So this is the crux.
But we're talking about people asking to be treated "equally" or, to be free from anothers control or domination, so that they can more fully participate in equal relationships where their perceptions and views are heard, and they take part in creating their environment.
But, as I said ealier, people in general aren't equal. In most orginisations, which includes Chruches, Clergy are distinguished form Laymen and usually have more Authority, for example, than do Laymen in eaching. Churhc counsils, boards, or synods also come to mind. If a Heirarhcy exists at all, then peopel aren't really Equal.
Nor are they Equal even wihtout it, for peopel have different talents, interests, and abilities. They have different personalities. Different perspecives.
In this life there is no such thing as Equality.
That said, in this topic, we forget that men and owmen are Bilogically diffeent, and this does include in how they think.
That remains true whether you want them to ascend a Pulpit or not. They are not Equal, and never have been. Does this mean women ar einferior? No. But they arn't the same as men, and this means they aren't really Equal in the sense we are tryign to convey.
A woman can have her voice heard and her concerns considered without Violation of the very simply principle that says women are not to PReach in the Assembley. Churhces have other avenues for this. Liekwise, it is not Domination, it is ismply a reflection of Chrust as our Head, and the Natural Order of the Chruch as reflective of the Family.
As I understand, the two commandments you referred to above are loving God and loving others. Women who want to be free and be treated as equal to men in all relationships are saying that they take issue with traditional roles which they now view as constraining and want to be free to further actualize themselves.
With the central focus on themselves, not God, not following CHrist, not obeying the Teachings of the Churh htey freely associate with...
As I said, this is not a matter of Equality. Its not even a matter of women beign DOminated. Trust me, in the Churhc I attend now women are free to form their own minds and lead their own lives. This doens't make them eligable to be men, which is what woudl have ot happen in order for htem to Preach effectivley.
Its not really that Denyign them means we dont treat htem equally to men, it means we recognise that there is a distinction, and God has said that the Role of PReacher is Reserved for Men, as it reflects Fatherhood, and Jesus himself.
Women simply can't do that.
If I was one of these women I'd likely have the view that such relationships were patronizing and lack freedom and so feel, and see, my human diginity and autonomy as being violated.
And again, who are we following? Our Lord and his COmmandments? Or our own desires?
A real quesiton shoudl be, why do they want to PReach in the first place knowign that this is a VIolation of what the Scriptures say?
Talking abiut Self-Actualisation doens't really render hat I've said moot.
I think the command to desire the good for others would fall well within the realms of reason to treat them as they are asking to be treated and not doing so as breaking the commandment.
Treating htem as men when they arne't men is not a form of treatign them with respect, it is a greater insult to them, and an abuse of the Church.
Its not treatign women Equally to men, its educing the role of PReacher otnothign more than a tool to make some owmen feel better, or to push their own desires by ultimatley destorying the foundation the Chruhc was built upon.
I see sin as ruling over others to their injury.
I attend a Churhc of Christ. No one really Rules over anyone else, much less to thir injury.
At least with this sort of issue. I mean, if someone is saying that they feel injured, even if it is from tradition or, expounded or interpeted from the bible, it should be within reason to question the very things which is being accused of being injurious. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath?
Let me repeat the pint.
Preachers reflect Jesus personally. THey also reflect Fatherhood, and the Divine Groom who is leading the Bride of CHrist which is the Church.
Women can't do that, because women can't be men. Jesu was a man. WOmen can't be Husbands, so can't lead "The Bride of Christ".
I don't know why you htink that this injures women at all, other htan you are making the same mistake of looking at htis as a job, which women shoudl be allowed ot do, which consist ofnothing but talking for an hour and maybe visiting sick people.
Allowing women to preach leads ot Injury to the whole CHurch, not just to one woman. Not all women support women preachers, either, nor are those who reject the notion nessisarily cowed by the men in their lives. I know one old lady at the CHurhc I attend who often asks Questions, and doens't even live wth a man beign a widow. She certianly isnt being dominated. She'd oppose with Passion and cinviction women Preachers.
So woudl every woman I know in the CHurhces of CHrist locally.
So to let one woman preahc so shes not injured injures literlaly all other women. It injures the men who oppose it. It injures the CHruch which is set up to reflect the GLroy of God's DIvine Family.
Do you really think its a good argument hen to say peopel are Injured by not lettign women Preach?
Becaue by such an argument you injure many more peopel including the CHruhces abikity to do as it is required.
Preachers aren't there to just Preach. This is not merley a Job. It snot even about Equality. The whole structure of the CHurhc is desigjed outright to reflect the Divine Harmony and Order, which Our CUlture just can't undo. THe CHurhc was, after all, developed in a CUlture hostile to it. It is not the CHruhces mission to change withthe Culture, but to CHange the CUlture.