OK, this could be interesting. In light of the previous conversation, I've been unintentionally processing another hot topic. I'm a bit hesitant to bring it up, but I'm crazily curious what you all think.
Women as Head Pastors. Biblical or unbiblical? Not a problem or Jezebel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Uh oh. I smell a fight a-brewin'!!!
Such an instigator!!
;)
Peace, girlfriend!!
I am interested in hearing about this one!
I come from perspective of "What's the big deal? Of course, women are just fine as Head pastors." But imagine my surprise to find that within the Vineyard that this has been along-held struggle that was only recently given the go-ahead to be applyed regionally as area coordinators saw fit. WHHHAATT? For those of you unfamiliar with the vein of the Vineyard Assoc of Churches, there tends to be more openmindedness. The underlying growth factor for some folks was the thought process that "women are fine as worship leaders, childrens pastors, maintenance professionals, small group leaders, teachers, etc. They just don't have the cajones for Head pastor."
This comingfrom the churches famous for saying "we ALL get to play". So strange to me. Theresa S. may even have more insight.
This is not a smashing/bashing male-hating blog. But why why why would anyone suggest that the women be fit to do all of the work yet not have the authority to be a final decision-maker.
mulling.
Obviously, it's the aforementioned absence of cojones, which I like to Amercanize into "co-jones," as in, "keeping up with the Co-Joneses."
See? Case closed! Why would anyone dispute that?
(If my smirk isn't loud enough, insert ear-horn now.)
LOL!!!! your hilarious.
i don't even think that we should make it a discussion. because it gives it validity, in my opinnion anyoen that thinks that women should not be head pastors and backs that up with ANYTHING from the bible they need to have there cojones shoved in their mouth and bite down.
i don't really have aan opinion.
l.
Ha ha ha... uh...
Well, I kinda really dislike organized church, so I can't see why any woman would WANT to lead a congregation. Or any man, for that matter. However, since the subject has been put to us, I have no problems with women in head pastor roles. What's the difference?
You see, Adam... boys have boy bits, and girls have girl bits...
No no no. The song goes "Boys are fancy on the outside, girls are fancy on the inside. Everybody's fancy and everybody's fine. Your body is fancy and so is mine."
Thank you Mister Rogers for making my ackward teen years just a little less confusing.
wOw
:0
I learn new things every day.
Preach it sister, and I think Joyce Meyer would agree with you!! Actually I think women may even be better pastors because aren't we more sensitive? And it's been proven that we listen better, seriously there was a study done that says women listen with all of the brain while men only listen with half!!...and I think maybe the better the listener the better the leader. But really I just think girls are better than boys in general....boys have cooties!
Beth were you saying the Vineyard does or doesn't allow women pastors..I wasn't quite clear on that and was just wondering.
Okay, let's back up a minute here. If you want to talk about women not being allowed to be pastors, fine. But let's not make the assumption that women make BETTER pastors than men, eh? A set of ovaries is not a magic tool for good pastoring.
i've seen pretty shitty pastoring on both sides of the genital anatomy.
l.
Whoa! Levi!
You have pastors down there?
Levi,
EXACTLY! LOL.
Sara---- I didn't make any assumptions about women being BETTER pastors than men....I was goofin around. And actually I said "MAY even be better". But even if I did think women made better pastors than men did, it would be my opinion not an assumption...so there is really no backing up to do.
There is evidence of different brain activity between men and women when listening (or maybe communicating would be a better term). It isn't so much that women use more of their brain as much as there is more activity in a certain part of the brain, that being the limbic system (which is also larger in women). The limbic system is responsible for a number of things but most notably it is the central of what's called "emotional memory." This results in a greater tendency to be emotionally invested in an individual when having a conversation and associating certain feelings with them when you remember them. This could lead some to say that women "understand" people better, but I would say they understand differently than men. They "feel" people which certainly has benefits but can also be a weakness (just as anything can). It is believed that women have larger limbic regions so that they can more quickly and easily bond with their babies when they are born (which I think is pretty cool).
Dan's jealous of my gigantic limbic system.
I disagree with the amount of emphasis being placed on pastors being "sensitive" and "good listeners." Before I say anything else let me be clear that I do think that these are important qualities to have and should have their place as the characteristics of a good pastor. That being said, I see a lot of this emphasis being born out of the Christian community dropping the ball and putting the pressure on the pastor to pick up the slack. The Bible tells us very clearly that we are to build up one another and support each others needs. But in many churches I see the pastor expected to counsel everyone through their problems while the rest of the congregation knows nothing about it and don't care to find out. Most people couldn't tell you how many kids the person in the same pew as them have or where they work. They don't want to be burdened with other people's problems but God help the pastor that doesn't return a phone call of someone who needs some advice within a couple hours! You see this a lot even in seminaries where classes where pastors are trained as "pastoral counselors" and what we end up with is a mediocre counselor and mediocre pastor. If pastors were to get properly trained in every skill that congregations thrust upon them we wouldn't have any pastors under 50!
I see the primary role of the pastor as making sure that his congregation remains dedicated to the Word of God and keep them from straying. I mean the word pastor has its roots in sheep herding.
I know you were just talking in general but I have NO EXPECTATIONS of any pastors at all. I don't think that all women or women pastors are more sensitive and listen better than all males or male pastors...I try to not make those kinds of generalizations in seriousness but I do play around sometimes. As far as the "Christian community dropping the ball" I totally agree with you on that one. As a matter of fact, my experience with the "church" and the "christian community" since I was a child is not a good one, so I won't even start commenting about that.
In my initial comment I was just goofin around about the male vs. female thing concerning pastors...I don't think that in general one is better than the other. I remembered reading about the male/female listening study so I just threw it in my comment. But I do think that whether male or female, the better the listener, the better the leader. Just my opinion though.
Dan, I was just quoting a study about the brain thing... I have however, worked in the field of psychology and counseling for the last 14 years. I have also been involved in lots of relationships through out my 40+ years. During those years, I have worked with a lot of families and a lot of men/women and boy/girls and I have been involved in lots of relationships. During those 40+ years it has been my experience that for the most part, females are better listeners and are more emotionally sensitive and supportive and empathetic than males. That is just my opinion based on my own life experience.
http://www.familyfirst.net/famminute/transcripts/2001/trans01-04-2001.html There is the site if you want to check it out, but this is what it said about the listening study...
Are you only half-listening?
Well guys, science has proven that most men really aren’t good listeners. An Indiana University researcher found in a new study that men listen with only half their brains. . . while women use both sides. So men, is it hopeless? Absolutely not. Here are some simple ways you can improve your listening. First, give your full attention. Put down the remote, stop reading the paper and make eye contact. Next, concentrate on what’s being said. . . instead of thinking about your response. Finally, don’t interrupt. Are you listening?
Remember, your family first
The article you have quoted takes the research entirely out of context and actually goes against what Indiana University itself says about the study.
"The study may add fuel to the females' argument, but researchers say the findings don't address whether women are better listeners than men."Our research suggests language processing is different between men and women, but it doesn't necessarily mean performance is going to be different," said Joseph T. Lurito, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of radiology at IU School of Medicine. "We don't know if the difference is because of the way we're raised, or if it's hard-wired in the brain."
You can see the entire article here:
http://www.medicine.indiana.edu/
news_releases/archive_00/men_
hearing00.html
This would seem to support my original proposition that men and women listen "differently." It should also be noted that this was a medical study not a psychological one so it was not meant to necessarily make any conclusions from.
The fact of the matter is that there has been a great deal of research done attempting to prove that men/women are better listeners or that one or the other is a better speaker. Some interesting research I have seen (which seems to make a lot of sense) is that men are better listeners when listening to men and that women are better listeners when listen to women. But ultimately there has been little proof for gender as causation for either side of the debate.
I certainly can't disagree with your experience as they are your experiences. But I would propose that maybe you have seen women to be better listeners because you are a woman. I am not saying that you are intentionally trying to "rig" the results here but just saying that perhaps you've experienced women to be better listeners because you communicate in the same way.
I would say that in my experience that men are better listeners and I am sure that the fact that I am a man contributes to this.
Also, are you counting men/women/boys/girls that have been attending counseling services in you experience? If so I would say that you are using a bit of a tainted sample. There are a lot more variables added to the equation when we look at individuals who are seeking help for an emotional/psychological issue that, I think, would make any sort of solid conclusion impossible. You're mentioning of counseling experience does bring up an interesting question for me though. Do you know off hand or have any way of finding out the ration of men to women in the counseling field (LMHC, LCSW, Psy.D Ph.D etc). Granted a larger population of men in the field could be explained by discrimination against women in academic fields (which is a whole other topic) among other things, but I think it would be interesting to find out none the less.
Let's not get back to discrimination in the workplace! We already put that one to bed! LMAO.
Ok Beth, here's my 2 cents...
First, for anyone interested, the "official" statement of the role of women in leadership within the Vineyard can be read at www.vineyardusa.org.
Second, the discussion needs to move beyond which sex does what better or different and view each individual based on their gifts and calling. It's not about boy parts vs. girl parts, but who has God called him or her to be. In other words, let's not limit each other b/c we can or cannot have babies or b/c an analytical mind can think more clearly in situations than one that monthly goes thru an emotional train wreck. Our identitly as a man or woman of God goes so much deeper than that.
Personally, I've always known that I was called to some sort of ministry. I grew up surrounded by strong women both in church & the "real world." Now, initially, I struggled with what this would look like b/c I thought that according to Ephesians 5, my role was set. But neither my husband or myself could deny my call to pastor as my journey in ministry continued to walk itself out. Basically, my relationship with my husband & our household is summed up in Eph 5:21, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." In other words, we're both following Christ as partners as a married couple. My husband & I co-pastor our community as well. For us, b/c of the individual gifts we bring, this is how we have always & will continue to lead. It doesn't make sense to us to do it any other way.
Lastly, my security in my call as a leader & pastor comes from my belief that when Jesus died on the cross, he redeemed ALL sin; including any original ones that may have occured from eating some bad fruit which frankly is how all the oppression began in the first place. And we do need to be cautious when deferring to Paul and the epistles -- he wrote those letters for very specific circumstances during a specific time. When I read the gospels, I see Jesus always including the women and discipling them along with the other 12 men. What else would they call him teacher if he wasn't teaching them? Anyway, scripture then for me is interpreted thru this lens and my life is lived out thru this sense and awareness of my redemption.
Another helpful website:
www.cbeinternational.org
ok, I'm done.
To be honest there is nothing in my life that causes me to care that much whether men or women listen better...it really doesn't matter to me. Honestly, I just came across that piece about listening and thought it was a bit cute and interesting...but I didn't look any further to validate it. I haven't formally studied listening as far as in a gender sense going from one study to the next and reviewing the results and I don't think I ever will....because like I said it doesn't really matter to me.
I have, however, studied and observed a lot about listening in general.
I agree that men and women listen differently and really it would be a whole other discussion to talk about how and what possibly causes the differences.
"We don't know if the difference is because of the way we're raised, or if it's hard-wired in the brain" If I were asked to give an opinion on that statement, I would say that in some cases it has a lot to do with how someone is raised and what they have been taught. My son is an excellent listener and communicator when it comes to relational communication. I made it a point to teach him to be that by interacting with him in that type of manner. He is different when it comes to listening (and I do mean listening, not following directions..haha) and communicating then most males I have interacted with.....and his girlfriend really likes it :)!!
And "no" my count wasn't just of men/women, boys/girls attending counseling. Keep in mind too, that just because someone attends counseling doesn't mean they are emotionally or psychologically unstable and therefore contribute to a tainted example. Lots of people just sometimes need a little help getting over a little hurdle, or just need advice on one certain issue, or just need someone to listen for awhile because they have no one else in there life that does.
As far as the ration of men to women in the counseling field...hmmm not sure about that but I will look into it and if I stumble upon something or find out anything, I can let you know. Any particular reason that you are interested in that? I worked in 2 different facilities and now that I think about it...I cannot remember any male counselors or psychologists, but all of the Psychiatrists were male. Hmm, wow, that's interesting...I never thought about that before.
tms said:
"It's not about boy parts vs. girl parts, but who has God called him or her to be."
I say: AMEN!!
tms,
I would certainly agree with you on several points.
1) We should view each other based upon our callings as brothers and sisters in Christ.
2) Being a man or a woman goes much deeper than physiology.
3) Christ's death redeemed us of all sin.
Where I would disagree with you is in your interpretation of Paul as well as your implied assertion that Paul's epistles are the only biblical source of the doctrine that women should not be pastors.
Firstly, you said "he wrote those letters for very specific circumstances during a specific time."
This may be true but since when did the cultural norm stop Paul or any early church leader from dissenting? Paul is quick to shred the status quo on a number of issues, why would he refrain here? You could say that he as a flawed man help these ideas to be true and was just wrong but what does that say about God? He could turn Paul from a murderous Christian hating Jew into a Christ adoring church father but he couldn't change his views of women for the sake of the Scripture? You point out Ephesians 5 which I think is an excellent chapter to look at for several reasons.
1) It, as you have pointed out, shows that the hierarchy of men and women is not a one way street, men are to sacrifice themselves for their wives just as Christ did for the church.
2) It also shows that the idea of men having authority over women is transcendent of culture and time. The relationship of wife and husband is like that of Christ and the church which is the same throughout the world and throughout time. This metaphor is seen throughout the Bible most notable in Song of Solomon and the gospels (Christ describing the church as the bride).
I think we would probably agree that there have been phenomenal abuses of this and similar verses, but let's not allow those abuses to make us overreact and throw out this beautiful depiction of our relationship with God (and our relationship in marriage) as nothing more than a cultural fallacy.
one more thing I thought some of you might like. Before I got married i was talking to my brother about his take on this whole thing. He told me (and this a paraphrasing) that the most Biblical model for how a husband and wife should relate is that, if an argument should arise, the husband should be arguing for what benefits his wife and wife should be arguing for what benefits her husband. If they are unable to come to an agreement then the wife must submit to her husband and they do what is to her benefit.
I realize that this doesn't really have anything to do with women pastors, but I thought I'd share anyway.
A little somethin' for the ladies in the audience...
Tammy,
Sorry I didn't see your comment before I posted mine. I would like to clear up that I was not implying that you were only counting individuals in counseling or that they were too unstable to be counted. I work in counseling myself and certainly understand the diversity of people who seek counseling. I was using "tainted" not in a judgmental sort of way but in a statistical way. People who attend counseling would taint any sort of statistic you were trying to do with listening skill between men and women in general because they introduce a number of variables that cannot be adjusted for. For example someone who goes to counseling is at the point where they have most likely overcome any personal boundaries that would keep them from opening up and listening or they were more open to doing so than the average person to begin with. If they were ordered by the courts or had some other incentive that would make them go to counseling against there will (anger management, substance abuse counseling etc) this may make them less likely to listen than the general public. That was what I was talking about.
wow. who ever said christian genitalia discussions wouldn't be interesting?!
What I think is interesting is that Christ is the head of the church - God is the head. We as the bride, in essence lose the sexuality and become one as a body. Maybe that's why I look at male-female leadership as a "non-issue" issue. It's more - are you gifted, trained and equipped.
I enjoy most aspects of being female. I understand marraige needs someone with the final say - as does a corporation. It just functions better. But marraige must be cooperative - for either one to solely control is not only freakish, it devoids a spouse of needed challenges to grow and be their true selves. I understand certain temperaments would love to be quiet and prefer the other to lead in all circumstances. And it can function, sometimes well, if a healthy dialogue can happen when it needs to. I just always watch to see - how much "power" male or female is released for lack of desire to participate or out of fear, etc and how much is a healthy - 2 temperaments just working it out.
I have no problem submitting to my hubbie - when I know I've been heard and thoughts considered. Levi, do you have any better perspective?
yeah
get your ass back to washing clothes and stop playing on the computer!
:)
Seriously, i don't think it has anything to do with submission. well maybe it has all to do with submission on BOTH sides. its one or the other. ;) If you are gonna talk biblical models of "submission" i think you cannot use and outdated social source like the bible which was written during a time of widespread suppression of women as a culture. same as slavery...... so if you take one you must be taking the other.
the simple fact is, my wife is a smart, active participant in not only my life but the life of my children and to deprive her of that is to also deprive me of the best parts of my wife.
People can think what they want and relate however they want in their marriage, it doesn't bother me (unless your abusive, then I'll rip[ your f$#%ing face off). but i think if you have to control or "keep your wife down" you are depriving yourself as a man.
but i think from the womens perspective, if she is controling the home to the point that the man can never be involved in the parenting and raising of his children then the women is equally being deprived.
People need to learn to coexist well.........
l.
I think beth hit the nail on the head when she said,
"I understand marriage needs someone with the final say - as does a corporation. It just functions better."
I think that the church gets lost when it tries to say that men need to be in control because they are superior and women are inferior. The reason that God has assigned headship to a husband is because there needs to be a leader, end of story. He didn't look down at creation and say, "Gee I guess men are better leaders so I'll put them in charge." He put a system in place that would allow us to function better but he did not base it upon human merit. I see male superiority as being based in the same sort of pride as thinking that we are responsible for our own salvation. The truth of the matter is if God decided to have women in charge, he would make it so and it would work just as well! God chose to have men as the head of his family and this should bring him to humility as he is unworthy of such a title. God has also called for women to submit to their husbands and this should bring women to praise God who blesses his people not according to their works but according to his grace.
As far as the Bible being an "outdated social source" I think we need to see how radical the social concepts of scripture were. I asked a similar question earlier but I think the idea bears repeating, why would God be able to inspire his people to rally against a culture that abandons and mistreats the poor and the widow but he is unable to reform views of women in the very society that He is creating (the church)? The truth is that the Bible gives women many rights that were not found in the culture. I mean for crying out loud, the Greeks and Roman would practice infanticide where babies that were born would not be considered a person until the father came and inspected it. If he did not want it it would be left to die of exposure. The early church removed this and many other aspects of the secular patriarchal society from their own practices and I think we do them a great disservice by characterizing them as sheep who simply went along with what everyone else was doing.
...if she is controling the home to the point that the man can never be involved...
I'll let Dan be involved in the home as long as he doesn't want to choose decorations. He'd have our living room looking like a brothel!
dan
you cannot deny that all of scripture is written from a cultural perspective. that is just the nature of a writer writing within his/her oicos.
Sure they (early christians) had a different viewpoint when it came to human life, yet the women was still stoned when caught in adultery and the man left alone. (not even scorned). as strange as it seems that is still the case in the US?? don't get that one.
anywhoo. it begs to brings up the same arguement for slavery. these slaves were bought on the open market and little more than a piece of meat. We see this today as a deplorable practice and know it too be horrific, and yet then it was a normal part of society, even to which Jesus spoke too in several occasions.
I don't deny that the christian culture of the ealry christians was a head above the rest of the world, that is a given and should be a given due to Jesus' instruction. That doesn't mean they were right or that we should emulate that culture living 2000 years later. I see this as one of the major problems with the fundamentalist arab world today, they can't seem to extricate themselves from living in history.
JMO
l.
Levi,
I'm not denying that scripture was written from a cultural perspective. I am simply saying that that fact does not automatically negate its validity.
"Sure they (early christians) had a different viewpoint when it came to human life, yet the women was still stoned when caught in adultery and the man left alone. (not even scorned)."
I'm not sure what early Christians you are referring to here. I haven't run into anything that gives an account of Christians stoning women caught in adultery and I most certainly see no support for such actions in the Bible.
Slavery is a big issue, but I will try to do what I can with it in this short space. First of all, as Americans we can't escape the foul connotations of the word "slavery," but if we are to look at this issue honestly we have to acknowledge that the enslavement of Africans in the Americas is very different from the slavery of the middle east when the epistles were written. Slaves during this time were a class that you could call the "working poor" (as opposed to the lower class of poor that would basically beg, steal, and die). They did not own land and had no way of supporting themselves so they became slaves and servants to a better off household who supported them. They could have been the same race as their masters and were not seen as a degenerate species as were African slaves in more recent times. Often when Rome would conquer a region, they would make an entire population slaves. Those who were educated and had certain skills could continue their businesses and had free men for clients. Some slaves were given a great deal of education, more so than ever free men. This does not mean that there were not abuses (there most certainly were), but this is an entirely different ( and I would even go as far as to say more complex) issue than the slavery we are more familiar with.
Also, it is easy for us to be repulsed by the idea of slavery on this side of the industrial revolution which made slavery pretty much obsolete. In the cultures of the past slavery was necessary. If slavery was ended, the society would collapse.
I am in no way saying that slavery is just fine and we should have no problem with it. But I think we need to look beyond the gut responses to the word "slavery" and understand what that meant for the culture at the time.
Speaking of adultery, why are we still willing to say that Biblical commands not to commit adultery are still valid today? Couldn't we just as easily dismiss this as an archaic remnant of a bygone culture?
I am going to slowly turn and walk away from this one. At least for now. :)
Jesse
ok, i can respond to this now. was a little busy yesterday......
"I'm not denying that scripture was written from a cultural perspective. I am simply saying that that fact does not automatically negate its validity."
i think you might have misunderstood me, I am not negating its valididty. I simply think we cannot adhere to 2000 year old cultural standards. To go back to your previous post, i thinkn if you look at the Jewsih culture in which the early christians church existed, the issue with infanticide was not a part of that. sure it was a part of roman/greek culture, so were orgies and debauchery and gluttony, but not a part of the jewish culture.
My statement about women being stoned to death is wrapped in with that same point. the "culture" that the ealry church was a part of was traditionally a jewish culture. This pratice continued in many cultures (including christianity) for over a 1000 years where women were ridiculed, burned at the stake, imprisoned, what have you, for committing adultery. Men traditionally got off with nothing or a menial punishment.
as far as slavery goes, historically almost every society has had a hand in taking people against their will. where either whole people groups or even just individuals are looked upon as less than human, treated as such and subjected to pain, forced labor and sometimes death. so not really sure how that is different than the slave trades of africa and east indies. it is an abhorent practice no matter what nice face you want to put on it.
"Speaking of adultery, why are we still willing to say that Biblical commands not to commit adultery are still valid today? Couldn't we just as easily dismiss this as an archaic remnant of a bygone culture?"
Honestly, when it comes down to it, i think your right. I don't think they are valid JUST because it is written in the bible. But, I could also answer this in a few different ways.
1.) because Jesus speaks directly to it. unlike the role of women or homosexuality or... (pick your topic).
2.) the reason I think jesus speaks to it, is that it is an act that is selfish in nature and is not remotely loving. It is just as damaging today as it was then.
3.) because in our culture today adultery holds the same stigma.
4.) Sowing and Reaping. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There are consequences to every act that man in-acts. I think this is why paul teaches that "everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial". what is the consequence of having a women equal to a man? hmm... depends on your world-view. 2000 years ago you might think it meant the end of the world, today... not so much. What is the consequence of adultery? hmm.... doesn't so much depend on your world-view it is objectively damaging to someone, then and now.
I get the "relativist" argument a lot. But in my estimation you do not have to be a relativist to believe that you don't have to take every thing in the bible literally. You just have to use common sense. ;)
l.
oops that first quote was wrong... sorry, but i think you get what i am saying.
l.
Levi,
you said,"i think you might have misunderstood me, I am not negating its validity. I simply think we cannot adhere to 2000 year old cultural standards."
I don't know how you are defining "validity" but it seems to me that what you have just stated is saying that the claims of the Bible (on this issue) are not valid because they are 2000 years old. I have yet to see you give a reason for throwing out these verses other than the fact that they are old and a lot of people don't have a problem with it anymore.
you said, "I think if you look at the Jewish culture in which the early Christians church existed, the issue with infanticide was not a part of that. sure it was a part of Roman/Greek culture, so were orgies and debauchery and gluttony, but not a part of the Jewish culture."
The Early Christian church did not exist in a Jewish vacuum. It was made of of many converts from the Greco-Roman culture as well as Jewish proselytes from other cultures. Not to mention that Israel and all Jews were under the control of the Roman state. I find it a bit ironic that you are claiming that Christians were so very easily swayed by culture when it comes to their view of women, but the things I brought up weren't a factor because they were Jewish and would not have been influenced by the prevailing culture at the time.
you said, "...so not really sure how that is different than the slave trades of africa and east indies. it is an abhorent practice no matter what nice face you want to put on it."
I don't really have the time to do a side by side comparison of slavery in various cultures but I would suggest you take on honest look at some resources that speak to this issue. I'm not saying that every slave in Rome was happy with his life and never mistreated. Nor am I saying that slavery is ever a good thing. What I am saying is that we cannot let our own bias about slavery in our culture determine how we look at history.
you said, "Honestly, when it comes down to it, i think your right. I don't think they are valid JUST because it is written in the bible. But, I could also answer this in a few different ways."
I will respond to each of your answers in order:
1) First of all, you know what Jesus "speaks directly to" only through the Bible. Any statements He made can be just as easily attributed to the influence of the author and his particular view points. You can't have it both ways. Also, Jesus speaks directly to the validity of the Law and the Prophets which certainly affirms Paul's views of women in the community.
2)Is adultery necessarily selfish if both parties agree to it? What about an open marriage? Or say a women is paralyzed and wants her husband to still be able to experience physical intimacy so she allows him to have a lover, is that still selfish? (Just playing devils advocate here Sara, don't think I'm getting ideas or anything)
3)What is with the prevalent assumption that our culture today is more civilized, advanced, etc than the cultures that came before? Why would you refuse to accept a teaching of Paul because it was just the result of cultural influence yet use another culture as a litmus test for those teachings?
4)There is a great deal of danger in using a completely utilitarian argument. The biggest reason is because there is no way we can entirely see the damage caused by every decision. That is why God makes the rules, because he can. I also think that you are once again using culture as a guide. Maybe you are right, maybe having women in authority (notice I say having women in authority, bot equal to. I have no problem saying that women are equal but that does not mean that we are equal in every way and in every capacity otherwise I might be having a baby in the next couple years) would not have any serious effect on the world today. But if I were to go into a war zone and steal some money out of a looted store, it probably would have much of an effect on the environment around me either, that doesn't make it any less wrong. The fact that issues that the Biblical authors considered serious are no longer seen as such should speak more about our how we should view our current culture, not how we view the Bible.
you said, "But in my estimation you do not have to be a relativist to believe that you don't have to take every thing in the bible literally. You just have to use common sense. ;)"
How does this have anything to do with taking the Bible literally? You aren't arguing that Paul is using a metaphor or being poetic. We are both saying that Paul literally feels that women should not have the same authority as a man in whatever situations. You are simply denying that his statement is authoritative. It has nothing to do with the Bible being taken literally, it is just playing Bible buffet.
(Just playing devils advocate here Sara, don't think I'm getting ideas or anything)
Yeah you'd better not be getting any ideas, or YOU'LL be the one that's paralyzed...
;)
ooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhh boy. don't make me doooooooooo it. I feel a funny poop story comin' on if y'all don't settle down......
Post a Comment