Forgive, forget, or none of the above

[kapkomet]

and I am sorry that what I say is written so poorly vis a vis you, would be best that I withdraw from the conversation here since I am not writing it well enough to have any meaning so as not to waste the reader's time, I will absent.

And your audience in this case is not just one person. Good conversation, don't withdrawl from it because you feel like you're not reaching one person.

[southsider2k5]

And your audience in this case is not just one person.  Good conversation, don't withdrawl from it because you feel like you're not reaching one person.

Yeah, if we all quit talking to PA because we weren't reaching him, it would be awful quiet when he started a thread

 

Keep going guys. As Woody Harrelson said in White Men Can't Jump

 

"I love this s***"

[sox4lifeinPA]

Cdub,

 

I definitely want you to stay in the conversation. I was talking to Miss S4L last night about this stuff. I read her different posts and my response. We unpacked 1 timothy 2 together. She's reading a couple of women's books right now, "the alure of hope" and "every woman's battle". In the latter, it says that the greek word for "authority" (help me on that Cdub) is in reference to sexual authority or in other words, women shouldn't lead men into sexual sin (cos we do a mighty good job on our own).

 

The point is, that that passage which could and is used to prohibit women from preaching, ministering, etc in the church, really has more to do with her appearance and actions than her role in the church. So while I'm not admitting (HA! NEVER! ) that I'm wrong, I'm saying I see things differently. That timothy passage is clearer to me now, I think.

 

In all honesty, while I was in the methodist church my mom was the lay leader of our church. she was in charge of alot of different activities,etc. we also had a woman (and her husbad) leading the youth group, and an associate woman paster. I'm very familiar with women leadership, and I'm not saying it's not acceptable. I'm just saying that the last time I sat and listened to a woman preacher I left with a funny feeling, like something wasn't right. Is that my tendency to dominate as Cdub said? Or was that the Holy Spirit's conviction? honestly I don't know.

 

I don't think women preachers are the undoing of the church, clearly there's not a whole lot to back that up biblically.

 

1I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[1] of the church in Cenchrea. 2I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.

 

Phoebe ministered to paul in some way, but I want to be careful of this word "ministered", because I don't believe Phoebe was the head of a church and paul was under her. I believe that the Grace that God has poured on us, is passed back and forth to each other. I can minister to my friends and they can minister to me. yet, it doesn't say that she "has been a great leader over many people"...but it does say "she has been a great help TO many people". semantic? maybe.

 

Aquila and Priscilla[ 16:19 Greek Prisca, a variant of Priscilla] greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

 

Sounds like a team work in the Corinth church that meets at their house.

 

I can't get around this one though:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[2] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[3] 32This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

 

In other words, as Christ is the head over the church, husbands are head over their wives. So, how would it be possible for a married woman to be head of a church, yet be under her husband? That's where it just doesn't add up for me. and "well she just is" doesn't cut it.

 

thoughts? because I really don't know.

[Soxy]

In other words, as Christ is the head over the church, husbands are head over their wives. So, how would it be possible for a married woman to be head of a church, yet be under her husband? That's where it just doesn't add up for me. and "well she just is" doesn't cut it.

 

thoughts? because I really don't know.

Ultimately, I think that these passages go against the overarching egalitarian sentiment preached in Paul and, in my opinion, against those same teaching by Christ. Of the things that Jesus attacked in the temple was, I believe, the domination system of heirarchies--not just the money changing, but the oppression of those that have been put in lower social statuses. I have taken pretty much every theology class at my school except the one on Paul (which I sometimes regret), but it is JESUS' message that these systems of domination are wrong. And, while I understand there are those patriarchal sentiments in Paul, I think that they are unrepresentative of the Paul's message. Paul believed that the community was one that should embrace those principles of rightousness, Justice and inclusion (including in leadership roles). My only response to the passage in Corinthians would be this one in Galations:

 

Galations 3:25-29

But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you where baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise.

 

So, if there is no male and female--and if God and Jesus themselves do not discriminate--how can one have authority over the other? I would argue we cannot, since in the Christian tradition we are all under ONE authority--and this Authority views us all with equal eyes.

[cwsox]

me say you dominate? Never!

 

 

I will avoid an exegesis on that passage for domestic matters. That analogy can be carried too far anyway. Two spouses will have intercourse but Christ does not have intercourse with the church.

 

Translations can be political. The passage on Phoebe: I am really unhappy with that translation for its uses words not in Greek text and omits others. Paul identifies Phoebe as a diakonai (bad transliteration) which - at the time Paul wrote that, in the late 40s or early 50s CE - was a term used for clergy, pastors of local faith communities. The later distinctions and roles of deacon, presbyter (what we call a pastor), and episkope (bishop) had not yet developed. So, Paul calls Phoebe a clergy person, specificially, a deacon, and Phoebe was pastor of her faith community to the same extent that any male could have been. There is other Biblical evidence and tons of extraBiblical evidence from writings of the same period that women indeed served as clergy.

 

The usual political translation based on the AV (KJV) was to call Phoebe a "deaconess" (such as a nun or sister) even though every time Paul used the exact word elsewhere it was presented as they were clergy. The AV (KJV) was avowedly political in one of its intended goals, to show women as subserviant. The history on that is long and I am not going to do that now but England at that moment was ruled by King James (by the way, a very gay man, one of God's greatest jokes on conservatives who swear by the King James Version) after two successive queens, Mary Tudor and Elizabeth who had a very long reign, Mary Queen of Scots (James' mother) having ruled in Scotland when she came of age and took the regency from her mother Mary de Guise, while Catherine de Medici was the power behind the throne of France for something like 50-70 years. So where the 16th century saw many strong women in leadership, the early 17th century when the KJV was done was in part to downplay the role of women so the men could be on top again. So they demoted Phoebe to a "deaconess." The translation you quote doesn't even suggest that to me and it clearly does not say that she was clergy in faith community, which Paul says.

 

In fact, it can be easily argued that as in Luke the imminence of the Gospel was first proclaimed to a woman, and as in all the Gospels the announcement of Resurrection was first given to women (and the men being sexist pig assholes did not believe the women) so too women served as clergy, as the leaders of some/many of the early faith communities. In the Orthodox Church, Mary Magdalene is regarded as an apostle and I think they are on to something there.

 

Is a pastor the head of a congregation? Not in my book. A pastor is a servant. The pastor does not rule the congregation. Christ is the head of the Church. The Church are the people. The congregation, local gathered faith community, is served by a pastor who has certain functions of service and ministry but being head of the congregation is not a role that I - a pastor - would assign to a pastor. Decison-making, polity in the local congregation, must (in my opinion) vest decision making, who makes the final decision, within the people, the entire community, and that is represented by parish councils, annual meetings, or variations thereof. The people call (hire) their pastor and should be able to fire their pastor. In real life I never have seen myself as the head of the congregation - Christ would be - I am not playing word games - my role is defined but does not include the power to make the final decisions, to be ruler. That is left with the people via their church board and the annual or semi annual congregational meetings. There were many times my desires did not prevail - many times they did - but only as we worked throuigh the decision making process with the congregation and council. If in fact a pastor "rules" the congregation, that is a formula for trouble. It certainly has happened, the Herr Pastor who rules the congregation and always makes the decisions. But that is not good nor healthy nor theoilogically sound as I see it. A pastor does not rule the congregation.

 

Very long way of saying that in answer to your question, since the pastor does not rule the congregation, that removes that possible impediment in your question.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, how would it be possible for a married woman to be head of a church, yet be under her husband? That's where it just doesn't add up for me. and "well she just is" doesn't cut it.

thoughts? because I really don't know.

 

Yes. The OT was written by men in a male dominated society, and it augmented and reinforced societal laws, rules, and customs that similarly treated women as inferior to men in practically all things. It's not surprising or even upsetting that those passages exist in the OT – like CW has said, taken in literal and historical context, the OT writings in toto make spiritual sense even if they are a product of their times.

 

Doesn't mean you should expect to have much luck using the OT as a 21st century societal mores guide. Protohominids were knuckle draggers and while I guess it would be tradition to ascribe to be a knuckle dragger myself, I choose to enjoy the full benefits of a couple million years of evolution instead. IMHO, you're committing yourself to being a societal knuckle dragger if you think that male-biased OT writings can tell you anything meaningful about 21st century gender dynamics and equality.

 

I know this is where you and I are in sharp contrast, PA. For you, the OT writers were spiritually inspired by the hand of God, so there has to be truth in the heart of them. As long as you don't take that belief to it's the absurd (if logical) conclusion that puts you in the camp of the Biblical Literalists, I think that your views are shared by large number of Christians. Again, I think it comes down to what CW has alluded to – seeing what larger spiritual truths are revealed by the OT writings taken as a whole, and at the same time being able to recognize that the writings are a product of their times and reflect the societal inequities of those times.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Yes. The OT was written by men in a male dominated society, and it augmented and reinforced societal laws, rules, and customs that similarly treated women as inferior to men in practically all things.  It's not surprising or even upsetting that those passages exist in the OT – like CW has said, taken in literal and historical context, the OT writings in toto make spiritual sense even if they are a product of their times.

 

Doesn't mean you should expect to have much luck using the OT as a 21st century societal mores guide.  Protohominids were knuckle draggers and while I guess it would be tradition to ascribe to be a knuckle dragger myself, I choose to enjoy the full benefits of a couple million years of evolution instead.  IMHO, you're committing yourself to being a societal knuckle dragger if you think that male-biased OT writings can tell you anything meaningful about 21st century gender dynamics and equality.

 

I know this is where you and I are in sharp contrast, PA.  For you, the OT writers were spiritually inspired by the hand of God, so there has to be truth in the heart of them.  As long as you don't take that belief to it's the absurd (if logical) conclusion that puts you in the camp of the Biblical Literalists, I think that your views are shared by large number of Christians.  Again, I think it comes down to what CW has alluded to – seeing what larger spiritual truths are revealed by the OT writings taken as a whole, and at the same time being able to recognize that the writings are a product of their times and reflect the societal inequities of those times.

I'm with ya Jim, except we're talking about the new testament now Paul was around circa 50 AD.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Ultimately, I think that these passages go against the overarching egalitarian sentiment preached in Paul and, in my opinion, against those same teaching by Christ. Of the things that Jesus attacked in the temple was, I believe, the domination system of heirarchies--not just the money changing, but the oppression of those that have been put in lower social statuses. I have taken pretty much every theology class at my school except the one on Paul (which I sometimes regret), but it is JESUS' message that these systems of domination are wrong. And, while I understand there are those patriarchal sentiments in Paul, I think that they are unrepresentative of the Paul's message. Paul believed that the community was one that should embrace those principles of rightousness, Justice and inclusion (including in leadership roles). My only response to the passage in Corinthians would be this one in Galations:

 

Galations 3:25-29

But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you where baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise.

 

So, if there is no male and female--and if God and Jesus themselves do not discriminate--how can one have authority over the other? I would argue we cannot, since in the Christian tradition we are all under ONE authority--and this Authority views us all with equal eyes.

I'm checking out Galatians, and I understand that point. It's helping me see what you're trying to say, but I am skeptical of any church that basis it's practices on a single piece of scripture. see: snake charming pastors, church of christ's acapella worship, etc

 

I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right. I'm just reiterating what's been said. maybe both can co-exist?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm with ya Jim, except we're talking about the new testament now    Paul was around circa 50 AD.

Yeah, my bad and I do know the chronology - I just had a lapse.

 

My negativity toward the NT books being seen as divinely inspired is a lot less forceful, and I think good Christians universally accept that the Spirit was upon the NT authors as they preached and wrote. And the descent from a belief in the divinely inspired word to the literally factual word in the NT, while certainly problematic, isn't nearly so mind-numbingly hard to fathom as a similar approach to the OT taken by Literal Fundamentalists. Still, 2,000 years is 2,000 years, and I'd like to think we have made some advances in gender equality during that span.

[sox4lifeinPA]

me say you dominate? Never!   

Dude, I totally dominate

 

Just for arguements sake, is Galatians one of the "might have not been written by paul" books? just checking, cos I know there are a few.

 

anyway, in response, to this:

I will avoid an exegesis on that passage for domestic matters.  That analogy can be carried too far anyway.  Two spouses will have intercourse but Christ does not have intercourse with the church. 

 

I don't think you should avoid the amazing anology of the church being the bride of Christ simply because one can manipulate it in a sexual way. The church needs to be pure and blameless, who doesn't want that vision?

 

 

Very long way of saying that in answer to your question, since the pastor does not rule the congregation, that removes that possible impediment in your question.

 

I suppose. Like I said before, I think there's biblical precidence for having a group of elders sharing the "burden" preaching and the vision and direction of the church. That group should include women.

 

we square now?

[sox4lifeinPA]

Yeah, my bad and I do know the chronology - I just had a lapse.

 

My negativity toward the NT books being seen as divinely inspired is a lot less forceful, and I think good Christians universally accept that the Spirit was upon the NT authors as they preached and wrote.  And the descent from a belief in the divinely inspired word to the literally factual word in the NT, while certainly problematic, isn't nearly so mind-numbingly hard to fathom as a similar approach to the OT taken by Literal Fundamentalists.  Still, 2,000 years is 2,000 years, and I'd like to think we have made some advances in gender equality during that span.

now we're talking.

 

I'm seeing the "story telling and folk lore" side of the OT as of late. They're mostly real events that have been passed down and sensationalized. I think the message, as in the NT, is protected and sanctioned by God, but I need not get wraped up in the did moses' staff turn into a snake. I don't know. I think there are great lessons to tell and it's important to understand where the necessity of Christ comes from, which is a history of "God's people" forsaking their Master.

 

and I think it's clear that the church has come a long way from women being property.

[cwsox]

Galatians was written by Paul.

 

 

We always are cool!

 

 

For you and Jim, the Prime Covenant (aka OT) is so foundational for me and as well for Jesus who operated totally out of that and for the Christian faith. Remember Paul in Romans says we are a branch of the tree - the tree being the faith in the God of the Scriptures of the Prime Covenant.

 

I think a lot of people so misunderstand the original Scriptures. Starting with Genesis and reading forward is a great way to bogged down by all kinds of stuff and give up.

 

Ecclesiastes - one of the most beautiful poetic works ever and so profound - and the prophets - the amazing prophets - so different than our Sunday School images.

 

A book I recommend to you both is Abraham Heschel's "The Prophets." Start there. Out of that thinking is the prism by which to view the rest of the Prime Covenant and certainly John the Baptist and Jesus are linear descendents of the 8th centruy prophets.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Galatians was written by Paul.

 

 

We always are cool!

 

 

For you and Jim, the Prime Covenant (aka OT) is so foundational for me and as well for Jesus who operated totally out of that and for the Christian faith.  Remember Paul in Romans says we are a branch of the tree - the tree being the faith in the God of the Scriptures of the Prime Covenant.

 

I think a lot of people so misunderstand the original Scriptures.  Starting with Genesis and reading forward is a great way to bogged down by all kinds of stuff and give up.

 

Ecclesiastes - one of the most beautiful poetic works ever and so profound - and the prophets - the amazing prophets - so different than our Sunday School images.

 

A book I recommend to you both is Abraham Heschel's "The Prophets."  Start there.  Out of that thinking is the prism by which to view the rest of the Prime Covenant and certainly John the Baptist and Jesus are linear descendents of the 8th centruy prophets.

I'll check that book out. If it's anything like Marcus borg, I'll hate it, but I'll at least give it a chance.

 

Borg=christianity I'm not ready for. practicing homosexuals as clergy is lightyears past women clergy.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Borg=christianity I'm not ready for. practicing homosexuals as clergy is lightyears past women clergy.

What if they're professional homosexuals and not merely "practicing."

 

Dead Serious. OK, Brother, now your knuckles are seriously dragging.

[BrandoFan]

Who ever said God was open minded?

 

If that's the case (and I do not believe for a second that it is), then God can go f*** himself and take his ghastly little country club with him.

[Soxy]

Anyway, PA, one verse? Oh no! You actually cited one verse in support of women in the church--unfortunately you cut it off to early:

 

1 Corinthians 11:11-12

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all come from God.

 

As an interdependent and interconnected group of Christians we must all be part of a support infastructure to each other. Gender relations is part of a circle not a line from man and at the start (and end) of that circle is God. Consequently, there should be no over, but only together.

 

A more tenuous argument for women in Minsitry would be using Corthins 7 to discuss how Paul says women will you save your husbands (something to that extent) which shows that God's mercy, teaching and salvation can be delivered by a woman.

 

As for the other verses in Corinthians I think it is quite helpful to keep in mind that Paul is speaking about specific issues in this church and HELPING them overcome those. He concludes chapter 14 by saying "but all things should be done decently and in order," I would argue this means that we should consider the cultural context in which women appear--and women now have a much different role than they did in Paul's day.

 

Romans 12:1-2

I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sister, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God--what is good and acceptable and perfect.

 

Also, I would argue that both men and women were created perfectly by God (in Paul's theology), so if we are each perfect--and are not distinct in the eyes of God, then by all means we must practice an egalitarian church. Thus, it is God's ultimate and transforming love that makes us all agents of equality and ministry.

 

Philippians 4:3 also argues for the use and centrality of Pauls' mission God are:

Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companions, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the Gospel....

 

So here, it is MEN who are asked to play a supporting role to the women...

 

I believe Paul got this idea from the other creation story (not hte Adam's rib one):

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have domination over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle and over all of the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing tha tcreeps upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

[BrandoFan]

Blessed are those who have understood God and related to God in ways vastly different than my ways because God's grace and love are supreme - not a particular faith or religion being supreme - but the Freedom God to be love to all made in God's own image, that is everything.

 

Well, what'yanah, I AM Blessed afterall!

 

[BrandoFan]

NOOOOOOOOOOOT hillary...ew.

 

What's wrong with Hillary? Is she any "worse" than Kerry or Slick Willie or any other politician's politican?

 

Or maybe she is not sexy enough?

 

Sends the wrong message to young girls everywhere?

 

What?

 

.

[whitesoxfan99]

If that's the case (and I do not believe for a second that it is), then God can go f*** himself and take his ghastly little country club with him.

This is the way I feel as well although I won't express it in quite as strong of terms. If the idea of going to heaven is based strictly on us worshiping God and through Christ then God is no better than any of us and doesn't deserve our praise.

[Wong & Owens]

If that's the case (and I do not believe for a second that it is), then God can go f*** himself and take his ghastly little country club with him.

Hey!! That's my line!

 

Ok, you added the part about the country club, but dammit, WHERE'S MY PROPS?!

[cwsox]

This is the way I feel as well although I won't express it in quite as strong of terms.  If the idea of going to heaven is based strictly on us worshiping God and through Christ then God is no better than any of us and doesn't deserve our praise.

I agree with the sentiment - our faith is so largely determined by culture, by time and place where the egg meets the sperm -

 

if I thought that my way was the only way I would not believe at all -

 

all I know is the way that I know God, which is through Christ, and that I want to share

 

God has many ways to us and it is not for me to attempt to limit those by what are the confines of my faith

 

and if I really thought that God would be so tyrannical and narrow and out of touch with the cultural and historical realities of religion that billions of people would be damned to hell because they were not born in the right culture in the right time and place -

 

if I thought that the Jews who perished at Auschwitz at the hands of Christians* were damned to hell then indeed God could go do what Brando and GOWT said -

 

if I thought that anyone was damned because of the circumstances of their life then I would despise God

 

in God's house are many rooms - we may or may not be surprised at who all is in them -

 

 

 

 

*and if anyone wants a long, very long bibliography on Nazi-ism, the churches, and the people, the tens and hundreds of thousands of people who operated the death camps and the gas chambers, and needs to be reminded that those were Christians killing Jews, gays, gypsies, socialists, communists, that can be supplied

[Wong & Owens]

I agree with the sentiment - our faith is so largely determined by culture, by time and place where the egg meets the sperm -

 

if I thought that my way was the only way I would not believe at all -

 

all I know is the way that I know God, which is through Christ, and that I want to share

 

God has many ways to us and it is not for me to attempt to limit those by what are the confines of my faith

 

and if I really thought that God would be so tyrannical and narrow and out of touch with the cultural and historical realities of religion that billions of people would be damned to hell because they were not born in the right culture in the right time and place -

 

if I thought that the Jews who perished at Auschwitz at the hands of Christians* were damned to hell then indeed God could go do what Brando and GOWT said -

 

if I thought that anyone was damned because of the circumstances of their life then I would despise God

 

in God's house are many rooms - we may or may not be surprised at who all is in them -

 

 

 

 

*and if anyone wants a long, very long bibliography on Nazi-ism, the churches, and the people, the tens and hundreds of thousands of people who operated the death camps and the gas chambers, and needs to be reminded that those were Christians killing Jews, gays, gypsies, socialists, communists, that can be supplied

If I were Catholic, I'd nominate Vince for pope.

 

I'm serious, he's the only Christian I know with his head on straight

[BrandoFan]

Hey sanctimonious cowards, how about you respond directly to me, eh?

[Texsox]

Hey sanctimonious cowards, how about you respond directly to me, eh?

Because they used the report function because they think you're a nice guy and they didn't want to publically call you out.

[BrandoFan]

Because they used the report function because they think you're a nice guy and they didn't want to publically call you out.

Yeah, I am sure that's it

 

They need not worry; there is no damnation by association.