Keep Women in the kitchen

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Jae said:
The head of your church is called the President? Is that typical in UU churches? The head of my church is the Pastor. The person who's called our President is the leader of our denomination. The highest office in my church women are allowed to fill is that of Deacon. The highest level of lay leader in my church is that of Elder. That office is not available to women.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're weird that way. President = Chair of the Board. The minister is a spiritual leader and teacher, and provides advice and guidance to the board, but the board is where the buck stops in all matters save worship (as ministers have "freedom of the pulpit" and both the right and authority to determine what happens in services).

Pinga said:
So, @Mendalla , what is the correct terminology to describe a church that restricts offices of the church based on gender.

If fundamentalist is not accurate, is there a proper term?
Click to expand...

Why you asking me? However, I'll give a partial answer. Fundamentalist is definitely the wrong term as it is not defined by attitude to women but by attitude to scripture and, to be honest, there are churches that do not meet the definition of fundamentalist that restrict women (including the UCCan at one time). The Roman Catholic church, save extreme conservative arms of it like Opus Dei, also does not meet the definition of fundamentalist and we know exactly where their "glass ceiling" lies.

The correct terms, to my eye, is "sexist". However, as evidence by past defence of the attitude by certain members here, they do not see themselves that way.

EDIT: The Wiki article on fundamentalism, in particular the section on Christianity, defines it well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
 
Waterfall said:
I have often wondered why some churches will cling to the Adam and Eve story as justification for not having women ministers, and yet not follow all of the teachings in Leviticus.
@Jae is there an answer for this? How does your church decide which teachings can be let go and why?
Click to expand...

Waterfall, I don't know of any churches anywhere that base their complementarianism solely on Adam and Eve. As far as how we make decisions on doctrine, we ask God for wisdom and guidance, we consult the Bible to learn what God has spoken there, and we dialogue with one another about how to apply the Bible's truths to our current situation.
 
Jae said:
Waterfall, I don't know of any churches anywhere that base their complementarianism solely on Adam and Eve. As far as how we make decisions on doctrine, we ask God for wisdom and guidance, we consult the Bible to learn what God has spoken there, and we dialogue with one another about how to apply the Bible's truths to our current situation.
Click to expand...

Which just says to an outsider looking in that God, as revealed to/by you, is a sexist a--hole. Or that you are projecting your own sexist, conservative morality on to God.
 
Jae said:
Not quite sure what you mean by that Pinga. I've already shared that in my church, women are as eligible to become Deacons as are men, which is a senior level church office.
Click to expand...
if access to certain offices is based on gender then there is an inherent lack of true equality before God. Complementarianism is, IMO just a fancy way to justify sexist attitudes.
 
I'm opting not to watch the videos simply because I already know where they are going and I already know I am going to disagree.

Which allows me to cut to the chase.

I believe that God is Sovereign and those less than God are not. Any Christian care to argue that point with me?

Presuming none will challenge the Sovereignty of God I will then suggest God is free to do as God wills. Any Christians want to challenge the freedom of God's will?

Presuming none will challenge the freedom of God's will I ask the simple question, "Is the Sovereign God free to call whomever God chooses to ministry?"

If you haven't challenged the sovereignty of God or the freedom of God's will there is no logical objection to the question.

"But John," the objections begin "Paul said the he forbids women to teach" which is true. Paul said he forbids it. He doesn't say God does. While we are on the subject of Paul we also know that he preferred for none to be married so that more of our lives could be devoted to proclaiming the gospel and the only reason we might possibly get married is because our flesh was weak and we burned with lust.

So all of us married folk insistent on making Paul sovereign (something I am confident he would subject you to a fair bit of abuse for attempting) need to own up to the fact that we are so preoccupied with our lusts that we probably are not paying close enough attention to what Paul actually hot up to in the early church, let alone missed what Jesus was up to and prophets by the handsfull prior to that.

Perhaps the biggest tell is when Jesus instructs Mary to go to Peter and the 10 (Matt 28:10) or an Angel tells Mary to go tp Peter and the 10 (Mark 16: 7), or they decide on their own to go (Luke 24: 9), or Jesus tells Mary to go and tell Peter and the 10 about the resurrection after they have all been stumped by an empty tomb (John 20: 7).

My point?

In three of the four Gospels Mary is the first sent out by the resurrected Christ to proclaim that he was risen.

Those sent out by the risen Christ were typically called what?

And that office is listed by Paul as the foremost office of Christ's church.

So why is a woman allowed that office but not a lower office? Do Apostles not teach?

Of course they did.

Paul forbids it. We have no idea whether the prohibition was specific or universal. We know that God called women to the office of prophet (the second highest office on Paul's heirarchy).

Has God never called a woman to the office of preacher? Can he never? Will he never?

I think by 2016 is is surpassing evident that God has and God does call women to the office of preacher.

So why then do some oppose?

I suspect it is wilful ignorance and fear of emasculation combined with a fear of losing control.

As if God is ever to be controlled by the will of men.

Does that settle anything?

Nope. Fear, ignorance and the desire to control God will be with us a long time yet.
 
Mendalla said:
Which just says to an outsider looking in that God, as revealed to/by you, is a sexist a--hole. Or that you are projecting your own sexist, conservative morality on to God.
Click to expand...

How so? Which part(s) of what I described say that to you Mendalla? How else would you imagine a Christian church makes decisions?
 
GordW said:
if access to certain offices is based on gender then there is an inherent lack of true equality before God. Complementarianism is, IMO just a fancy way to justify sexist attitudes.
Click to expand...

The way we see it, women and men are equal but different.
 
Jae said:
The way we see it, women and men are equal but different.
Click to expand...
equal means equal....open to ALL the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities. Anything else is not actually equal. (ANd to be fair complementarianism can cut both ways-- eg. by denying men the choice to be a primary child caregiver)
 
Jae said:
The way we see it, women and men are equal but different.
Click to expand...

Yes, men and women are different, of that I have no doubt from years of experience living with and working with them.

But that does not mean they cannot do the same job as a man and vice versa. They may do the job differently (not better, not worse, just differently) but they can, and should be entitled to, do any job. Individual ability, not gender (or race, or orientation, or whatever), should determine what a person can or can't do. And that includes leading a church, corporation, or country.
 
Mendalla said:
Yes, men and women are different, of that I have no doubt from years of experience living with and working with them.

But that does not mean they cannot do the same job as a man and vice versa. They may do the job differently (not better, not worse, just differently) but they can, and should be entitled to, do any job. Individual ability, not gender (or race, or orientation, or whatever), should determine what a person can or can't do. And that includes leading a church, corporation, or country.
Click to expand...

So, as I've shared before (not in this thread), we believe women can do the job. Ability is not the issue.

In terms of people being "entitled" Mendalla, I'm not sure that anyone is. Rather, I'd say that God calls some people into vocational ministry and gives them the qualities that they need to live out the roles he has called them to.
 
Can we take this a bit deeper and consider women in ministry in the UCC?
We pride ourselves on how early we first began ordaining women, and the fact that women have been called (or elected) to the highest position in our church. Our present Moderator is a woman. But how are women in ministry treated in our churches?

I recently heard that a woman who has been serving one of churches in this Presbytery is 'on leave' from her church. I've known her for a few years, heard her preach once. She is devoted, intelligent, kind, hard-working, gifted and creative (and musical too). I remember thinking when she was first called to this church how fortunate they were to have this talented, out-going, Spirit-led person as their minister. And now I hear that that church is seeking a change in pastoral relations.

In the past few years in this Presbytery she is the third female minister to be quietly removed from their position.

Is this coincidence? What are your thoughts or experiences? (I know that a few times when I've been asked to do LLWL services that the congregation would have preferred a man - fortunately there are many others who seem to have me at or near the top of their lists of who to call.
 
@Seeler, I mentioned my experience with a church being negative towards having a woman minister upthread. Sad to see that attitude is still out there. Even sadder that even with that, the UCCan is at the good end of the spectrum.

@Jae, deciding that a person cannot fulfill their personal potential because of a book written in a time when women were often still treated as property is illustrative of why people like Chansen and Pavlos detest Christianity so much and why I, while I do not share their views, left.
 
Mendalla said:
@Seeler, I mentioned my experience with a church being negative towards having a woman minister upthread. Sad to see that attitude is still out there. Even sadder that even with that, the UCCan is at the good end of the spectrum.

@Jae, deciding that a person cannot fulfill their personal potential because of a book written in a time when women were often still treated as property is illustrative of why people like Chansen and Pavlos detest Christianity so much and why I, while I do not share their views, left.
Click to expand...

We decided to restrict who can serve as an Elder based upon what we understand the will of God to be. We believe this aspect of his will to be revealed in the Bible, but to suggest that we decided just because a book told us to is unfair. Since @chansen and @Pavlos Maros do not believe in God, of course they don't believe he has revealed how he wants the Church governed.
 
Jae said:
We decided to restrict who can serve as an Elder based upon what we understand the will of God to be. We believe this aspect of his will to be revealed in the Bible
Click to expand...
You and the Roman Catholics have much in common as far as this goes, Brother Jae.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top