Ordain a Lady

[Matthias]

Adam was with her and did not assert a leadership role.

Shame on Adam.

Instead,he followed the enticement of the serpent. And he ate the forbidden fruit.

Adam wasn’t deceived. Shame on Adam.

What about Eve? She was deceived. Women tend to be susceptible to being deceived. Men have a tendency to take advantage of that tendency in women and have shamefully exploited them throughout history. Satan knows it. God knows it. The Messiah knows it. Paul knew it. (The other Apostles also knew it.) Godly men have been placed in the role of protecting women / the church, not exploiting women / the church.

Paul said we are all one in Christ. No male,no female,no Greek,no Jew.

That’s right. What he didn’t say as that we all have the same roles in the church.

Paul boasted of the blessed work of women serving the church.

That’s right.

Scripture must harmonize.

Yes.

Paul would be remiss to state we are all one in Christ, stating the traditional roles are in effect done away, only to later state women cannot lead the church. When they most certainly did with his knowledge , thanks, and praise, as regarded his own churches.

Paul defined the leadership roles in the church. The requirements for male leadership are explicitly spelled out by him. Women were active in service to the church, Paul knew about it, thanked and praised them for it - but they weren’t elders and deacons - the male leadership positions in the church. There are roles of service in the church besides pastoring which are open to women.

You have to think what you're being asked to believe. Either Paul was a leader who respected the women who served beside him in church, or he was a hypocrite who talked out of both sides of his mouth when he insisted women are not permitted to do what he praised them for in other epistles.

We know what he wrote in his epistles. We know that he respected the women in the church. We know that he didn’t allow women to take over the leadership of the churches.

And by the way. Paul does not call people in service to God. God does!

That’s right.

Paul does not make the rules for God's church! God does!

Paul is an Apostle. He was inspired by God to write what he did.

That video? Isn't proof women are not fit to pastor.

What Paul wrote is the proof that women are not qualified to pastor. The woman in the video singing “Don’t listen to Paul” demonstrates that these women would not lead the church in the direction which Paul, Jesus and God would have the church to be lead. No woman in the church should be running around telling people “Don’t listen to Paul.” That’s not even weak leadership. That’s just open rebellion against the Apostle, the Messiah, and God.

 

[Matthias]

I suspect that rejection of female clergy may be incorrectly based on Paul's teachings on husband-wife relations. First up is 1 Cor. 14:34-35: “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Paul cites “the Law” as his authority. (Yup, the same “Law” that he elsewhere says we are not under, see Rom. 6:14, Gal. 5:18.) What Old Testament directive supports him? I can find none aside from Gen. 3:16: “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” But there is nothing here about women keeping silent.

Are you finding fault then with Paul?

Indeed, rather than a general statement about the relative position between men and women, this verse is about the special relation between husband and wife. If this is the “Law” that Paul meant to invoke, his words would only apply to married women.

The order in the family structure. Unmarried women were still in the family order of her parents.

A female minister whose husband was not in the congregation can’t possibly run afoul of this “Law.”

Paul wasn’t writing about female ministers.

Then there is 1 Tim. 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” This too looks to be specific to husband and wives. The word γυναικὶ used in this verse can be translated either as “woman” or as “wife” – the proper meaning being a matter of the passage’s context. No one would doubt for example, that γυναικὶ should be translated as “wife” in Matt. 19:5, or in 1 Cor. 7:3, 14, 27 and 33. So should it be in 1 Tim. 2:12, according to Luther: “Here we properly take ‘woman’ to mean ‘wife,’ as he reveals from his correlative phrase (v. 12) ‘to have authority over man,’ that is, over her husband. He calls the husband ‘man,’ so he calls the wife ‘woman.’ Where men and women have been joined together, there the men, not the women, ought to have authority. . . . He wants to save the order preserved by the world—that a man be the head of a woman, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us.” Martin Luther, Lectures on 1 Timothy, found in Luther’s Works, vol. 28, Hilton C. Oswald ed. (Concordia, 1973), 276–77.

Church leadership is modeled on the family structure. The husband‘s role is to be the leader of the family. The man’s role is to be the leader of the church family.

 

[RedFan]

Are you finding fault then with Paul?

No. I am trying to understand him.

 

[Matthias]

Going back to the video, please notice that while women are featured there are men in the background. They aren’t in the position of leadership. They are in the position of being led. They aren’t the strong; they are the weak. They aren’t leading the family structure; they have abrogated the role.

I focused in the OP on the woman saying “Don't listen to Paul.” The weak men in the background are supporting that message.

Now let’s fill the church with women and men delivering the message “Don’t listen to Paul.”

A church whose message is “Don’t listen to Paul” is a church body whose head is no longer the Messiah. The head of such a church body is the devil.

Jesus will have nothing to do with a “Don‘t listen to Paul” campaign. The devil will.

 

[Matthias]

No. I am trying to understand him.

I’m happy to hear that. Paul is right, not wrong. If we lose sight of that then we’ve lost it all. We acknowledge his authority.

Paul is under the leadership of the Messiah. The Messiah is under the leadership of God.

Paul didn’t mislead when he wrote about the roles of males and females in church and family. He is backed and supported by God and by the Messiah.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I don’t think Paul even thought there would be a 21st century and Jesus still not returned.



You‘re correct that Paul was writing to Christians, even Christians of a given city or region, or to a specific person. He wasn’t writing to persons who were not in the church. I’ll say this as diplomatically as possible: You don’t self-identify as a Christian. You self-identify as a Baha’i. I haven’t heard you say that the Baha’i faith is part of the church. If you were to make such a statement it would mot be well received by Christians. In short then, Paul, as you yourself have said, wasn’t writing to you. You interpret his writings in such a way as to make them acceptable to your Baha’i faith.

Good morning, Matthias.

No worries about diplomacy. You can be as straightforward as you deem appropriate. I have asked you for your feedback and I thank you for it.

In this case, my brother, I am not trying to reinterpret Paul's message. I fully agree with you that he meant what he wrote: he considered inappropriate to have women teaching men at church.

The view that God speaks according to the needs of the time and the audience, so that we must consider the context, is not particular to the Baha'i Faith, but held by numerous Christian leaders as well, as you have clearly pointed out. So, the natural bias posed by the religion I follow should not interfere with the appreciation or refutation of what I have posted.

I repeat now what I said in my first post: I am not in a position to give an opinion on how any specific Christian community should organize itself in regard to participation of women.

As a general principle, I believe that it is within God's plan that women will take an increasingly leading role in world's affairs. How should this translate into specific changes (if any) attempted at specific religious communities? I don't know.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Going back to the video, please notice that while women are featured there are men in the background. They aren’t in the position of leadership. They are in the position of being led. They aren’t the strong; they are the weak. They aren’t leading the family structure; they have abrogated the role.

In the video, men are not being featured in a position of leadership in the church, which is the topic of the video. The locations and the attire of the leading singers correspond to that idea.

I don't understand how you go from this to: "They aren't the strong; they are the weak".
So, if a man is not the priest of the church, does this make him weak?
I've sat many times on the back seat of project teams at work, led by women. Has that made me weak as a professional?

Then you say "They aren't leading the family structure; they have abrogated the role"
When in the video we watch a scene of family members interacting, so that we can figure out the role the father is playing?

Your assertions may be true due to other information from other sources.
I don't deny it may be part of a wider and obscure movement that does want to weaken men.
But here you are asking us "please notice" something in the video that probably is not there. Probably it is just in your eyes as a beholder, my friend. Consider that a possibility.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Shame on Adam.



Adam wasn’t deceived. Shame on Adam.

Try to take it seriously. By that one man sin entered this world. And it's still a factor.

What about Eve? She was deceived. Women tend to be susceptible to being deceived.

That remark says a lot about you.

Men have a tendency to take advantage of that tendency in women and have shamefully exploited them throughout history.

As does that one.

Satan knows it. God knows it. The Messiah knows it.

Messiah was God. Let's get that straight first.

Paul knew it. (The other Apostles also knew it.) Godly men have been placed in the role of protecting women / the church, not exploiting women / the church.

Manhood isn't a qualifier as fitness for leadership. We know this because the first man wasn't fit to lead Eve away from the serpent so to insure God's direct teachings to Adam would be enacted in that situation.

The first man was a follower. Not a leader.

That’s right. What he didn’t say as that we all have the same roles in the church.

He instead proved it by having women serve in the same role as he did in his churches. And he praised them for it

Paul defined the leadership roles in the church. The requirements for male leadership are explicitly spelled out by him.

Paul did not found Christs church! Paul started and managed his churches. Just as he repeatedly referred to his Gospel.
In focusing on minute parts of Paul's ministry,while wilfully ignoring the women who served equally beside him, you also ignore the Apostles who were anointed by Messiah,walked with him,and spread the good news the faithful in Christ are one and are the church.

Women were active in service to the church, Paul knew about it, thanked and praised them for it - but they weren’t elders and deacons - the male leadership positions in the church.

There was no such offices then. Paul praised those women who served beside him, with him. As equals.
You don't see when we are all one in Christ, sex never can divide us in that service.

There are roles of service in the church besides pastoring which are open to women.

Yes. There are other offices women also serve in besides that of pastor.

God calls us to him. And he calls those whom he chooses to the pulpit.
Those who insist gender divides us contradict the oneness of the church Paul declared under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

It isn't possible to discuss God's word after that when someone edits God's word to accommodate their preference for gender segregation of God's church.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Those who insist gender divides us contradict the oneness of the church Paul declared under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I found all your post very interesting, my brother.
This last sentence is particularly insightful. We can read in Paul's letter that one of his priorities was to keep the believers united.
Unity, oneness, was at the top of his list of concerns. Unity between converts from Jewish or Greek background, the rich and the poor, the free and the slave, men and women. He dedicated a great proportion of his writings to preserve this unity.

Having said that, we must admit that, for Paul, one of the ways to preserve unity within the church was to preserve order. This also shows in several places of his writings. Take, for example, his views on the gift of tongues, or the advice to eat before coming to celebrate Lord's Supper.

To me, Paul's advice on the role of women at church had the intention to preserve order and therefore unity, in comunities where having a woman teaching would have divided the brethren between those who felt offended and those who didn't.

I read some time ago that in the first Christian communities there were wealthy, highly-educated, well-spoken ladies from Greco-Roman cultural background used to behave very independently from their husbands. Before converting to Christ, some of them could have been engaged in behaviors unthinkable for women of Jewish or poorer origins, such as indulging in sexual pleasures outside the bond of marriage. These ladies, after conversion, had provided significant money or material resources to the church. Some of them could have felt entitled to play a dominant role as leaders, and people from poorer background, or a Jewish background, used to a more submissive role of wives, could have felt offended by a demeanor they found threatening.

Whether those sophisticated Greek ladies were capable or not for teaching was not the issue. Whether they were showing arrogance or just naturality was not the issue. The issue is that Paul would not afford for division and chaos. So, under divine inspiration, he gave the best advise that was possible for that context. These ladies had to dress and behave like the most modest among the women at church.

 

[BlessedPeace]

I found all your post very interesting, my brother.
This last sentence is particularly insightful. We can read in Paul's letter that one of his priorities was to keep the believers united.
Unity, oneness, was at the top of his list of concerns. Unity between converts from Jewish or Greek background, the rich and the poor, the free and the slave, men and women. He dedicated a great proportion of his writings to preserve this unity.

Having said that, we must admit that, for Paul, one of the ways to preserve unity within the church was to preserve order. This also shows in several places of his writings. Take, for example, his views on the gift of tongues, or the advice to eat before coming to celebrate Lord's Supper.

To me, Paul's advice on the role of women at church had the intention to preserve order and therefore unity, in comunities where having a woman teaching would have divided the brethren between those who felt offended and those who didn't.

I read some time ago that in the first Christian communities there were wealthy, highly-educated, well-spoken ladies from Greco-Roman cultural background used to behave very independently from their husbands. Before converting to Christ, some of them could have been engaged in behaviors unthinkable for women of Jewish or poorer origins, such as indulging in sexual pleasures outside the bond of marriage. These ladies, after conversion, had provided significant money or material resources to the church. Some of them could have felt entitled to play a dominant role as leaders, and people from poorer background, or a Jewish background, used to a more submissive role of wives, could have felt offended by a demeanor they found threatening.

Whether those sophisticated Greek ladies were capable or not for teaching was not the issue. Whether they were showing arrogance or just naturality was not the issue. The issue is that Paul would not afford for division and chaos. So, under divine inspiration, he gave the best advise that was possible for that context. These ladies had to dress and behave like the most modest among the women at church.

View attachment 46436

Here's the issue of difference between the Apostles that walked with Messiah and Saul,also called Paul. His name was not changed so to eradicate the original Hebrew.

Messiah had women in his company. They served him and with him in his ministry. Three women were at Calvary. Two found his tomb empty. Those two entered the upper room and led the other Apostles to see for themselves their Lord was resurrected.

In that culture at that time 11 men would not have followed 2 women. Nor for that matter would a Rabbi,as some referred to our Messiah, had women traveling with his itinerate ministry.

Yeshua/ Jesus set the example. A self identified Pharisee cannot contradict that nor himself when identifying the church,the faithful,as one. Order is insured by men?

Adam disproved that. Righteous example? Lot disproved that.

And later,so too did Yeshua.

 

[Matthias]

In the video, men are not being featured in a position of leadership in the church, which is the topic of the video. The locations and the attire of the leading singers correspond to that idea.

I don't understand how you go from this to: "They aren't the strong; they are the weak".
So, if a man is not the priest of the church, does this make him weak?

The biblical prescription for the family structure as well as the church structure is for the males to be the head. Males who abandon that role weaken the family structure / church structure.

I've sat many times on the back seat of project teams at work, led by women. Has that made me weak as a professional?

If you have no control over the circumstance then I wouldn’t consider you weak. I worked in government for 35 years and for over half of that time my supervisors were female. As time passed, DEI became the hiring policy. It became virtually impossible for a white male to be promoted to a management position. Just before I retired the supervisor’s position in the program I worked in became vacant. I applied for the job, having worked in that program in a non-supervisory capacity for 20 years. One other person applied for the position, a female with 2 years of work experience, none of it related to the work of the section. My background is in civil engineering. The background of the other applicant was in biology. Two females and one male conducted the interviews. One of the females told me that it was an easy decision: 20 years of work in the program vs. 0 years of work in the program. No one had worked longer in the history of the program than I had. One of my responsibilities was to train new people in the program. As the woman told me, no one knew the program, inside and out, as well as I did.

I wasn’t hired to fill the position. The woman who told me that it was an easy decision was surprised. I was the candidate that the interviewers had recommended. Their recommendation was rejected. DEI was the standing order of the day.

Not that it matters but I decided to retire a year later. The woman who was hired to fill the management position was fired for being incompetent 2 years after she was hired. That’s government for you.

Then you say "They aren't leading the family structure; they have abrogated the role"
When in the video we watch a scene of family members interacting, so that we can figure out the role the father is playing?

The men play a subtle role in the video. They aren’t positioned as leaders. They are positioned as the weaker vessel in the family / church structure. The head of the family / church structure is male. The men are abandoning that role, celebrating the destruction of the family / church structure and supporting the message of the women. The women clearly know and understand that what Paul wrote is standing in the way of them getting what they want. Meanwhile, the men may or may not know and understand what Paul wrote. The women are in a stronger position if the men do know and understand what Paul wrote. They are united, presumably with a full knowledge and understanding of what Paul wrote. Both men and women are trumpeting the message, “Paul is standing in our way. Don’t listen to Paul!”

The video is presenting a united front against the Apostle.

Your assertions may be true due to other information from other sources.
I don't deny it may be part of a wider and obscure movement that does want to weaken men.
But here you are asking us "please notice" something in the video that probably is not there. Probably it is just in your eyes as a beholder, my friend. Consider that a possibility.

 

[Matthias]

Good morning, Matthias.

No worries about diplomacy. You can be as straightforward as you deem appropriate. I have asked you for your feedback and I thank you for it.

Very well then. You’re an outsider. Paul is an insider, and an Apostle. What he wrote isn’t for outsiders. What he wrote is binding for insiders, not outsiders.

In this case, my brother, I am not trying to reinterpret Paul's message. I fully agree with you that he meant what he wrote: he considered inappropriate to have women teaching men at church.

Even to an outside such as yourself it’s clear that Paul considered it inappropriate to have women teaching men at church. Pastors are responsible for teaching men (and women, and children) at church. It is, in part, what the office requires. It is, therefore, inappropriate from Paul’s perspective and teaching for women to serve as pastors, since they couldn’t fulfill the responsibility of the office.

The view that God speaks according to the needs of the time and the audience, so that we must consider the context, is not particular to the Baha'i Faith, but held by numerous Christian leaders as well, as you have clearly pointed out. So, the natural bias posed by the religion I follow should not interfere with the appreciation or refutation of what I have posted.

I repeat now what I said in my first post: I am not in a position to give an opinion on how any specific Christian community should organize itself in regard to participation of women.

You aren’t. Paul is. It is Paul’s voice, not the outsider’s voice, that carries the day for the insider.

As a general principle, I believe that it is within God's plan that women will take an increasingly leading role in world's affairs. How should this translate into specific changes (if any) attempted at specific religious communities? I don't know.

Paul’s concern is the church, not world affairs.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

“Founded in 1975, the Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC) is a grass-roots driven movement that promotes activism, dialogue, and prayerful witness to call for women’s ordination and gender equity in the Roman Catholic Church.”

This is a music video the WOC produced for the cause.

The lyric which caught my attention: ”Don’t listen to Saint Paul, ’Cuz I can lead the way.”

Setting aside that this a Roman Catholic fight, it is an issue that has come up and continues to come up in Protestant circles.

”Don’t listen to Saint Paul” is an argument which I don’t find persuasive.

Can that hurdle be cleared using scripture?

Can that hurdle be cleared using scripture? Yes. The Women’s Ordination Conference will never reach their goals. The Church is discussing greater roles for women in the Church, but the Church will never ordain women to be priests. Never. It's contrary to the complementarity of the sexes. That's God's design. Most Catholics view WOC as a bunch of radical feminists more interested in power and prestige than service.

The CC teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet).
Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the CC (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family).

1 Cor. 11:3 – “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.” Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers.

THE PRIESTHOOD - FATHERS, CELIBACY & WOMEN'S ORDINATION - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 I. The Elders of the Church are Called “Fathers” and the Faithful “Children”2 II. The Lord, Mary, the Apostles and Others Refer to Spiritual Leaders as “Fathers”3 III. Other Examples Where Jesus Uses the Word “Father” When Teaching4 IV. Celibacy is Church Practice, Not Dogma5 V. Women...

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

St. Pope John Paul II: Letter to Women

2. This word of thanks to the Lord for his mysterious plan regarding the vocation and mission of women in the world is at the same time a concrete and direct word of thanks to women, to every woman, for all that they represent in the life of humanity.

Thank you, women who are mothers! You have sheltered human beings within yourselves in a unique experience of joy and travail. This experience makes you become God's own smile upon the newborn child, the one who guides your child's first steps, who helps it to grow, and who is the anchor as the child makes its way along the journey of life.

Thank you, women who are wives! You irrevocably join your future to that of your husbands, in a relationship of mutual giving, at the service of love and life.

Thank you, women who are daughters and women who are sisters! Into the heart of the family, and then of all society, you bring the richness of your sensitivity, your intuitiveness, your generosity and fidelity.

Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery", to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.

Thank you, consecrated women! Following the example of the greatest of women, the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, you open yourselves with obedience and fidelity to the gift of God's love. You help the Church and all mankind to experience a "spousal" relationship to God, one which magnificently expresses the fellowship which God wishes to establish with his creatures.

Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman! Through the insight which is so much a part of your womanhood you enrich the world's understanding and help to make human relations more honest and authentic.

3. I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity.

Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honoured the dignity which women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon?

Yes, it is time to examine the past with courage, to assign responsibility where it is due in a review of the long history of humanity. Women have contributed to that history as much as men and, more often than not, they did so in much more difficult conditions. I think particularly of those women who loved culture and art, and devoted their lives to them in spite of the fact that they were frequently at a disadvantage from the start, excluded from equal educational opportunities, underestimated, ignored and not given credit for their intellectual contributions.

Sadly, very little of women's achievements in history can be registered by the science of history. But even though time may have buried the documentary evidence of those achievements, their beneficent influence can be felt as a force which has shaped the lives of successive generations, right up to our own. To this great, immense feminine "tradition" humanity owes a debt which can never be repaid. Yet how many women have been and continue to be valued more for their physical appearance than for their skill, their professionalism, their intellectual abilities, their deep sensitivity; in a word, the very dignity of their being!

4. And what shall we say of the obstacles which in so many parts of the world still keep women from being fully integrated into social, political and economic life? We need only think of how the gift of motherhood is often penalized rather than rewarded, even though humanity owes its very survival to this gift. Certainly, much remains to be done to prevent discrimination against those who have chosen to be wives and mothers. As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic State.

Letter to Women (June 29, 1995) | John Paul II

Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, male, female, Women's dignity, woman, solidarity, John Paul II, Women

www.vatican.va

 

[BlessedPeace]

The biblical prescription for the family structure as well as the church structure is for the males to be the head. Males who abandon that role weaken the family structure / church structure.



If you have no control over the circumstance then I wouldn’t consider you weak. I worked in government for 35 years and for over half of that time my supervisors were female. As time passed, DEI became the hiring policy. It became virtually impossible for a white male to be promoted to a management position. Just before I retired the supervisor’s position in the program I worked in became vacant. I applied for the job, having worked in that program in a non-supervisory capacity for 20 years. One other person applied for the position, a female with 2 years of work experience, none of it related to the work of the section. My background is in civil engineering. The background of the other applicant was in biology. Two females and one male conducted the interviews. One of the females told me that it was an easy decision: 20 years of work in the program vs. 0 years of work in the program. No one had worked longer in the history of the program than I had. One of my responsibilities was to train new people in the program. As the woman told me, no one knew the program, inside and out, as well as I did.

I wasn’t hired to fill the position. The woman who told me that it was an easy decision was surprised. I was the candidate that the interviewers had recommended. Their recommendation was rejected. DEI was the standing order of the day.

Not that it matters but I decided to retire a year later. The woman who was hired to fill the management position was fired for being incompetent 2 years after she was hired. That’s government for you.



The men play a subtle role in the video. They aren’t positioned as leaders. They are positioned as the weaker vessel in the family / church structure. The head of the family / church structure is male. The men are abandoning that role, celebrating the destruction of the family / church structure and supporting the message of the women. The women clearly know and understand that what Paul wrote is standing in the way of them getting what they want. Meanwhile, the men may or may not know and understand what Paul wrote. The women are in a stronger position if the men do know and understand what Paul wrote. They are united, presumably with a full knowledge and understanding of what Paul wrote. Both men and women are trumpeting the message, “Paul is standing in our way. Don’t listen to Paul!”

The video is presenting a united front against the Apostle.

Now your position against women in authority makes sense. It's personal.

It can never actually be Biblical.

https://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/Issues/2015/Spring-2015/What-Paul-Really-Says-About-Women-in-Ministry

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Women are not inferior, "they are complementary," he said, and this also means women should be bringing their own unique gifts and talent and must not try to be like men. Pope Francis said that "both ways must work together: The woman, equal to the man, works for the common good with that insight that women have. I have seen that in the Vatican, every time a woman comes in to do a job in the Vatican, things get better."
source

 

[Matthias]

Now your position against women in authority makes sense. It's personal.

It’s not personal.

The position against women serving as pastors is deeply rooted in church history. (See again the video. That’s their complaint.) If you wish to maintain that it‘s been personal with church leaders throughout the centuries, go ahead.

It can never actually be Biblical.

See above.

 

[Matthias]

“Churches that affirm women pastors will eventually, in time, become churches that will affirm LGBTQ+ pastors.” - Wade Lentz

x.com

x.com

Because everyone knows it’s personal with Baptist pastors, right?

* Sparkle Creed. Sparkle Creed. Sparkle Creed. *

 

[BlessedPeace]

It’s not personal.

Of course it is.
Your experience at work has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing. Yet,you introduced it and went into detail as to how you were wronged by those in authority who set in your view a less qualified candidate in the position you applied for. And she was female.

None of that means anything to this topic.

The position against women serving as pastors is deeply rooted in church history. (See again the video. That’s their complaint.) If you wish to maintain that it‘s been personal with church leaders throughout the centuries, go ahead.

Go ahead and read the link I shared. God and Paul proved the churches you cite in error.

See above.

The sparkle creed. That video is pathetic. Shame on you thinking it credible in supporting your point.

 

[Matthias]

Your experience at work has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing.

Context. I answered a specific question directed to me in this thread concerning a man working under women in the workplace, not in the church. (I expressly told him that I would not call him weak.)

. Yet,you introduced it and went into detail as to how you were wronged by those in authority who set in your view a less qualified candidate in the position you applied for. And she was female.

The two females and the one male who interviewed us recommended me. A male DEI director decided against the interviewers’ recommendation. If the other person had been a black male, the male DEI director would have made the same hiring decision. The females involved in this situation were on my side.

None of that means anything to this topic.

Go ahead and read the link I shared. God and Paul proved the churches you cite in error.

The sparkle creed. That video is pathetic. Shame on you thinking it credible in supporting your point.

Are you following the battle for the life of the SBC?