This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:28 pm

Actulaly Tiny its not my Logic. If I view the Church as an institution as the Bride of Christ, then I am not seeing an individual member of the Laity as the Bride of Christ.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:53 pm

Now back.
Right.

And yes, I should have said, "part of the Bride of Christ." But how can a part of the Bride represent the Groom?

In case you'd not noticed, Ministerial roles really arne't part of the congregation. They are seperate form it. Preachers preach to congregations, when preachign they are not part of it.


Zarove, what you are saying is that the Incarnation was not about Jesus being human, but about Jesus being male.

No, Im saying Jesus was male and thats rather foundational to his being.



But perhaps we should take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. Jesus wasn't just male, but a Jewish male. If His fleshly particulars matter so much, then all ministers should be male and Jewish.


All Christians are in a way Jews. Christianity developed out of Judaism. COnverts to Judaism can become Rabbi's. So this logic is flawed. As only a Christian can preach, then only a Jew ever does, as Christianity is a Sect wihtin Judaism when viewed Historically.


Do you realize what you're saying about women? If Christ's maleness is what matters, then as a female I cannot be a Christian to the same degree a male is. I am a lesser being, a second-class citizen in the Kingdom of Heaven.


Jesus beign male matters in our undestanding of who he was, not in our ability to follow him. No one is a Second-Class citesen. In fact no one is a Citesen, but a SUbject. Really Republicans need to learn how Monarchy works.


That said, you are expected to be Subject to Jesus who is our King. You have the same Liberty in Christ to do that in your daily life as anyone else. Not being able to preach form a Pulpit is not really restrictign you from this end.





I cannot represent Christ to the world like a man can. Is this what Christ taught? Christ who defied cultural conventions to give His message to the woman at the well in Samaria, effectively making her His messenger to the Samaritan people? Christ who insisted that in "sitting at his feet, listening to his word" (which was a phrase used to describe a disciple learning doctrine from a rabbi with a view to becoming a rabbi in turn), Mary was "choosing the good part, which shall not be taken away from her"? Christ who deliberately appeared first after His resurrection to women like Mary Magdalene (He could easily have just waited for her to bring Peter and John and then appeared to them), so that the 12 apostles HAD to begin their witness by acknowledging that though the world of that time would not accept the witness of a woman, Christ was insisting that they had to do so?

But no one is sayign you cant witness your faiht to the world, do good works for the Curch, lead a Christian Life, or tell others of the Christ.

What is beign discussed is the Ministerial Role wihtin the Church itself, which noe of the examples you listed held.




I would really like to see some Scriptural support for the idea that church leaders "represent the Father" or "represent Christ" to the people. Chapter and verse please. I don't think it's in there.

Then you need to study the Scriptures more.


1 Corintuians Capter 11 discusses the topic of praying whilst veield and says that the Head of man is Christ and the head of woman is Man.

2 Corinthians 2:10 also mentiosn this concept, though more generlaly for the Christian.

Ill cover other verses later.



As for Mary and the other female saints, do you really think that honoring a few women makes up for oppressing all the rest of them?

DOesn't this presuppose that others are beign Suppressed?

As I said, even today and outside of Cahtolsiism as well as in, many women are regarded highly, in their own communities, for thier rle in the CHurch, without beign Preachers.


In truth, women who distinguished themselves by their piety and holiness were most often considered to be anomalies who had "transcended their sex." "What a woman she is, if it is permissible to call such a manly Christian a woman!" was a common sentiment. (Jerome, Epistle 29, quoting Paulinius of Nola regarding Melania the Elder, circa AD 419.)

QUotign one man, Jerome, won't do. Others, such as Francis of Assisi, CLement, Ignatisus, and Origen woudl not use sich a Phrase.


o your point is moot.



Martin Luther. Should I regard his teachings on women as Scriptural when he said, "If women get tired and die of [child]bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die as long as they bear; they are made for that." He also said, "Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, and accordingly they possess intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips. Women ought to stay home; the way they were created indicates this, for they have broad hips and a wide fundament to sit upon, keep house and bear and raise children." Granted that Luther also granted women more respect as wives and mothers than medieval Catholicism ever had, I still am under no obligation to consider his every teaching biblical, just because I am a Protestant.

Midaevel Cahtiliisms treatment of women wasnt all hthat bad either.


But my poitn is, you have no Scriptural Case either.




As for this:


Heck, Ideally the Church doesn't even listen to men when they say they are called, they have to be subjected to rigerous testign and consultation, and then the Churhces approve them, in he vast majority of Churches I know of. People dont ust get up, say "I've been called", and then get to preach from Pulpits.


Honestly, this is over the top. Do you really, honestly think women don't attend seminaries, but just sit around expecting to be able to say, "I''ve been called," and then get up and preach?

This is a Strawman. My point was, even men who say "I've been called" aren't lisyened to, and just accepte don their owrd they have been.

A man I know in Texas wants ot be a Priest, but he didn't just go up to his Bishop, say "I've been called", and then begin Seminary. They want him to take a year or two for DIscernemnt.


Then THEY will determien if he is fit.

Then he will train.

Then THEY will decide if he is Ordaiend tot he Deaconate.


WHile women woudl also attend Semenaries if allwoed to PReach, the poitn was you complained that men are taken at their word for saygn they had been called and women not. THis is not true of Men. At leats in a Properly rnning Church.



What kind of view of women is this? Women do attend seminaries whenever men will let them, and often distinguish themselves above all their classmates in scholarship, moral character, and mental acumen-- and then when they graduate, find nowhere to exercise their gifts.

GLorification fo women is not osmethign I prefer either. The whole "BEtter than men can" attiide is oftne unsettling.

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by tinythinker » Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:51 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Actulaly Tiny its not my Logic. If I view the Church as an institution as the Bride of Christ, then I am not seeing an individual member of the Laity as the Bride of Christ.
If you view the priesthood as a vocation within the Church, then presumably you wouldn't single out individual priests by sex either, eh? So that makes your lesbian comment equally absurd.
Adrift in the endless river

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:57 pm

Tiny, the Churches of Christ don't have a Prietshood.


or ordained Clergy.


That said, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches actually make a distinction between "Members inside the Church' and the Church itself. The Vocation of the Prietsghood may be inside the Church, but it is not the Church. Any mnore than the President or a Senator are the United States of America.


Individuals inside the Catholic or Orthodox Churh are singles out as individuals, they simply aren't defined as being "The Church" in and of themselves. They exist independantly and as individuals, who hold communion within the Churches structyure. The Church is seperate from them, though composed of the body of Beleivers as an institution.

You shu;dn't confuse the Individual with the Institution, nor think that the Institution as a whole beign discussed makes no distinctionsbetween individual members.




Seeing the Church as aan institution as the Bride of Christ doens't really make seeing the Prietshood as all male absurd.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by met » Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Postby ZAROVE on Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:34 pm
Kristen, maybe you should read what I wrote and reply to that.


However, if you follow the Logical extension that I presented, a woman as Ministry basically removes the manhood of Jesus, and renders the marriage of the Church to Jesus as reflected in the Ministers position as a Lesbian relationship.
The Churches structure is suppose to reflect the Divine Order, and the positions in the Church are relative to the role of the Church itself. If the Minister is suppose to be representative of Jesus in all his form, and is suppose to reflect the wedded nature of the Groom to the Bride, then how is it a woman can do this?
Why then, is this different then than requiring all ministers to be jewish? . .. as were Yashua and all his disciples - including, as some scholars tell us, the female ones ??
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:59 pm

Didn't I already answer that?


Christianity did not begin as a new Religion, but as a Sect within Judaism.

Judaism allows converts. Judaism allows converts to become Rabbi's.


FOllowign this logic, if you are a Christian, you practie a Sect within Judaism. If you are a convert to Christainity you are convertign to a reformed sect in Judaism.

So basically all Christians are Jewish, inasmuch as CHristianity is a Jewish Rooted Religion.

So the question is rather a bit redundant. All Christain ministers are Jewish.

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by tinythinker » Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:38 pm

ZAROVE wrote:So basically all Christians are Jewish, inasmuch as CHristianity is a Jewish Rooted Religion.

So the question is rather a bit redundant. All Christain ministers are Jewish.
Hardly. Did you catch the part where this idea was dealt with nearly 2000 years ago? The bit in the New Testament where some early communities said you had to become Jewish, i.e. take actions such as being circumcised, to be a Christian? What was the response to such ideas? Moreover, if one follows your logic, then Muslims, who claim to merely be "extending" and "completing" the Abrahamic tradition, would be both Jews and Christians. Trust me, there is no Rabbi in any of the most liberal movements of Judaism who would consider an average Christian to be Jewish, just as no Christian theologian or minister would suggest Muslims are actually Christians.
Adrift in the endless river

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by met » Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:48 pm

tinythinker wrote:
ZAROVE wrote:So basically all Christians are Jewish, inasmuch as CHristianity is a Jewish Rooted Religion.

So the question is rather a bit redundant. All Christain ministers are Jewish.
Hardly. Did you catch the part where this idea was dealt with nearly 2000 years ago? The bit in the New Testament where some early communities said you had to become Jewish, i.e. take actions such as being circumcised, to be a Christian? What was the response to such ideas? Moreover, if one follows your logic, then Muslims, who claim to merely be "extending" and "completing" the Abrahamic tradition, would be both Jews and Christians. Trust me, there is no Rabbi in any of the most liberal movements of Judaism who would consider an average Christian to be Jewish, just as no Christian theologian or minister would suggest Muslims are actually Christians.

Thx TT ... good counter-response


Z, if you already answered this question, sorry, I must have missed it. But my response would have been very much in line with TT's counterpoints here anyway, so . . . there you go.
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:25 pm

Except he overlooked passages of his own, such as Romans Chapter 11, which would be the famous illustration of the Olive Tree. it says some natural branches were broken off becsuse of unbeleif, and other wild Branches graphted on.




It really doens't matter what Jewish Rabbi's say, we are looking at this from a Christian perspective. Muslims culd rightly ssy they are the True Followers of Prophet Jesus, Peace Be Upon Him, and not be seen as Liars, or foolish. Islam accepts Jesus as a Prophet, and even as Messiah. Islam rejects his Divinity, along with the Trinity. But , from a Muslim's perspective, Islam continues on the Traditions of Prophet Jesus and his Teachings, whle Christianity is corrupt.

Meanwhile, Christians follow Jesus and continue he unbroken Tradition going back to Moses, even is the moern Jews reject that.

As to the Judaisers, they were refering to Cercumsision, not to conversion. Pagans who converted to Christ still had to be Ba[ptised, and still had to follow the teachings of the Church, they just dint have ot follow the rituals that distinguished them as Jewish, for all were the same and in CHrist there is no distintion between Greek or Jew, bond of Free, male or female. And no this doesnt mean women can Preach. It simply eans all are welcomed into Christ, but you still mst conver tto him.

User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: This is the real issue: Egalitarian v. Complementarian

Post by Gwarlroge » Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:55 am

REEEEEEOOOWWWWMMMMM crsssshhhhhh! (I have somehow crashed into the end of this thread.)

Okay, KR, thanks for that. I never knew about Isabella Thoburn.

Post Reply