The ordination of women - debate

[removeduser_426582376423734]

A recent essay that I wrote..

-------------------

“The debate whether to ordain women has more to do with sexism than tradition.” Do you agree?

I disagree with the statement, for many reasons. Firstly, and most predominantly, tradition is what the Christian Church is based on. Communion, confirmation, mass and other ceremonies were not laid out by Jesus or Moses; they were invented and have been kept in the Church for the last two centuries. For example, the Bible was written in a time when the society was mainly patriarchal; therefore much of the dominance is given to men, instead of women. In the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis, it is clearly outlined that man and woman should be equal. It is written that “God created man (mankind) in his own image, male and female he created them. Jesus himself implored equality from his followers, and those who were in his vicinity. In the book of Galatians, he said that “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female.” This shows that he was for women equality, and that the traditional patriarchal system was what brought down women bishops, not His teachings.

Others may disagree with me by saying that Paul, one of the main followers of Jesus, said to Timothy that he does “not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must remain silent.” This is a prime example of the fact that the early Church was built on the view that women were not equal, that they were not allowed and should not preach to men, for “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” It is well known that Jesus was not sexist, for in many books of the Bible there are sources of him treating women as equals. For example, in the book of Matthew, he preached in the court of women, in Jerusalem – a place where no religious leader would show his face. He treated a Samaritan woman as his equal in the book of John, and this is doubly surprising for women and Samaritans were both subjected to unequal rights. However, although this information shows that the Church is predominantly sexist towards women, Jesus also had sexist traits. For example, his twelve disciples were all male. This is a prime example for Jesus’ inability to ‘put his money where his mouth is’.

However, I am sure that I am right because there are too many, obvious examples of Jesus’ belief that women were fit for other things than housework. One would be his visit to Martha, where he convinces her sister Mary to stop working and to rest. Also, he revealed himself to Martha as the ‘resurrection’ and the ‘life’. It is mainly the traditions and words of wise men in the past that have started the patriarchal tradition, like Confucius and the words of Samuel Butler (“The souls of women are so small that some believe they’ve none at all”) and Martin Luther (“Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children”). I conclude that the Catholic Church’s view that women should not be ordained is not due to sexism, but to tradition and the prudent words of those in the past.

[mongoose]

Others may disagree with me by saying that Paul, one of the main followers of Jesus, said to Timothy that he does “not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must remain silent.” This is a prime example of the fact that the early Church was built on the view that women were not equal, that they were not allowed and should not preach to men, for “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.”

Why do you think that you can dismiss major parts of Christianity because of the fact the the people who wrote it were bigots? It's like saying that the 'ethnic cleansing' simply reflected the the idea of 'Arrian Supremecy' that hitler was so fond of, and that there's nothing anti-semetic about Nazism. If you can dismiss one teaching becasue you find if disagreeable, then you can dismiss other teachings as well.


Alot of that post was based on the premise that if you're not sexist all the time, then you're for female equality. It doesn't work that way; one unrepenting and blatanlty sexist act, and guess what-you're sexist!

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I'm sorry, mongoose, I don't see your point. The essay basically asks me if I agree or disagree, so I put both sides of the argument. What is wrong in that?

[mongoose]

I'm sorry, mongoose, I don't see your point. The essay basically asks me if I agree or disagree, so I put both sides of the argument. What is wrong in that?

Nothing, I still think it was a good essay. I just disagreed with one premise that you had, which was that if you don't act bigoted 100% of the time, then you're not bigoted at all.

[Veresov]

A recent essay that I wrote..

-------------------

“The debate whether to ordain women has more to do with sexism than tradition.” Do you agree?

I conclude that the Catholic Church’s view that women should not be ordained is not due to sexism, but to tradition and the prudent words of those in the past.

Christ wants men to be the leaders of the faith but women have a very important part in the Church in that they are the keepers of the home and procreation. Without their involvement in their duties, the Church would not grow. Women can also become nuns and dedicate themselves to Christ as well.

[rez]

"Christ wants men to be the leaders of the faith but women have a very important part in the Church in that they are the keepers of the home and procreation. Without their involvement in their duties, the Church would not grow. Women can also become nuns and dedicate themselves to Christ as well."

In my study of Jesus Christ i came to the conclusion that jesus very intelligently was against organised religion

Edit: that was a terrible post...

to actually beef this up - Jesus statements about the sabbath (the sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath - paraphrase not quote) show his apparent disdain for useless protocols that do not affect the love of god or your fellow man.

The fact that Jesus superceded the old system of laws and red tape with a simple message of believe in your own heart tends to reveal his intentions on a gargatuan institution decreeing strict sacraments.

So to sum up if we have to have an organised system of worship women should be free to preach ( a better word would be inform and help believers - preach has imperative connatations) just as men can. Indeed jesus' comparative good treatment of women in contrast with the old testament (samarian woman, mary magdalene, the use of women being the first to believe in Jesus's ressurection in one of the gospels, i think John?) Shows the rather draconian restrictions on women to be lessened in Jesus's philosophy

[Sétanta]

I conclude that the Catholic Church’s view that women should not be ordained is not due to sexism, but to tradition and the prudent words of those in the past.

Exactly.

But I feel the excluding of women is also due to the ideas in Roman times that women were dirty whores who couldn't be trusted. Mary Magdalene was. If Jesus came today I think he would allow women to be priests.

And as for the 12 desciples being men, well its the same today. Most of the ruling class (not that the desciples were from that group) were and still are men.

[Darth Wong]

I conclude that the Catholic Church's view that women should not be ordained is not due to sexism, but to tradition and the prudent words of those in the past.

Isn't that hair-splitting? How can you differentiate between sexism and tradition when the tradition in question is sexism?

Your presumption that limiting = bigotry is nonsense. Each gender have different responsibilities. The ability to procreate is the greatest of all gifts given to a woman. In traditional society women raised the family and children while the man is expected to be the provider. Reversing these roles was frowned upon but that doesn't mean it was bigotry.

Are you serious? You don't think it's bigotry to tell people they aren't allowed to do certain things? You don't think it's bigotry to "limit" people, ie- not let them do certain things because of gender or race?

The fact that woman are biologically better-suited to childraising than men doesn't mean they should be "limited" from doing other things if they want to.

[Turbo]

"Christ wants men to be the leaders of the faith but women have a very important part in the Church in that they are the keepers of the home and procreation. Without their involvement in their duties, the Church would not grow. Women can also become nuns and dedicate themselves to Christ as well."

In my study of Jesus Christ i came to the conclusion that jesus very intelligently was against organised religion

Edit: that was a terrible post...

to actually beef this up - Jesus statements about the sabbath (the sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath - paraphrase not quote) show his apparent disdain for useless protocols that do not affect the love of god or your fellow man.

The fact that Jesus superceded the old system of laws and red tape with a simple message of believe in your own heart tends to reveal his intentions on a gargatuan institution decreeing strict sacraments.

So to sum up if we have to have an organised system of worship women should be free to preach ( a better word would be inform and help believers - preach has imperative connatations) just as men can. Indeed jesus' comparative good treatment of women in contrast with the old testament (samarian woman, mary magdalene, the use of women being the first to believe in Jesus's ressurection in one of the gospels, i think John?) Shows the rather draconian restrictions on women to be lessened in Jesus's philosophy

Ok, then explain why women were not included among the 12 apostles? If the philosophy of Jesus was such as you describe, he could have made a woman an apostle. He was already opposing established Jewish tradition, so he wouldn't have been concerned about tradition, culture, or anything else.

[rez]

"Ok, then explain why women were not included among the 12 apostles? If the philosophy of Jesus was such as you describe, he could have made a woman an apostle."

Actually i said lessened in comparison to the old testaments draconian measures to suppress women. I never said he put them on equal footing. I would not hold up the apostles as perfect examples of Jesus's followers, the amount of times they fail him is astounding. For instance it is the women who remain at jesus Crucifixion whilst the Apostles run for the hills

[Removed_user_012521]

Women can't be ordained priest, its not sexist it just has to do with the role they play. Priest are fathers like God, they are fathers of they're Church-going family, which is why we call them "father". The reason why we see God as a man is because he plays a fatherly role, this will never change and is why there can be only male priest.

[Mímirswell]

There is substantial evidence for women taking on the role of the disciples and apostles. [quotes from New Revised Standard Version; chosen because it's one of the few bibles endorsed by protestant, catholic and othrodox churches and because it's a direct translation from greek and aramaic relying on the dead sea scrolls and other recent 1st century discoveries for grammatical structure. It should also be noted I'm agnostic; I'm just well read regarding the Bible]

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

The basis of any such discussion must first begin with the absolution of the Judean tradition of Patriarchal authority held by the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. From this point on Jesus makes clear that all are equal. This is further confirmed by his teaching of Mary, sister of Martha.

[38]Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. [39]She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. [40]But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, ‘Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.’ [41]But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; [42]there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.’

In this act; he overturns the tradition of not teaching women among 1st century Jews. Illustrated by the Rabbi Elizier, who wrote; "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman...Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her obscenity."

[1]The twelve were with him, [2]as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, [3]and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for him out of their resources.

Not it is Luke who makes the distinction between the twelve and the women. We have no evidence that Jesus himself made this distinction; in fact, we have good belief of the opposite. Paul writes in Romans:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots, who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

And

[1]I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon (or minister) of the church at Cenchreae, [2]so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. [3]Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me (the actual word is Synergoi which means colleagues) in Christ Jesus, [4]and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

It's clear to Paul at least; that women can be apostles and colleagues with men and are valuable assets to spread the gospel.

[24]Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria. He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures. [25]He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. [26]He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately.

Here we have women not only as disciples but teaching a male disciple.

[2] I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. [3]Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

"Beside me in the work of the gospel" is implicit admission of a teaching role.

After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go.

It is clear from Roman and other sources that many of those apostles were women. The majority were men; but by no means all.

I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man...

The Majority of New Testament scholars believe that 1 and 2 Timothy were not written by St. Paul. Rather, they were composed by an unknown author in the 2nd century CE, some 35 to 85 years after Paul's death. They note that many of the concerns expressed in 1 and 2 Timothy did not materialize until the second century. If this interpretation is correct, then these epistles do not posses one of the main requirements to be in the official canon - that of apostolic origin. Considering almost all the statements of inequality result from 1 and 2 Timothy or those like Titus 1:6, that are merely regurgitating it's thoughts, you can make your own judgement. I would note however that Romans, whose authenticity is questioned by few if any, views women in a very favorable light.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I feel the excluding of women is also due to the ideas in Roman times that women were dirty whores who couldn't be trusted. Mary Magdalene was.

Mary was not a *****, a prostitute or anything similar. She's mentioned in Matthew 27-28, Mark 15-16, Luke 8:2, Luke 24:10 and John 19:25. The only thing known about here is she traveled with Jesus, had seven demons cast out of her, was the first person Jesus appeared too after his death and was among the three women to visit his tomb.

[Sétanta]

I wasn't literally saying that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, meerly using ***** to describe how many men of the era felt that women were dirty and impure

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Women can't be ordained priest, its not sexist it just has to do with the role they play. Priest are fathers like God, they are fathers of they're Church-going family, which is why we call them "father". The reason why we see God as a man is because he plays a fatherly role, this will never change and is why there can be only male priest.

Does God not have so many motherly, female values? For example, a characteristic of a mother is to give birth, yes? If God does not do this, who does? God is as much male, as female, and he created males and females both in his image :-

God created mankind in his own image, male and female he created them.

Mimirswell, you have taken (accidentally, maybe) one of your quotes out of context.

Perhaps as a followup to Mark; I might suggest you use Ephesians 5:22-23 as a counter...

If you read Ephesians 5:22-24,33, you will see:-

Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. Now as the Church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands... However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

[Removed_user_012521]

Does God not have so many motherly, female values? For example, a characteristic of a mother is to give birth, yes? If God does not do this, who does? God is as much male, as female, and he created males and females both in his image :-

Ever heard of a little girl called the Virgin Mary? Plus the church does have Mothers too, and sisters and brothers. Its just Fathers who lead a congregation and give mass, Mothers lead a nunnery or a convent.

[mongoose]

But why should the roles be limited by gender, excpet for bigotry?

[Mímirswell]

Mimirswell, you have taken (accidentally, maybe) one of your quotes out of context.

Sorry but no, I did no such thing. The last line has no bearing on whether women may preach whereas the two lines previously have been used to say that men are the head and thus are the vessels for God's speech. If you want to consider it out of context, then it's been taken out of context by Conservative Christians and not me since it's one of the oft quoted lines for why women can't be ordined.

[Mímirswell]

Considering how often she has been maligned as a prostitute throughout history; it's easy to mistake your meaning. In the future, I would caution you to rephrase regarding that particular female.

[Sétanta]

Considering how often she has been maligned as a prostitute throughout history; it's easy to mistake your meaning. In the future, I would caution you to rephrase regarding that particular female.

Regardless, the fact that women were considered prostitutes even if there was no evidence reminds us how sexist the people back then were. Thus, no women desciples, and now we have a tradition exluding women from the church.

[Mímirswell]

I already provided quotes from the bible that clearly dispute that. Instead of using a generalization to prove your point; challenge the quotes themselves. If I were you, I would especially try to counter these:

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

[38]Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. [39]She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. [40]But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, ‘Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.’ [41]But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; [42]there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.’

They specifically deal with Jesus overturning tradition regarding the treatment of women. Perhaps the most well-crafted argument involves Matthew 15:21-28:

[21] Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. [22]Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’ [23]But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ [24]He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ [25]But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ [26]He answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ [27]She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ [28]Then Jesus answered her, ‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed instantly.

On face value; one could argue Jesus's cruelty towards this woman. This would seem correct except for one important point, she's a Canaanite. Jesus came to save the "house of Israel" not gentiles. He does however heal her daughter anyway and commented upon her faith showing that even to the gentiles; salvation can be obtained.

As an aside; Mark calls her a greek but says she is born in Phoenicia (Syria) and thus a Canaanite, either way, she's a gentile.

Perhaps as a followup to Mark; I might suggest you use Ephesians 5:22-23 as a counter which says:

[22] Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. [23]For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour.

I would point out however that the word kephale (koine gr. for head) also means origin. Adam (Husband) is the origin of Eve (Wife) and Christ is the origin of the church makes an equal amount of sense. More importantly, anakephalaiôsis (koine gr. be subject) also has nuances meaning summation, uniting, crowning, and starting again. Clearly translations have chosen largely to ignore these issues but then the early church quickly reasserted many of the Judean traditions Jesus fought against, the translators were undoubtedly following the contemporary interpretations of the day.

With those two out of the way and Timothy already addressed, Corinthians seems most appropiate counter-argument. I will leave someone else to argue and refute from here on, I believe I've made a strong case and as I'm not a christian; that's all I strive to achieve.