Church

Fog Swept Glade: What rational reason substantiates a woman speaking in church as the new testament states?

Zanjan: Church gatherings were for a religious service, not committee work. Only scholarly presentations were acceptable.

In those days, women didn't speak publicly. They knew nothing about administrative or judiciary procedure, much less community business operations. They were usually illiterate; being uneducated, their only area of expertise was as a housewife and caring for children.

Any concerns a woman had would have to be conveyed to her father, brother or husband, as it was a patriarchal society.

To insist on this in modern times would weird out even the eccentric.

Fog Swept Glade: That isn‘t true.

Zanjan: Why ask a question when you already know the answer? Do you have a better perspective of ancient culture?

Fog Swept Glade: Lol

edmund_carey: I presume the question was supposed to be "What rational reason substantiates a woman NOT speaking in church as the New Testament states [i.e. says they should not].?"

Fog Swept Glade: No, why would a woman be talking in church?

cloudygrey33: Because the Bible is full of the same patriarchal attitudes that permeate all of history. Men held all the cards, historically speaking. They had all the power. Men wrote the rule book in a culture that was dominated by men... It isn't rocket science.

This is one of the many reasons that strict fundamentalism doesn't work. You have to be able to move beyond antiquated ideas and broaden your understanding of life and reality or you stay forever stuck in oppressive systems. Just like there are literally tons of rules and regulations in the Old Testament that have been completely forgotten and discarded, the church eventually moves on from primitive ideas that aren't sustainable. In 100 years this won't even be a discussion. It shouldn't be now... Women are obviously more than capable of being spiritual leaders or leaders in any other capacity.

Fog Swept Glade: Lol

cloudygrey33: I'm really regretting wasting my energy on responding to this. Thanks Fog- I learned from this. I really should have known better to begin with by reading your earlier responses. I always stupidly assume that someone asks a question because they're genuinely interested in a dialogue.

Fog Swept Glade: Thanks, hun

cloudygrey33:

Awww... I can't even be mad at ya'. Poor fella...

Angry Beaver: Fog's a tad abstruse lol

shadowline: Well, a woman would be talking in church for the same reason a man would be doing that - because she had something to say about the Christian faith. Unless you mean just talking to her neighbor in the pew and disturbing everyone around her. That would be because she was rude.

Zanjan: So, it would be ok for a MAN to be talking to his neighbour in the pews?

Seems to me, men aren't prone to whispering and they only know 3 polite sign language moves:
1. Pointed finger
2. Choke hold
3. Slice throat

Zanjan: .In early Christianity, members followed the conventions of their time – women didn’t mingle with the men, they sat on their own side of the room and met only with other women for religious community activities.

Many Christian women were leaders; it’s just that their followers were also women.

shadowline: I don't know about "leaders" exactly. There were prominent society women who went in for Christianity in its early phases, and there were women who were considered eminent in the Christian community. But I've never heard of one who was a "leader" of anything, or one who preached in Christian assemblies, which of course St Paul proscribes.

Christian ministry was believed to succeed to the Jewish priesthood, which was a male institution. And Christian ministers were believed to "represent" (in all humility) the Creator who revealed Himself as the Father, and the Redeemer who incarnated as the Son. Not Mother, and not Daughter.

Zanjan: There was no formal "preaching" in church then because there were no ordained priests. They had elders and bishops - those who were both faithful and literate.

What's the difference between teaching and preaching? The latter has an air of inequality. I'm guessing they didn't actually use the word "preach". Translators did.

Back then, women weren't publicly given mention because it wasn't their custom. Men felt it would be immodest. Certainly, they made mention of them around their own community; they couldn't avoid it because they had far more female followers than males.

Makes sense because women had more rights then the Jewish. They made sure all the holy days were organized and celebrated when they should be. They insisted on children's classes and spread the faith informally with local connections - they didn't go out traveling on their own to introduce the faith to strangers.

'"Christian ministers were believed to "represent" (in all humility) the Creator who revealed Himself as the Father, and the Redeemer who incarnated as the Son"

I think you've fast forwarded to the dark ages. You have no idea what people thought about themselves, so early in Christianity. They had a few whackos and backsliders but we get our first glimmer of embedded crazy notions among them around 350 AD.....(reason for the Nicene Council) and the rampant hypocrisy around 450 AD.

That's when they decided Jesus was both human and divine in one. This was rejected by the oriental Christian orthodox. The moment the word "orthodox" is used, it's all downhill from there. We can rightly intuit what they thought of themselves then, when it was no longer the early church.

shadowline: As far as the divinity of Christ is concerned, it is unmistakably in the New Testament, and anyone reading that book devoutly, from the time it was written, would have no option but to acknowledge that. That the formation of doctrine took many generations doesn't mean that the concept behind a doctrine was not always a part of belief in redemption through Christ. It is of course speculated that the idea of the divinity of Jesus took a few generations to develop, but that is speculation only, and the process was clearly complete by the time the Gospels were written. That would be two to three generations after Jesus died.

Preaching was a function of ministry, by whatever name, from the time of the apostles. The Acts of the Apostles makes that perfectly clear. Women didn't do it, probably for more than one reason, including the ones you mention. But St Paul's prohibition of it would certainly have figured largely, as indeed it has ever since.

We have many testimonials and accounts of the life of the community from the first three centuries of Christianity, from around the Mediterranean Roman world. None of them refers to women preaching. At least as far as I know. Perhaps you know of something I don't?

Zanjan: " it is unmistakably in the New Testament, and anyone reading that book devoutly, from the time it was written, ...."

With regard to Christ's reality, so little is described in scripture that one could read just about anything into it. The text doesn't include any explanations - why? Perhaps it wasn't necessary, that early believers understood enough?

Early believers were pure in heart, not the later believers; that made all the difference in what they did with the teachings, as critically noted in scripture.

Can't do a thesis without material; yet centuries later, the clergy made a NEW decision on Christ's rank and station - that's tantamount to delivering a revelation because it's definitely not scholarship. In effect, their pronouncement opened a can of worms, one that only the next Prophet could repair.

Who could even remotely *understand* what it was like to BE Christ? It takes one to know one, right? It should suffice that we all recognize His rank and station is above ours and every other teacher of Christianity. Redemption through Christ is a different subject.

Jesus didn't give anyone the right to develop "doctrines"; neither did He offer any organizational design or bestow rank on anyone except His first 12. All believers were to follow the Revelation of Christ as the path to God........not follow other people.

By the way, neither Jesus or Paul prohibited women from teaching the faith to anyone. Preaching is a lecture with no Q & A; whereas, teaching isn't.

shadowline: As I say, it wasn't new. It was only newly formulated and adopted as doctrine, in response to what the New Testament had been saying since 100 A.D. Christians believe that that happened under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in response to Scripture.

Zanjan: You don't need to establish a teaching that's already being taught. If it wasn't new, then it was pagan.

I can see the discussion they had - 'how can we make the Faith more attractive to non-beleivers'? Christmas was the first time they adjusted, albeit that wasn't a big deal because their culture didn't celebrate physical birthdays. Any day of a year was up for grabs. Why not make it socially convenient?

In the case of doctrine mentioned, the aim was to elaborate on notions which demonstrate superiority over all other religions. It would fit in very nicely with the magically disappearing remains of Jesus, which could be applied as supernatural proof of the resurrection.

When you can pull the wool over the eyes twice, doing it a third time is the charm - it causes all hell to break loose. Note, when Jesus said, 'You will deny Me three times", that included His own authority. They pushed a bit too far; subsequently, the church broke apart.

chronology: I was talking to a female preacher only a few days ago. She was commenting on her acceptance and welcome for Gay people in her church, which has a Gay Pride Flag outside at the moment. Male or female, it is the message which preachers have that matters. The preacher also supports the teaching of school children about Gay lifestyles.
I felt like a dinosaur in saying Gay people could perhaps benefit from a many view approach to the Gay lifestyle not just the mega media Gay friendly Gays welcome approach. No disrespect at all to Gay people, but they deserve an open debate on the subject.

Fortunately the Church of England has skilled councillors who discuss Gay issues with Gay people.

Zanjan: Yes, that's another issue that isn't in the Bible; it only states that no one should "lay" with the same gender. No explanation, just a single application. So how is it Clergy can make any decisions on gay relationships?

I've heard of Gay churches - Jesus didn't design those.

Homosexuality has always existed as a sexual preference. In the past, it wasn't complicated, like today. I think we can all agree we need a mediator we trust to deal with this issue because it's undecided, which proves we can't intuit the *highest* moral standard based on what's trending in the world.

What right did God give on this? None. Human rights are strictly civil - those issuing from political pressure.

I don't see any text that says one should push someone away from God; however, everyone (including gays) must understand the Kingdom of God has conditions that they must be prepared to honour, even if they don't understand God's wisdom.

In God's Faith, there is no such thing as a gay or straight "lifestyle"; there is only selfless servitude and obedience to the laws of God - first and foremost, it's the divine art of living.

There's no reconciling God's ways with societal desires and fashions. Can we do anything to help gays accept that? I think not. We can only wait until they're ready.

chronology: Gays are frankly bewildered by biblical laws Zan. They say the bible says people should be stoned to death for cooking on the sabbath, that women who are discovered to be adulterous should be stoned to death. Gays say that they don't harm anyone else and are the most high achieving group in society. They are mostly professional workers.

All I say is best talk to a qualified Church of England councillor on the subject.

shadowline: I'm not sure why this has to be said so many times, but, let me put it simply: there is a difference between a concept and a doctrine. The concept of the divinity of Christ is found in the New Testament. What the New Testament says about it was believed by Christians from the time the New Testament was written - about 100 A.D. When that concept was formally adopted as doctrine it was not being invented, it was simply being formalized. And its source was not anything other than the plain words of what Christians believed to be divinely inspired Scripture. That Christ was divine was not "pagan" because it was not new when it became doctrine. It was simply the concept found in the writings that were and are the source and origin of the Christian faith.