Christian Forums

Wiley,

I misrepresented the truth there. Sorry. It was not only the men. The women were quite clear that the traditional practice of invisible silence in respect to male authority is just the way they like it. In my experience, women are most resistant to a wider role and being more functional in the worship. I find it more painful to be reprimanded and shunned by my own sex, so I was in a moment of denial when I made that post.

I would like to say that here, in this forum, I have found more acceptance among my fellow Christians than any other community ... and I think most of you are men! You gentlemen give me hope. Thank you for listening to me and challenging me as you do each other. Thank you for not patronising me or avoiding me. I sit at your feet and learn everyday and I am blessed.

Wiely,

My heart goes out to you and your family. Having a child in the ministry is stressfull enough ... but a daughter! I wanted to be in the ministry when I was young, but did not have the courage to put the words together -- even to myself. Now that I am well into middle age, I can look back over the geography of my life and see that the career choices I made kept me close enough to the outside to see through the windows of the ministry. My best friends are ministers. But even as a teenager, I questioned our exclusively male leadership. Of course I blamed the men at first, but by my early 30's I figured out that the church is like a marriage. "It takes two to tango" and all of that. So, I began to try to look at the situation like a marriage counselor would. To try to find the knotted, frozen up places and to gently begin the thawing process which would loosen up the knots. My husband has helped me with this over the years. He does not see the supression of women as an exclusively male sin either. This is very hard to communicate, though. Human beings are highly adaptable creatures and will find a way to be comfortable and even to prefer supression. We will adapt to positive situations or what we call "progress" as well as we adapt to change that comes to us through trauma. And, I have to say, that I worry  about some of the ways leaderships are moving congregations toward a accepting a "wider role for women." I worry that the results will be short term and women will be in a worse place than before. It is a well-documented pattern in women's history that when women are given more room to move (and the room to move will always be granted or taken away by the men) it is shortly -- within a generation or less -- taken back with force. This is not true in every case, but is common enough in history that we should be alert. I think the problem lies in the problem of the church adapting to a rule or norm of social justice. Social justice is a changing thing which is related to the idea of "progress." Progess is more than change -- the idea of progress is a way human beings explain the experience of what we see as positive change. Change is the only thing that never changes and change can be good and change can be bad. Womankind will always have our "ups" and "downs" on the chart of change. When the world view is positive toward women, we call it "progress" when it is negative, we call it "necessary." Unless the church addresses the deep spiritual meaning of Man and Woman we will simply being riding the wave of social progress which will be a short term solution to the old-as-time issue of feminine mercy to male superiority, and we will continue to suppress women because we have not even scratched the surface of what God intended in this mystical union of male and female. What I am trying to say is that the current turn of events toward accepting women in ministry and in "wider roles" is, indeed a response to a social climate which will not accept our old practice and now we are scrambling to educate our members. But we will never unravel the knot, and we will only be riding the tide of social progress rather than making a deep transition if we stop at the point of social justice and go no further. Social justice is barely a beginning, in my opinion to healing the rift between Man and Woman. Social justice might be the beginning which begins to turn us toward transition, but it will not heal with any depth. The 100+ years of social change which has only scratched the surface of justice toward people of color in this country, should give us some idea of how the road for women is much longer and much more perilous and deep it is than "will we or will we not allow her to pass the communion plate." Actually, the hands of a woman touching the communion plate is a very deep psycological and social taboo which is related to the power of feminine blood. I could go into this, but it would take too long. But that is why some women fear it. Women are deeply wired to avoid or to stand back from the holy of holies, and this is because of the spiritual/biological and very mystical moon-cycle of blood which is also a deep issue in Judaisim. But we don't want to go there. It is too perilous. Too knotty. Too dark. And so we will ride the tide of "progress and social injustice" and avoid the real change the real transitions that John the Baptist and Jesus were calling us to.

Arkstfan,

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I don't expect us to be able to reach the critical mass within our own group for people to grasp the change until they've actually seen a woman do something other than teach the 10 and under Sunday School classes and actually walk up to the lecturn and SPEAK.[/quote]

Maybe your congregation needs to hire Katie Hayes to come in and do a three day meeting. :)  Wish I could get my congregation to do that but that would be about as likely to happen as having a snow storm in North Central Texas in late July.

Wiley

Bill, I hear what you are saying, but the woman ate first. The moment she ate the Fall was in action. Whatever Adam did was secondary to her sin. If he was near her at the time, we cannot know. The writer does not seem to think the proximity or presence of Adam was necessary during the dialougue between the Woman and the Serpent. So, from a literary point of view the story is hers until he enters, otherwise he is just cluttering up the stage. The woman's sin was motivated out of what we could call reasonable intentions. She wanted to be percieved by others as good. How many men and women fall into that to our peril! Adam demonstrated character flaws too, but he did not sin first.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]patricia, yes we do KNOW Adam was with her--Genesis 3:6--"She also gave some to ther husband, WHO WAS WITH HER, and he ate it." Then in 3:9--"But the Lord called to the man, 'Where are you?'" We can skirt the edges, trying to keep from offending woman, but God has made man accountable in many aspects of this awesome relationship between us and Him. Does that mean Eve did not sin and has no responsibility? No, but Adam's silence was wrong, and he was held accountable. But that doesn't mean women can't hold positions that God has called them to. See I think we still think too often, think in terms of the building being the church and that is supposedly where all the rules apply. Do you ever run into someone and God uses you with them, mightily, male or female? Do you share what God has shown you? That is what it is about. Do you ever encourage or sacrifice for your brother and feed them and have community outside the confines of what we assume is church? That is much closer to what Jesus meant by assembling than what goes on in the structures today. We just keep looking at it from our perspective and need to undo some of our misconceptions of what "church" means. We lead by serving--do you ever serve? I am sure the answer is yes. The Lord's supper was a SUPPER. Women, mostly, in every other instance are usually the ones who serve supper, (dictates of men?). but then i don't want to go off in another direction about the supper of the Lord (maybe another thread another time) but to just look at our way of thinking about church.

seekr[/quote]
There are several problems with that "with her" part. My favorite translations don't use it  :D  But even if the correct translation from the Hebrew did say "with her" what does that mean? If you and me are the only two people in Yosemite are you "with me" in that huge valley if we are a half mile away from each other? I would say so. Also if he was "with her" then he must have been decieved by the serpent too (unless he was snoozing under the tree) which explains why the Hebrew understanding at the time of Paul was that the woman was decieved by the serpent and not the Man. The official rabbinical belief at the time of Paul was that the woman tricked Adam into eating. Paul says she was a "transgressor." Hebrews believed that the woman not only trasgressed the law of God, but also her husband. Also, consider that this story is written in epic style. Things like time and distance were not important to the writer, no more important than they were in the creation story before it or the expulsion story after. Hey! Where did Cain get that wife anyway? We don't know because we are at the mercy of what the Storyteller decided was important. "Don't confuse them with the details. Keep it down to the nitty gritty." And by the amount of text devoted to the woman's experience with the serpent, it was very important to the Storyteller that we know that the Woman sinned first. Being first was important to Hebrews. First things were a big part of their culture ... firstborn, firstfruits. Paul wanted us to know that he was the chief of sinners. Not to show off, but to confirm that God can take a last chance and make it a first runner. That is why we must acknowledge in the text that the Woman was the first sinner (the lowest of the low, as we hear in Miriam, Hannah and Mary's prayers, or songs) so that we can see this feminine "chief of sinners" exalted to the position of a living Holy of Holies bearing the Firstfruits of the Kingdom. Once she brought death to the world, now she comes bearing Abundant Life! Yes, Mary is Eve. So is Sarai, Hagar, Bathsheba, Tamar, Rahab, the woman at Capernaum, the woman at the well and many, many others. When Man (humankind) can redeem Woman as Christ redeemed her, then we will be transformed into a truly divine community and we will have a big, healthy, hearty laugh over those communion trays!

<< patriciaredstone, I still don't understand ther difference between equal and equivelence as you spoke of although I agree with what you said about equivelence in regard to men & women.
I see men and women being equal in God's eyes and they should be in ours.  Equal may not be the right word because we are different but different is not gender specific, we are all diferent.  Each person should be able to use their God given talents. >>

Bill,

Equality has begin with a standard. How far are we willing to go in each others direction to reach this standard? How much debate are we willing to endure before we just give up. An apple can only go so far to reaching the standard of an orange and vice-versa. After all of the debate about weight, juice volume, color, skin quality and thickness, in the end we will still have an apple and an orange plus a lot of bruised fruit.

I think "neither male or female" is not a call to equality, but to equivalence. I cannot be a man or possess some of the qualities inherent in manhood and the experience of maleness. I don't even want to. But I want to have intimacy with man. I want to see him as God sees him and  I want man to see me ... to see womankind as God sees her. I want a spiritual value in my relationship to man that can only be damaged through a striving for equality. You cannot make an orange an apple but you can make them compatible and even more delightful than they are in isolation in a fruit salad! (Note: If you don't like the orange and apple comparison try pineapple and papaya ... yum!) When man and woman combine their seperate attributes and virtues, character and values ... appreciate the differences of each without struggling to imitate or bring one another down ... then we will be a ambrosia offering to God. A delightful mingling of flavors into One flavor in the mouth of the divine.  

Hi, this is my first visit here so I'll make a quick comment then disappear for several days.  Most of you speak of baptism as being immersed in water, which I am sure is certainly biblical.  However, there is another "baptism" spoken of which relates to the Spirit's work in our lives.  After all, the original word "baptizo", if I understand correctly, meant to dip (as you would dip a cloth into dye) in order to change the object. The cloth in this case changed from one color to another.  So it is with the Spirit.  When we are "baptized" in the Spirit of God we are changed people.  I think the significance of this "baptism" is almost completely ignored in C of C circles.  The "water baptism" which is most proudly and exclusively taught is in my opinion only a "symbol" of the change the Holy Spirit works in all our lives.   I spent thirty years in the C of C and resigned as an elder nearly two years.  I suppose you can tell why?   :)

Arkstfan:  

We meet again :D.  I think that your points about the prevenience of grace--salvation b/f baptism--or the mysterious "household baptisms" of the Acts (they're probably were children in those households, folks.... :0); simply reflect a more "nuanced" view of the scriptures--the consistency, or the need for it, dear Horatio, is in us.  We want there to be "a plan" when, in fact, there are numerous routes to salvation in the N.T.  Five-finger exercise, and o/w.  

I've had some really "fun" encounters w/ Roman Catholic priests and/or scholars on the same points:  They, too, admit that scripture never entirely "fits" the authoritative dogma pronounced by the magisterium.  They're better students of the scriptures, now, than that.  Apparently, folks in the churches of Christ are, too.  

Tell me:  I gather from your "picture" that you are a jazz fan?  Verdad?  Oui?  Si ou non?

Patricia... WOW!

Thanks for that you've gotten me off on a water tangent now.

Jonah was buried in the water.
God created the land to seperate water from water.
Moses was rescued out of the water
The quail were blown in from the sea.
Jesus calmed the sea.
Jesus walked on the water.

And on and on.

Charlie:  

May God help us all (I mean that) if we buy into cheap grace.  Bonhoeffer coined the term, and he walked the walk.  Your words really hit home as Good Friday approaches.  

You hear a lot about their being some kind of "divide" b/n the local ministers/pastors, the regional pastors and staff, and the national church leaders.  I'd bet that that might be true at the national church level, although I sense that that disconnect is coming to an end.  I've heard that the national office are all Democrats, so that must make them bad, right? so the reasoning goes.  I'm one, too, so that must make me bound for the infernal regions.   :D

I think that we have some very evangelical, or fundamental, people--inerrancy, Virgin Birth, and so on--their witness can be found at <www.disciple-heritage.org>.  You can check the website; frankly, I don't think that they are well (I have to say it) all that intellectually gifted, and the issues they have seized upon have really alienated them from the rank-and-file.  What disturbs me most, I suppose, is the Disciple Renewal/Heritage self-describes themselves as evangelicals; and that, I respectfully submit, has never been a "tag" for Stone-Campbell people.  

I am first and foremost a pastoral minister.  I'm not trying to lead anybody astray.  I think that our national church folks, in particular the general minster and president, Richard Hamm, are reemphasizing church growth, vitality, and--here's the point, for myself--a church in fidelity to scripture. You can look at Dr. Hamm's latest pastoral letter to the church at this link:  

<http://www.disciples.org/internal/news/hammletter.htm>

The letter kind of makes the point that DoC's are a "non-doctrinal" bunch, just trying to live out a vision of the kingdom/reign of God.  I would like to think that vision/reign is more "non-coercive" than some would like, but, in the end, it includes a pretty diverse bunch:  liberals, conservatives, and the majority--middle-of-the-road types.  

So, to answer your question:  Yep, there probably is some divide b/n the pew and the pulpit, but that's more our fault for not provoking the people to be passionate about their beliefs, and to "do theology" daily--i.e. think about, then act on their beliefs about God's activity in the world.

DoC's won't present you w/ a list of things you have to believe; we don't do that.  It probably is the preachers' fault for failing to present a boldness in our teaching.  

So..........I guess that I take a pretty-darned optimistic view of the "dynamic DoC's"; we're changing, unfreezing, and getting going.  Some of our most gifted preachers are, again, breaking open the word of God afresh; and even schmucks like myself can at least try to do that, every Sunday.  

And, if what I'm reading is correct, you churches of Christ kindred are doing the same.  Things bode well for the future, don't they?

Patricia,

Thanks for the insight into this subject.  Do you remember the issue of Wineskins that Carmen Beaubeaux's article ran in?  I probably read it but then I have read many articles in Wineskins over the years!  Maybe if I'm lucky, I still have that issue.  I made the mistake of loaning a whole stack of my Wineskins to the elders of the now defunct local congregation (where Linda and I spent 20 years) on the condition they would be returned after everyone had read them.  Guess what--they either threw them out or used them for bird cage paper (or something similar!) because my magazines never came home.  Did hear some round about comments that they DID NOT like them!  Seems that the main reason they wanted to read my magazines was to try to find Andre Resner's article that was so badly maligned.  They just didn't want to tell me that was what they were really looking for.

Have you read the latest issue of BAR?  They have an article on mikva'ot (notice the change in spelling from my last post--I'm a terrible speller and can butcher almost any word at any conceivable time :0) that is quite interesting.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]To address your question about John at the Jordan. I think John used the water at the Jordan to mark a moment of transition. The word John was using, "repent" is "metanoia" which means a profound change of heart or change of mind ... a transformation in goals and life direction. This change of spiritual direction was expressed by John to the world. [/quote]

We think alike here.  The people (Hebrew and Gentile alike) of that time period were very familiar with the use of immersion as a ritualistic ceremony (both religious cleansing and initiatory) so it was easy for them to accept John's immersion in the Jordan as a turning point.  However, I also see it as the preparation that was required to make the coming immersion at and after Pentecost more easily understandable and acceptable.  Jumping from the old ideas of the mikveh to the new at Pentecost would have been too much of a transition in my thinking for many to make without the intermediate step that God supplied through John.  Coming from the mikveh using the mikva'ot to John's immersion using of the river for living water (a continuously flowing source rather than stored rain which qualified as living water), to the immersions on Pentecost (where we are not told where they occurred - read some speculation that many may have occured in the many mikva'ots found around the Temple mount instead of a river or continuous source of living water) would have been an easier transition to invision, especially if many of those at Pentecost had also qalready been immersed by John (which I personally feel was probably the case).

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]This, I believe is why cirucmcision was such topic of debate in the early church. The Christian water rituals were not only gender inclusive, but they excluded the salvific properties of male blood offerings in circumcision and they actually imaged the feminine blood offering in childbirth.
[/quote]

Interesting thought.  I'll have to ponder that some.

Wiley

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Patricia, you seem to be well informed in this area. Do you know if the Orthodox still practice triune immersion on their children? I know they did at one time, but have lost track. William Willimon, of Duke University, also has an insightful view of water as he discusses baptism as an image of surrender and death. I like Luther's comment on baptism; "Baptism is grace clutching you by the throat." I believe it is in Willimon's book, The Service of God, but that is from  memory, and I could be way off. Perhaps some member of the forum is familiar with this book. Music is also an area where some composers have tried to capture the nature of water as a creative element. Have you heard Hovaness (check spelling) "And God Made Great Whales"?[/quote]
Actually, Bob, I do not consider myself to be well-informed about water rituals. I like to read though, and one thing leads me to another... Willimon is a familiar name. I know I have read something by him ... maybe an essay or article ... but I don't see anything in my library at a glance. In my study of water and the elements I have found the work of Vigen Guroian, an Armenian Orthodox and a professor at Loyola College in Baltimore; and Krister Stendahl a NT scholar at Harvard to be helpful. But poetry, classical visual art and thinkers like Martin Buber and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin help me the most.

The Orthodox triune immersion is news to me. Do you know the theology behind it? At a guess I would say it was based on Deuteronomy 10:12-13 (the heart of Judaism or the "three legged stool") ... to walk in God's ways ... to love and serve Adonai with all your heart ... and to keep the commandments and statues.

I love that Luther quote! Another good one is from the Babylonian Talmud "Don't say 'Look! Water! Water is here! We must turn back!' What?! Did you really think you could see God and live?"

I have not heard Hovaness. I will look it up. As far as music about the spiritual witness of the elements, I love the canticles of Hildegard of Bingen.

These have been some of the most thoughtful exchanges I have seen anytime, anywhere! Articulate and thought-out responses are rather rare in our instant results culture. Thank all of you for your input in this wide-ranging discussion. On the women's issue, which is probably more of a men's issue than we can possibly imagine, I have a good friend in Huntsville, AL who attends a progressive church, but this church is "uncomfortable" (both  men and women) with granting too much in the way of conceding women more public opportunities in most situations. My friend now says that the only way to implement greater scope for using women is simply to put out a call far and wide that this will be a feature of a new church planting, and have it in the "mission statement" from the very beginning. Can this be true, and would this not represent another "split"? Or, do you view most new church plantings as some sort of "split"? Are such actions sometimes necessary and can God use them? Or, should we be willing to wait centuries for God's own timing to end an evil and begin a new course, say along the line of the dismantling of slavery in the Roman Empire after Constantine I? Of course, some would argue that we have waited 20 centuries too long in the case of women.

Bob, the plant concept can work well if folks understand that it is part of growing Christ's church and not splitting the Main Street congregation. We like a choice in flavors and I see nothing wrong with a congregation saying we like doing things this way but it is purely a matter of preference. Our community needs a congregation that will do it the other way because the other way is just a preference too so let's plant a congregation to meet that need.

Patricia [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am hearing many Christians from some of the "evolved" congregations who feel they have all of the "difficult scripture" bases covered with the certified "progressive" defenses and refuse to delve any deeper than the surface result: women passing out communion trays ... or teaching a class ... or singing a solo! Come on! This is no more evolved than the old-timers who actually let women in the auditorium if they keep their mouths shut.[/quote]

I don't think that is totally accurate. You can't get to the "progressive surface result" within the cofC tradition without digging quite a bit deeper. Our newly minted congregation is certainly  not of one accord on the issue of women teaching in the assembly. I don't expect us to be able to reach the critical mass within our own group for people to grasp the change until they've actually seen a woman do something other than teach the 10 and under Sunday School classes and actually walk up to the lecturn and SPEAK.

Despite our best efforts and fervent prayers we have to take the improvements where we find them. If that means before a woman can preach one has to lead a prayer and before we can get the pray said we have to start with singing a solo then get 'er up there and belt it out so we can get this train moving.

Does that mean those who think gender equity is REQUIRED should shut the heck up and sit down? No way because the growth stops when that happens but that doesn't mean the small surface movements should be ignored because within the culture of the cofC in the southern US those movements are not seen as being small to the people in the pews.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (patriciaredstone @ Mar. 30 2002,05:27)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Bill, I hear what you are saying, but the woman ate first. The moment she ate the Fall was in action. Whatever Adam did was secondary to her sin. If he was near her at the time, we cannot know. The writer does not seem to think the proximity or presence of Adam was necessary during the dialougue between the Woman and the Serpent. So, from a literary point of view the story is hers until he enters, otherwise he is just cluttering up the stage. The woman's sin was motivated out of what we could call reasonable intentions. She wanted to be percieved by others as good. How many men and women fall into that to our peril! Adam demonstrated character flaws too, but he did not sin first.[/quote]
To take this to it's illogical and absurd conclusion, Adam in his role as head of the household did certainly sin first in that he did not properly instruct Eve to the degree where she would have resisted the serpents entreaties as would be right and proper. When we apply the "Captain of the Ship" theory to deny women a role, we must accept the theory consistently and in it's entirety.

My poor head is spinning just trying to follow this exchange like Charlie. I am afraid I am a simple man and these convolutions of reason are quite beyond me.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (kebecer1 @ Mar. 30 2002,2:02)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Patricia:

I like the way you read scripture, and I gather that you are an artist and/or poet:  I really don't think that there's any one way to read the scriptures--St Paul certainly "wandered" from midrash to typology, to full-blown Greco-Roman rhetoric ("You foolish Galatians!  Who has bewitched you?").  

If that's how you read the Lukan text re:  "Who touched me?", more power to ye!   :D   We need far more voices like yours, to separate us from our prejudices.  You are swimming in deep waters, and I wish you well:  Help me get out of the shallows.

Best to you, too, in Eastertide![/quote]
That Eastertide with joy was bright,
The sun shone out with fairer light,
When, to their longing eyes restored,
The glad apostles saw the Christ.

Christ bade them see His hands, His side,
Where yet the glorious wounds abide;
The tokens true which made it plain
That Christ indeed was risen again.

O Christ, the fount of gentleness,
Do You Yourself our hearts possess
That we may give You all our days
The tribute of our grateful praise.

O God of all, with us abide
In this our joyful Eastertide;
From every weapon death can wield
Your own redeemed forever shield.

All praise be Yours, O risen Christ,
From death to endless life restored;
All praise to God Creator be
And Holy Ghost eternally.


A joyous Eastertide to you and yours

Thanks Patricia.

Bill

Ark, No theory (that I am aware of) about the origen of the Talmud excludes the Holy Spirit. So, I guess my answer would be no.