking my head. I've been where you are at, that is defensive while watching what I said. Frankly, it just comes off all wrong, it just keeps the misunderstanding on an endless loop.

Look. You haven't asked for my advice, but I am going to be daring and give it anyway - in an effort to spare you grief.

Know what you could do?

Learn how to take criticism.

Specifically, you could say THANK YOU when people point things out to you, even if you don't agree with them. Why? Because it is a very deft and smart thing to do: it gets both parties off the hook- it provides both parties with the sense that they are being 'heard'.

Defensiveness? That is only for those who have something to hide.

Where did I learn this? From a Buddhist teacher. He pointed out that saying thank you for criticism was the best way to deal with it. And I have found that he was very perceptive. You don't even have to say anything else. Just say THANK YOU. It stops the discord immediately.

Sounds simple. And it is. And I suggest you try it before you say something stupid and get yourself sent to the foyer. And you never know- if you can keep your mind from reacting defensively....well...you just might see the other person's point of view- and he/she- yours.

With respect and consideration for your person,

Daniel

[J.D.]

You guys are busy, that's for sure! :)


As I've noted before, you also throw out a bombshell of a statement, then run and hide, claiming that the number of responses and questions are too overwhelming for you.

I beg your pardon, but I have not run and hid. I have taken the time out of my work day to respond to each and every post on these threads. I think that is more than fair.


You want to understand our point of view? Imagine the visuals gay and lesbian people see everyday, in the media, movies, television, internet, magazines, ads on the subway and bus, couples walking hand in hand, kissing in public, and in some cases much much more. Gay & lesbian people are bombarded with heterosexual images; talk about overwhelming. You get 3 or 4 members asking you questions and you feel overwhelmed?


Not much to say to that. I'm not sure why you need to put me through a guilt trip on the "overwhelming heterosexual images" you encounter on a daily basis, as if somehow it is my fault.

Certainly it is a lot to deal with. Without a doubt.


Note, that I have not told you that you can not state your opinion. I merely want you to engage our members in an open and forthright fashion. At no point have I edited your posts, sent you a pm, or locked a thread. There is no reason for you to cry foul about how I've treated you here. Aggressive? you bet I am. I'm charged with guarding this sanctuary for lgbt people. When I feel someone is about to violate that sanctuary, I will indeed step forward and confront. that's my job here.

We've been discussing the theological validity of female church leadership. In what way is that violating the sanctuary of lgbt people.

Oh, and you're more than welcome to PM me.

I would hope that you wouldn't lock me out edited my post. I can't imagine any obscene content in any of my posts to my knowledge. You certainly haven't pointed out any rule-breaking material. :P

I think I've been fairly polite on this 'board. I'm enjoying conversations with others. I'm not sure why this one between us must continue to be so hostile.

[J.D.]

I didn't say anything about a stereotypical view. I'm talking about cause and effect. You act a certain way toward others and they learn from that experience. So do the people watching.

Matt, if you are categorizing me a certain way after a few posts on a weboard, you can't really believe that is a fair representation of who I am. Can you?


No idea what you're talking about in regard to the river. I have neither the power nor the inclination to send anybody off down the river, even if I knew what river you were talking about.

Hilarious. Really.

[J.D.]

Well indeed, but this is so far the only example I have ever seen of an assumed 'truth' of God being in conflict with logic - save for many peoples' views on LGBT issues and similarly radicalised ideas, and we know where that hogwash ends up.

The entire concept of atoning salvation, and accept the free gift of God while relying on no abilities or tasks done by the condemned individual...this kind of "logic" flies in the face of conventional religion.

It's transforming. Instead of being about what we can do to reach God, it's all about how God reached down to us.


I meant that my definition of equality is one in which the only difference between genders is the physical difference - in everything else, they are equal and the same. Just like the equality we hope for between races - that the only difference between a black person and a white person is the colour of their skin, in every other regard they have the same opportunities, responsibilities, etc.


Gotcha. Again, see that's the thing. You're assuming that men and women are inequal because they are created (or believe to have been created) for the same purposes, and thereby live different roles. What I've been attempting to point out is that, while our cultural mindset of the day, this isn't absolute fact.

My point, as I've been trying to illustrate, is that different roles do not necessarily mean a higher or lower position. That's all.


I'm not using an analogy, I'm using your example. But as said, I think this goes back to the point about logic.

Ha...misunderstanding. I meant that I wasn't going to use an analogy. Not you. :P


Ah, it may well have been Hebrew, I was told that a long time ago - and I wouldn't put it past the woman who first explained it to me to have had her original languages mixed up. :lol:

That's fine :) Greek and Aramaic were the main languages used in the New Testament while Hebrew was primary in the Old Testament. Not a problem :P


Me too - I'm glad of it, both because I love to debate things, and because being forced to spell out my reasoning has the happy effect (usually) of reminding me why I'm right about something. :p

Well, how arrogant of you. :P Haha...I hope you feel more convinced at least. ;)

I have honestly enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.

[J.D.]

I've been reading this thread and shaking my head. I've been where you are at, that is defensive while watching what I said. Frankly, it just comes off all wrong, it just keeps the misunderstanding on an endless loop.

Look. You haven't asked for my advice, but I am going to be daring and give it anyway - in an effort to spare you grief.

Know what you could do?

Learn how to take criticism.

Specifically, you could say THANK YOU when people point things out to you, even if you don't agree with them. Why? Because it is a very deft and smart thing to do: it gets both parties off the hook- it provides both parties with the sense that they are being 'heard'.

Defensiveness? That is only for those who have something to hide.

Where did I learn this? From a Buddhist teacher. He pointed out that saying thank you for criticism was the best way to deal with it. And I have found that he was very perceptive. You don't even have to say anything else. Just say THANK YOU. It stops the discord immediately.

Sounds simple. And it is. And I suggest you try it before you say something stupid and get yourself sent to the foyer. And you never know- if you can keep your mind from reacting defensively....well...you just might see the other person's point of view- and he/she- yours.

With respect and consideration for your person,

Daniel

Thanks, Daniel.

[Daniel]

Thanks, Daniel.

Practice makes permanent. ;)

[Steven E. Webster]

That's fine :) Greek and Aramaic were the main languages used in the New Testament while Hebrew was primary in the Old Testament. Not a problem :P


Just a clarification:

Our New Testament was written entirely in Greek (though there is speculation that there may have been Aramaic sources). Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but it is not impossible that he also spoke Greek. Aramaic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages and are closely related. Greek is an Indo-European Language (like English).

I believe it is the case that some Old Testament texts are in Aramaic. Hebrew already became a somewhat "dead" language used only in the synagogue sometime before Christ with Aramaic being the common language in the region.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Interesting. There isn't much for me to say here.

May I ask why you are so convinced that the Hebrew writings are founded in Mesopatamian myths?

To be honest, I believe we are likely to be at an impassable situation here. But I would still enjoy the conversation, all the same.

J.D.

I'm giving a link here to Wikipedia, but there is a much larger body of scholarship concerning the relationship of the older Babylonian Creation Myth to the Creation Myth found in Genesis Chapter One

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish

If you dig farther, you will find that there is a literary dependence of Genesis 2 and 3 on the older Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic.

I only raise this issue because you seem to rest your position on forbidding the ordination of women on the story of Adam and Eve, which you seem to wish to treat as historical fact, rather than as an ancient literary creation.

One of the things I find frustrating about Fundamentalists is the way that their commitment to the alleged "Inerrancy of Scripture" does not allow for any questioning of any part of their so-called "Biblical Worldview." Like a house of cards, if you remove (or disprove) one so-called "fact" from their "Inerrant Scripture," then the whole house of cards falls down.

The Genesis story has been the basis for Fundamentalist prejudices against women, gays and even black people (the supposed descendants of Ham). That is why, when you first brought Adam and Eve into our discussion, I thought it important to raise the issue of whether we are discussing historical facts or literary creations.

I'm a Christian, not a Fundamentalist. The Bible, for me, has authority--it is a source of spiritual instruction, and even of divine revelation through the Holy Spirit, but it is not to be taken literally. It is not "inerrant"--particularly when human beings get involved--"to err is human."

Steven Webster

[livewithsoulandfreedom]

This thread... it really makes my head spin... you know?

[keltic63]

This thread... it really makes my head spin... you know?

Mine too.

and I'd like to note the absence of a certain member from this discussion.....

I'm just sayin' :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

Mine too.

and I'd like to note the absence of a certain member from this discussion.....

I'm just sayin' :rolleyes:

The get overwhelmed? They give up? Hard to say. Maybe 'they' are watching the Republican Convention tonight. I know I am. And you know what? (I am so so so so bad!) I feel like I am watching an endless array of announcements during 'church'.

And I'm not talkin' Anglican Church. If it were, there would be better music! :lol:

[tdogg]

Well, I know that I should be watching and had planned on it. But frankly, I have a difficult time sitting through all the speeches. I can hardly stand to listen to any of them talk for any length of time. I try, but get so distracted.

Plus, I have homework and a quiz to do. :weee: So there! Plus, I learned a lot from these folks (as in these folks speaking at the convention), I can just sit back and let someone else do the research and then decide to believe it. :lol:

Ok, back to Chapter 4...

[Zerbie]

I've gotten tired of convention coverage too. So we're recording it to watch at a later date when we're more of a mind for it again.

Enough politics. I've thought and breathed nothing but, for about a week. Then had to vote in the primary today, which, if you lived in my district, you would understand why that's a tough chore for me. :p