Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
As @DaisyJane said your gymnastics are impressive. They are still not convincing. If women were equally valued as persons, they would not be excluded from certain roles. Full stop.
The women divide the plunder ?
- Thread starter Ritafee
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
As @DaisyJane said your gymnastics are impressive. They are still not convincing. If women were equally valued as persons, they would not be excluded from certain roles. Full stop.
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Usually does
The roles are different. The people are equal.
To speak of a different relationship - is an employee less equal as a person to their supervisor? Goodness, no. They simply have different roles to play.
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
What you don't seem to realize is that the very idea that you, as a man, get to decide the role women play and how that is valued or not, is the height of misogyny and patriarchy.
There is extensive work in the area of personhood that explores exactly how personhood is diminished based on the roles played, or not played, in society. Your employee/employer comparison is a red herring.
There is extensive work in the area of personhood that explores exactly how personhood is diminished based on the roles played, or not played, in society. Your employee/employer comparison is a red herring.
I respectfully disagree. That women and men are fully and absolutely equal to each other does not necessitate that women and men occupy the same roles.
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I doubt he'll ever get it.
Except that I don't DaisyJane. I don't get to decide the role women play. I don't get to decide the role men play either. Those decisions are up to God. As to whether the roles are valued or not - I suggest valuing all the roles in the Church that men and women play.
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
Northwind - I agree, but yet I try.
So to take this further. An employee/employer relationship is presumably based on individual qualifications. I supervise people because I have greater experience in a particular field or because I possess particular skills
But the minute that situation is taken beyond the individual and applied to GROUPS of people based on a particular characteristic (colour, religion, gender, etc) then it is, in fact, oppressive and diminishes their personhood. The fact that one cannot supervise someone because they are female, or indigenous, or whatever, is prejudicial and a diminishment of human dignity and rights. You simply cannot suggest otherwise.
So to take this further. An employee/employer relationship is presumably based on individual qualifications. I supervise people because I have greater experience in a particular field or because I possess particular skills
But the minute that situation is taken beyond the individual and applied to GROUPS of people based on a particular characteristic (colour, religion, gender, etc) then it is, in fact, oppressive and diminishes their personhood. The fact that one cannot supervise someone because they are female, or indigenous, or whatever, is prejudicial and a diminishment of human dignity and rights. You simply cannot suggest otherwise.
DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
One more thought and then I really do need to go.
What I find most concerning about complementarianism and any other -ism (racism, ageism, ableism) that diminish the opportunities for, and dignity of, groups of people based on something inherently unchangeable about their identity, is that it is so antithetical to the practices of the human Jesus. The human Jesus actively promoted the dignity of all people - women, people with disabilities, and others generally ostracized and diminished by the world in which he lived. Granted he did so within the sociohistorical realities of his world, which were radically different than the world we live in. But, if we take the Spirit of his life and teachings, then I personally find that anything that diminishes the meaningful contributions of a group of people simply because of who they are, anti-Christian. And that would include any beliefs that diminish the roles, responsibilities, and opportunities for women.
What I find most concerning about complementarianism and any other -ism (racism, ageism, ableism) that diminish the opportunities for, and dignity of, groups of people based on something inherently unchangeable about their identity, is that it is so antithetical to the practices of the human Jesus. The human Jesus actively promoted the dignity of all people - women, people with disabilities, and others generally ostracized and diminished by the world in which he lived. Granted he did so within the sociohistorical realities of his world, which were radically different than the world we live in. But, if we take the Spirit of his life and teachings, then I personally find that anything that diminishes the meaningful contributions of a group of people simply because of who they are, anti-Christian. And that would include any beliefs that diminish the roles, responsibilities, and opportunities for women.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Patriarchy or Gender Equality?
The title of this paper posed the question whether New Testament teachings are patriarchal or egalitarian.
Conclusion about the patriarchal half of the question should be clear.
Early Christian leaders opposed patriarchy, slavery, male domination, or attempts to control/exercise power over any other people.
But were they gender equalitarians? Certainly equality of all kinds (race, class, and gender, according to Galatians 3:28) lies at the heart of Christian practice, but there is not much evidence that achieving equality in it self was the goal of early Christian leaders. Rather, the equal and caring treatment of all, Jew or gentile, slave or free, male and female, was seen as one of many ingredients necessary to achieve the ultimate eschatology of union of the church with Christ.
This definition of equality would not satisfy a secular feminist, nor would secular feminism please an early Christian. In fact, the perspective promoted in Ephesians might denounce this century’s secular liberation movements as more evidence of the “worldly” struggle for power.
Striving to live lives that reflect an “awe of Christ,” gender equality means nothing unless it is joined with submission - the abandonment of striving to exercise power over each other. In this sense, New Testament Christianity sought to create a world that relied upon the transformative capacity of living by the Spirit and, hence, one that material considerations alone can neither explain nor sustain.
https://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf
The title of this paper posed the question whether New Testament teachings are patriarchal or egalitarian.
Conclusion about the patriarchal half of the question should be clear.
Early Christian leaders opposed patriarchy, slavery, male domination, or attempts to control/exercise power over any other people.
But were they gender equalitarians? Certainly equality of all kinds (race, class, and gender, according to Galatians 3:28) lies at the heart of Christian practice, but there is not much evidence that achieving equality in it self was the goal of early Christian leaders. Rather, the equal and caring treatment of all, Jew or gentile, slave or free, male and female, was seen as one of many ingredients necessary to achieve the ultimate eschatology of union of the church with Christ.
This definition of equality would not satisfy a secular feminist, nor would secular feminism please an early Christian. In fact, the perspective promoted in Ephesians might denounce this century’s secular liberation movements as more evidence of the “worldly” struggle for power.
Striving to live lives that reflect an “awe of Christ,” gender equality means nothing unless it is joined with submission - the abandonment of striving to exercise power over each other. In this sense, New Testament Christianity sought to create a world that relied upon the transformative capacity of living by the Spirit and, hence, one that material considerations alone can neither explain nor sustain.
https://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf
Ritafee
Is Being Human
The full-orbed meaning of the word helper (“ezer”) is easily discovered by simply studying each instance in which that Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament. From such a study, we see that the true meaning of the word connotes a strong, protective, competent, rescuing, warrior, That’s a far cry from being subordinate!
Of the 21 times “ezer” appears in the Hebrew Old Testament, two of those times are in Genesis 2 and refer to woman helping man, one passage refers to people who were not helpful, and all 18 of the other times are all in reference to God and His helping mankind! God repeatedly refers to Himself in His Word as being an “ezer” to His people, then clearly it is not at all a secondary, demeaning, unimportant role, is it?
Neither is it a role which elevates the one being helped above the one doing the helping – just as mankind is not above God in worth, importance, or dignity, neither is man above woman in worth, importance, or dignity.
sub·or·di·nate
- lower in rank or position
- of less or secondary importance
- make subservient to or dependent on something else
- a person under the authority or control of another within an organization
- treat or regard as of lesser importance than something else
ESS teacher and complementarianism founder Wayne Grudem: Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS for short)
Last edited:
In a number of ways George. However, as I'm using the word here, "subordinate: in a position of less power or authority than someone else" - Subordinate - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
Words have different definitions Northwind. You might notice how in dictionaries they have little numbers like 1. and 2. to indicate as much. I answered as to how I am using the word.
Not being condescending Northwind. I gave the definition of the word as I'm using it.