tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post3522738305322206606..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Christians, Women, and LeadershipKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-51456458740519488292011-12-24T05:37:53.529-05:002011-12-24T05:37:53.529-05:00Thanks everyone for this engagement! Here are my ...Thanks everyone for this engagement! Here are my thoughts:<br /><br />John, the place where love comes in is the fact that multitudes of women who had the gifts to lead have been kept out of leadership. They have been oppressed by the church and society. This claim is not disputable from a standpoint of knowledge. All one needs to do is ask some women who've gone to seminary or tried to. Ask the woman who teaches Hebrew at Taylor now because a Baptist seminary in Texas didn't even want a woman teaching a biblical language.<br /><br />Chris, it would be one thing if everyone agreed with what the Bible had to say on this issue. But that's all a muddle. It helps to step back and use a little basic logic. The claim that some women are more competent to lead than some men in many situations is, again, not disputable from a standpoint of knowledge. This means that any barrier is idea driven rather than reality driven. <br /><br />FrGreg, the previous comment is why I think the gig is up on this issue such that even the RCC will soon ordain women. The logic is so obvious that the ideological game playing can't last in the modern Western world. It's only when the emperor can hide from the children that his pretense to clothedness can continue. The gig is up and, barring the kinds of crises that stop the playing out of such things, the conclusion is inevitable to those who are not able to go live in isolated compounds.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-39949359743433548792011-12-24T00:22:18.476-05:002011-12-24T00:22:18.476-05:00Wrong for churches to impose an absolute ban on fe...Wrong for churches to impose an absolute ban on female clergy?<br /><br />Well, we ought to be cautious about absolute anything, I'll agree. Thing is, once the doors open how do you enforce an exception as the exception it ought to be? And why is it really necessary to open that door? Plus there are as I said, other considerations, ones that possibly matter even more. Is it possible we would be even more wrong than I realize? <br /><br />Of course, once again, you don't agree with my premise, I know.<br /><br />Just tired of the game. You know -the "you don't mean/you don't think (fill in blank with impolitic notion) doooo you game? The answer of course is supposed to be a stammering 'Wha?- Noooo..I mean, I'm not sa...it's just...no! no! I don't mean THAT.' <br /><br />Yes I do. Would that I were a braver man.JohnMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-49116557370863763042011-12-23T21:23:22.820-05:002011-12-23T21:23:22.820-05:00It should be abundantly clear that the egalitarian...It should be abundantly clear that the egalitarianism discussed is not synonymous with simple numeric parity. Sure, I will gladly join you in affirming that rigid quotas are wrong. Now, will you join me in saying that it is also wrong for churches to impose an absolute ban on female clergy, one that refuses to consider meaningful factors such as the God-given talents of the individual, the personal calling of the minister, and the receptiveness of the faith community? An absolute prohibition is also a quota (100/0).<br /><br />It's bizarre that there are more examples of women in church leadership in the first century church than there are in a number of 21st century denominations.Josenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-79626339106233618212011-12-23T20:08:50.509-05:002011-12-23T20:08:50.509-05:00Jose, if it turned out all "best players"...Jose, if it turned out all "best players" the individuals best qualified for leadership in a particular setting were men what then? If men were 95% of the best qualified would only 5% women in similar postions be satfisfactory? If, based on leadership capacity, the ratio of men to women occupying leadership positions turned out to be 75/25 how about that? I doubt an exception to the rule would make gender egalitarians any happier. And of course you don't believe it would ever be the case. But then, some gender egalitarians are more rigid and close minded in their views than I am in mine. <br /><br />By the way I don't think pragmatic considerations are the only ones that militate for male leadership, as the default postion at least. It's just that I don't buy the assumptions behind pragmatic arguments for "total egalitarianism" compelling either.JohnMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-8221480690081255962011-12-23T17:50:21.412-05:002011-12-23T17:50:21.412-05:00"There are women taller than most men but in ..."There are women taller than most men but in a most groups of any size...almost all the tallest individuals...will be men. Who would you most likely pick for your basketball team if you had a choice...?"<br />The answer is easy-- you would pick the best basketball players, regardless of size or gender. Granted, most of them will be men but it would be a gross mistake to ban ALL women merely because of that fact. Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues played in the NBA even though they barely reached five feet.<br />Let the women serve the church according to the gifts granted to them by God, not according to our social preconceptions.Josenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-6136544067964952082011-12-23T17:12:20.482-05:002011-12-23T17:12:20.482-05:00Rick:
The Holy Spirit leading the Church into all...Rick:<br /><br />The Holy Spirit leading the Church into all truth?<br /><br />Please see my blog piece to which I posted a link, above. The bottom line is, the Apostolic Tradition is inherently progressive, moving toward the Kingdom of God, and the abolition of patriarchy, a result of the fall (see Genesis 3) is part and parcel of that progress.FrGregACCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00368463715994694203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-14976451924453554352011-12-23T15:48:44.292-05:002011-12-23T15:48:44.292-05:00Hi Angie. No, I was talking to Ken again.Hi Angie. No, I was talking to Ken again.JohnMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-6295231623045743212011-12-23T15:09:11.546-05:002011-12-23T15:09:11.546-05:00And, even THEN, we have to evaluate how to impleme...And, even THEN, we have to evaluate how to implement what we deem to be the best, which has certan objectives in mind, of course!! (and we might disagree as to objectives/ends)....as to personal commitments.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-77660654644381630082011-12-23T14:36:44.809-05:002011-12-23T14:36:44.809-05:00JohnM,
Who said anything about "the kingdom&q...JohnM,<br />Who said anything about "the kingdom"? That is a value, as well as an interpretive quadmire!<br /><br />What anyone should be interested in is what makes for the best framing for society and humans in general, which isn't about religion or religous convictions, PER SE, but about understanding "the human"! And how far have we REALLY come in understanding the universals of "the human"?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-23147670266749439542011-12-23T14:24:40.734-05:002011-12-23T14:24:40.734-05:00And if we know where we're headed, and want to...And if we know where we're headed, and want to move things closer to the kingdom already, wouldn't the logical conclusion of following that trajectory be to eschew marriage now, in this age? Celibacy, combined with "no differentiation of gender authority", has been tried before. But there are few, if any, Shakers left. Wonder why? ;)JohnMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-218514430811053212011-12-23T13:19:12.224-05:002011-12-23T13:19:12.224-05:00Biblical presupposes a Creator. The evolutionist i...Biblical presupposes a Creator. The evolutionist isn't so sure one way or the other (altho some are!). And if one starts with a Creator then it is EASY to defend a social structure UNDER THE CREATOR which tends to lend itself easily to "leadership models" of a hierarchal nature (Roman Catholicism). This has implications about even how the Trinity is understood. Thus, the split between the East and West.<br /><br />This is really the debate, about the nature of Christ and humanity...Is humanity perfectable and if so, on what basis...is is social order under an Absolute Divinity (who rules and reigns every aspect of one's life? or is it Liberty under a Free conscience? And what makes for a free conscience? is is a under=developed conscience, or a conscience freed from religious fear and intimidation? Is it Freedom of Speech or fear of Blasphemy? What is civil discourse when it comes to the political and religious concerns and convictions in our country????Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-67290868305683373232011-12-23T11:02:47.229-05:002011-12-23T11:02:47.229-05:00FrGregACCA:
"The Roman Catholic (and mains...FrGregACCA:<br /><br /> "The Roman Catholic (and mainstream Orthodox) Churches will indeed eventually ordain women; however, I think it will be more like 2150 rather than 2050."<br /><br /> I am not saying you are wrong, but what do you base that on? Are you seeing some trends?Ricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-10216377272619746042011-12-23T09:16:00.594-05:002011-12-23T09:16:00.594-05:00Wrong from the get-go.
If we were starting from s...Wrong from the get-go.<br /><br /><i>If we were starting from scratch ...</i><br /><br />Well, we're not starting from scratch, and we shouldn't start from scratch, and we couldn't start from scratch if we wanted to.<br /><br />What you are doing by "starting from scratch" is giving yourself permission to decide what the "first principles" of the teaching of the Bible are. Then when you work from those principles (of your devising), the result (<i>mirabile dictu</i>) agrees with your opinion.<br /><br />But we can't read the Bible "from scratch" because the Bible was not given to us "from scratch." It was given to us in the context of the Christian community -- the Church -- and her tradition (indeed, the Bible is itself part of that tradition), and it was given to us along with the Church's rule of faith. And it is that rule of faith, not <i>your</i> identification of Scripture's central ideas, that provides the principles by which Scripture is to be interpreted.<br /><br />All you are doing is using the Bible as raw material to support your ideas, not the faith of the Church that has been handed down to us. St Irenaeus of Lyons, call your office.Chris Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03220498656377282715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-59221421208297102782011-12-23T08:57:23.390-05:002011-12-23T08:57:23.390-05:00Well Ken, if you're going to say it SAY it. ...Well Ken, if you're going to say it SAY it. I appreciate that. <br /><br />Way to much to respond to all of it in the time I have - and it will make no difference..but you know, it's me. :)<br /><br />Not so sure conferring responsibility and/or authority is doing a favor...the prophets didn't always think so; But if God did it, it's right. Don't see that less than a totally egalitarin position contradicts God is love and wants the world reconciled to Himself - looks like begging the question.<br /><br />TOTAL egalitarianism sounds, you know, pretty total. Are you totally sure?<br /><br />Spiritual? I don't know, you'd have to define. More important -leadership capacity and insight of the kind required, well the certain trends (that you doubt of course) are significant. There are women taller than most men but in a most groups of any size (like a church)almost all the tallest individuals (I won't be one of them by the way) will be men. Who would you most likely pick for your basketball team if you had a choice and it mattered? Just an analogy. Objections based on a premise of always or never are bound to involve some strawmen by the way.<br /><br />Like I said, way too much for the time I have now. Maybe more later.JohnMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-20874296735167200262011-12-22T15:31:27.235-05:002011-12-22T15:31:27.235-05:00BESIDES, is it ANYONE else's business how the ...BESIDES, is it ANYONE else's business how the married couple "does" their relationship, as long as it is mutually satisfying????Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-7610433596970262652011-12-22T15:30:09.590-05:002011-12-22T15:30:09.590-05:00Bottom line, if the husband allows his wife to lea...Bottom line, if the husband allows his wife to lead, then he has really allowed egalitarianism into THIER relationship! He treats her with respect, as an equal and one that has her own life, not just a life lived for him! And isn't this how love acts, according to I Cor. 13?<br /><br />I can't see how anyone that sees women as human beings, could see or understand things differently, but then, I used to also adhere to the "biblical model"!<br /><br />The basis of any "ideal" is liberty and equality within that liberty...that means mutual respect and affirmation of another's desires/goals.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-50861525145781847622011-12-22T15:20:29.036-05:002011-12-22T15:20:29.036-05:00Yes, anon, that's pretty much what I'm say...Yes, anon, that's pretty much what I'm saying... but I'm far from alone. <br /><br />Sometimes when you are standing up for someone, you have to work against those that are hurting them.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-22865194224571591782011-12-22T14:55:15.574-05:002011-12-22T14:55:15.574-05:00The Roman Catholic (and mainstream Orthodox) Churc...The Roman Catholic (and mainstream Orthodox) Churches will indeed eventually ordain women; however, I think it will be more like 2150 rather than 2050.<br /><br />Good piece!<br /><br />I've posted this link before, but the following, which I wrote almost a year ago, I think nicely complements Ken's piece.<br /><br />http://vagantepriest.blogspot.com/2011/02/progressive-dynamic-tradition-part-ii.htmlFrGregACCAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00368463715994694203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-61107203789032546702011-12-22T12:58:49.901-05:002011-12-22T12:58:49.901-05:00Thanks for your insights and common sense approach...Thanks for your insights and common sense approach, Ken. I would add two points.<br /><br />1. Almost all of the passages that are used by the other camp are found in the disputed letters. Surely misogynist bias explains (in part) why such letters were written and accepted by the church, and why they have not been rejected. Conservative Christians should be the first to expel heretical frauds from the scriptures.<br /><br />2. Thecla's experience illustrates that it was dangerous for women to travel in the ancient world. This explains why we have no women messengers, envoys, or apostles in the NT (except those who would be accompanied by servants or husbands). So, the argument that "women should not lead because all the 12 apostles were men" does not work. This point seems to have been completely missed, as far as I can tell. I know of no woman in the ancient world who travelled independently of male members of her household, and I challenge anyone to find such a case.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-42195194669637796142011-12-22T11:59:32.044-05:002011-12-22T11:59:32.044-05:00So, if I've heard you correctly:
Those who ar...So, if I've heard you correctly:<br /><br />Those who argue against (my position) are blind<br /><br />(my position) makes overwhelming sense<br /><br />(my position) It's pretty obvious<br /><br />Those who argue against (my position) are blind to their own cultural situation<br /><br />(those who disagree with me are) just feet dragging on the inevitable (my) conclusion. <br /><br />How could they not see the obvious (my conclusion)?<br /><br /><br />Do you think that your approach reflects God's love? I don't. Disingenuous arguments like yours can be, themselves, a hindrance to people accepting the gospel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-44075357986315244932011-12-22T06:26:46.618-05:002011-12-22T06:26:46.618-05:00Not to mention the way God uses women to announce ...Not to mention the way God uses women to announce the Kingdom via Jesus, who made his entrance via a woman, humanized and validated women throughout his ministry, and made his first resurrected appearance to women.<br /><br />yes, in 100 years, our grandkids will be shaking their heads.<br /><br />"he hath scattered the proud (men) in the conceit of their heart.<br /><br />He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble (women)"::athada::https://www.blogger.com/profile/09046982982270546995noreply@blogger.com