@Aigle I was actually trying to tease out a little more where you were coming from. I'm glad you can see that mothers are leaders; now given that, consider the case where a family loses the father. I'm sure we'd agree that this is a real loss but the family is not thereby doomed to failure. Perhaps we can agree that even if the mother is not able to remarry and supply the children with a surrogate father it's possible that God can give her the grace to raise her children well.

In such a case do you think it would be "wrong" for the mother to take on "father" roles? If not, is there a particular reason you think that such thinking is not also applicable to church life?

@bruisedreed The question is a big question.I dont think a car will run as well when there missing some essentials parts.I dont think God created the world one way just so It can run just as well another.But sinces God knows problems will come He can restore .And that is a major part of the church,to restore.But the central part is however you see it,is that the roles need to be complete and He is coming for his perfect Bride.

Another point without God we are all doomed! And a part of that is to have his image in our life.If his image is there we are complete

Every responsible man in the west today is seen as a powerhungry controlefreak.

smells danger for the future

A good community that gives spiritual protection and or Church = body of Christ =Jesus = God .

@bruisedreed I don't think well-meaning mothers can ever be fathers to their children. Yes, life would go on, but surely optimal childhood includes a strong mother and father.

Wouldn't you agree it'd be better the children had a father?

@Aigle This has nothing to do with biblical gender roles. It has to do with the social pendulum swinging too far in the other direction from where it's been for centuries.

@Aigle (Besides being a major exaggeration.)

@LeeWoofenden I wouldn't call it an exaggeration that modern day feminism attempts to strip womanhood from women and manhood from men. The former unintentionally, but the latter very intentionally.

@LeeWoofenden My point was, Paul's seemingly blanket statement about women doesn't seem to apply to these people.

@fredsbend That's just part of the pendulum swing. And feminism is a multi-faceted movement. Not all parts of it seek to do these horrendous things.

@Piomicron Paul regularly adapts to the situation at hand. For example, even though he says in one place that there is neither slave nor free in Christ, in another place he tells slaves to obey their masters as they would obey Christ. He also says there is neither male nor female in Christ. Yet he gives very different instructions to women than he does to men.

@LeeWoofenden 'In Christ' is different to in the world, and you could expect roles to differ despite equality. However, if a slave rose up against their master, he would probably speak out against it, why praise women who teach and lead without a footnote?

@Piomicron Then you tell me how this does not contradict Paul's other statement that women are not allowed to teach men.

@LeeWoofenden Honestly? I have no idea. I was hoping someone here would.

@Piomicron He probably thought women should be apostles only to women when it came to any teaching role. That would preserve his ingrained cultural view that women are inherently below and subject to men, while allowing him to support female apostles in their work.

@LeeWoofenden Are we certain that none of these women ministered to men?

@Piomicron I'm not certain of that. But it also has not been a particular area of focus or study for me. I.e., I really have no idea.

But also, women were certainly allowed to minister to men in various ways. Paul just thought (in line with his culture) that women shouldn't teach men, or be leaders over men.

@LeeWoofenden I understand that. But I contend that feminism today is much more harmful than helpful.

@fredsbend Perhaps. But feminists would contend that the patriarchy that has existed for thousands of years up to today is much more harmful than helpful. Hence the pendulum swing.

@fredsbend My view is that the pendulum will keep swinging until there is full equality between men and women throughout the world.

However, I do not believe that achieving full equality will erase the maleness of men, or the femaleness of women, or the distinction between the two. Rather, I believe that full equality will involve full and equal respect and appreciation for everything that makes women female and everything that makes men male.

@fredsbend Optimal yes, but in case you haven't noticed, life is frequently sub-optimal. It would definitely be better that children have both good mothers and good fathers no doubt about it; but we have to be careful with that, if we go too far in how we take it, it can lead to those who grow up without a parent to be viewed (whether by others or especially by themselves) as correspondingly "suboptimal" - great sensitivity is required in what we are really communicating in such a situation

@bruisedreed A child missing a parent is disadvantaged. And it's not as simple to fix as some social injustice. You can't free college or welfare a father after the fact.

And let's reverse the situation. Can you honestly tell me that you believe a father can handle motherly duties?

Our modern feminist influenced society would have us convinced that a mother could quickly become a father, but it's outrageous to think a father could quickly become a mother.

I submit that both are outside of their wheelhouse attempting to be the other.

@LeeWoofenden I'm not convinced your typical person in ages past held womanhood to be something contemptible.

@Piomicron A division of Paul's epistles can be made between those written to churches (or proto-churches) or perople that he knew well (having helped establish himself (1&2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1&2 Thes, 1&2 Tim, Tit, Phlmn) and those he had yet to visit (Rom, Eph, Col). The ones he had yet to visit tend to be more wholistic and generalized although it's possible some very specific issues are being addressed within a generalized context that relate to information he'd received about the saints there.

When it comes to the churches (and people) he'd spent some time with however, even though there are passages that are generalizable to other churches and good doctrine in general, he was dealing with some very specific issues that were particular to churches or personal situations.

This isn't to say that we can't delve deep in to those particular passages and from them extract generalizable principles, but we need to be very careful in doing so that we are not mistakenly generalizing.

For those who believe in biblical inerrancy, I think it is necessary to interpret some of "women's role in ministry" passages in this fashion otherwise a straightforward generalized understanding of the plain text would seem to condradict the plain biblical facts of actual reported women's ministry.

An example of this where I think it is relatively clear is in 1 Corinthians - in chapter 11:6 it is specifically referring to how women should correctly pray or prophesy in the church, so the later (and highly confusing) 14:34-35 where it talks about how women need to be silent in the church must take this earlier instruction in to account. How can we do this?

@fredsbend Good thing you were never a woman living in one of those societies in ages past.

Well in (1&2) Corinthians there are passages where Paul is speaking about some very specific issues unique to that particular fellowship (eg how they are divided in to 4 parties, how to deal with the man sleeping with his step-mother etc.). To me it makes way more sense to view the 11:6 teaching as being a very general instruction and the 14:34-35 as a response to a very specific situation

(some think it was shouting questions across the meeting hall where men were sitting on one side and women on the other)

If we were to generalize a principle from this particular passage, I think it would be just that which appears to be consistent with the message of that whole chapter - church worship should be conducted in an orderly fashion.

If this all seems overly complicated, bear in mind that Peter specifically warns that there are some things in Paul's letters that are difficult to understand.

@fredsbend Beyond that, your typical person today does not consider manhood to be something contemptible. Some on the fringes of the feminist movement do, yes. But they are not "your typical person today."

I suspect there were at least as many people in ages past who considered womanhood to be something contemptible as there are people today who consider manhood to be something contemptible.

In the patriarchal societies of the past, and even in some patriarchal societies today, women were traded and bartered for money, cattle, cherry positions in the local hierarchy, and so on. They were (and in some places still are) married off young, sometimes even before puberty, to secure financial and social advantages for their fathers and brothers. If that is not viewing womanhood as contemptible, I don't know what is.

@fredsbend in a limited capacity yes, but certainly not all - clearly they going to struggle a bit on the whole lactation front. For believers, we can take comfort in God's promises to look after orphans, this could be worked out by revealing himself personally to the child, leading the right person to become part of a blended family, empowering a sole parent beyond their normal abilities or some combination of these.

@LeeWoofenden One where men killed each other for the right to marry her, or just to protect her name? Or one where her passions held such sway that entire nations warred because of her? Feminists see "women were commodities". Romantics see "women were prized, and their passions you fought for and earned".

Regardless of all this kids can survive and thrive after suffering the setback of parental loss - it is not necessarily an insurmountable handicap.

@bruisedreed I'm more concerned with the increasingly popular opinion that single motherhood is good enough, therefore the father may be readily booted from the family at her whim.

The whole point of this line of reasoning was to challenge Aigle's seeming idea that leadership in churches absolutely has to function in a certain way otherwise it's not right. I think there is enough evidence to challenge that idea - God has worked through female leaders and if we dogmatically assert "that's not the way things should be done", we are at real risk of going beyond God's will

@fredsbend Well that is certainly not supportable by sound doctrine.

@bruisedreed In church leadership, I no longer have an opinion. In other things, it sometimes gets weird.

@bruisedreed And I greatly appreciate Christianity's dedication to the preservation of the nuclear family. However, I'd rather society make that dedication themselves from reason, rather than the authority of a religion.

Because the authority of a religion is pretty contemptible for non believers.

@fredsbend If it's ok to ask a personal question - how have you found the whole process of disengaging from a church community (if that is in fact what you've done)? Has that had a significant impact on you distinguishable from your general crisis of faith? I'm interested because unfortunately I've been going though a similar thing (not a crisis of faith, but a necessary - and I hope temporary - disengagement with my church community) and I'm finding it tough - how have you been coping with it?

@fredsbend well it's a straight forward biological fact that gender difference is significant and not just a social construct - there are lots of rigorous scientific studies that support that. The opposing view is promoted by fantasists.

One of the great things about the US that I really admire is the ability to have genuine diversity among the states - in such an enviroment, longitudinal studies comparing different polities with controlled factor differences is possible - you are one great big laboratory for humanity. By comparison, in Australia, the differences between our states are pretty trivial.

@bruisedreed One of my chief complaints was the inability to truly connect to the church community. I perceived nearly every Christian around me as either not serious or hypocritical, or merely cultural.

I remember being much closer to the pastor of a small church I played guitar for. In fact I would consider him the only person to have ever lead me in the faith. Leaving his church was a bit difficult for me. But I still saw him quite frequently afterwards.

Ironically and despite the greatness of this one man, the few members of his small church were equally pitiful in their commitment.

In fact, his commitment to the faith was the chief complaint among visitors, though not in so many words.

I stopped playing at his church because my new wife wanted to continue attending her church, and it was burdensome to do two services every Sunday.

@fredsbend Sounds a little like how I felt at times about my first church. My current one has been at the other end of the spectrum - high commitment, major investment in long term relationships - disengaging from that is a whole other deal. Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it.

No problem. Always happy to share.

May I ask why you feel you need to leave for a while?

@fredsbend Relational break-down with the key leader in the additional context of my own major personal issues. Been trying to work things out, but we are two very different people and it's been pretty tough.

And the church is to small to simply avoid frequent contact?

@fredsbend pretty much

Yes, a sabbatical sounds best. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder".

Sometimes, intentional separation and reunion, in continued sequence, strengthens relationships.

yep, I see a bit of that, so hopefully it continues to work itself out

@bruisedreed I hope it works out for you. I think it was Paul that regretted his argument with Timothy.

Thanks. Still learning and growing through the process so there's plenty to be thankful for.

@bruisedreed I've been recently trying to understand spiritualism in light of a non religious life. I've recently concluded that gratitude is perhaps what I'm looking for. Just undirected generic gratitude. I want to be grateful for my life, my family, and the many blessings I have.

In fact it was my recent conversation with @LeeWoofenden about Candide's utopia that gave me this epiphany.

Makes a big difference I think. Might be a bit tricky for you thinking too much about who/what is the object of your gratitude - pretty hard for that not to lead back to a personal God imo, otherwise the gratitude will be a bit fake in it's normal sense.

Can gratitude actually be undirected?

I don't think you could agree with my definition of it: the recognition and appropriate acknowledgement of the source of a particular blessing

I think it is a sub-species of worship to be honest

@bruisedreed I was thinking "acknowledgment of the fact that much of your life is luck, not the fruits of your efforts."

@bruisedreed I agree, and I'm okay with that.

Certainly I've found worship to be at the very heart of meaning and satisfaction in my own life. For a moment I was struggling to think of what possible relevance "worhsip" might have to a "non religious life", but I guess some non religious people are pretty close to worship in their whole-hearted devotion to their life's passion whatever that is.

@fredsbend heh, you are now a worshipper of Fortuna - you've turned in to a proper pagan! ;)

@bruisedreed LOL

@fredsbend watch you don't end up like Two-Face ;)

But at the same time I recognize the power of human willpower. I recognize that I can accomplish great things, all by my own volition.

@bruisedreed He was always my favorite Batman villain.

@fredsbend oooh, you are in trouble

@bruisedreed If I try to figure out why, I think I'm legitimately attracted to receiving an order from chance, then carrying it out religiously.

...strike that, you seem to be articulating the antidote. Harvey seemed to inappropriately outsource his volition - obviously not placing the kind of trust in it that you do

@fredsbend oh no! that's exactly like him!!

Well, he is two face.

The mind's a complicated thing.

@fredsbend that might be a good segue to a new topic - do you have much/any familiarity with Jordan Peterson?

None

@fredsbend maybe you should check him out, he seems to be a key factor in helping a "Christian atheist" movement to coalesce. I personally think he's starting from a wrong basis (evolutionary biology), but where he takes it is pretty darned interesting

most of his stuff on youtube seems highly original and informative, probably the one caveat I'd place on that is his first discussion with Sam Harris - wouldn't recommend it. They felt like wasted hours of my life that I'm not going to get back (kept hoping it was going to actually go somewhere it just didn't)

@bruisedreed Sam Harris recently disappointed me.

From what I've heard from him, I think he lacks a necessary level of empathy for opposing viewpoints to be a proper critical thinker

I'm checking Wikipedia now on Peterson

@fredsbend Is that actually you, or just a harmonious expression of your sentiment?

That's my [largely neglected] blog.

@fredsbend I like your style - very readable

I think I'd better head off line now, maybe we can catch up later after you've had a chance to check out JP a little more and let me know what you think. Thanks for the chat, I enjoyed it.

@bruisedreed Thank you. I appreciate the complement. I've become pretty proud of my writing ability. I wanted to say a lot more, but it would have taken a bit of research. I wrote that on my phone in an airport.

@bruisedreed Yes, me too. I'll follow up with Peterman later.

Sam Harris has gotten weirder and weirder, IMO. Jordan Peterson is pretty interesting, but he's also really wrong about Christianity :P

Bruisedreed, I don't know for sure that Peterson is original, a lot of his stuff is just neojungian, although I'm not really well read enough in that area to know how much is "standard" neo-Jungian thought.

@fredsbend Yeah, all of that chivalry stuff was more myth than reality. Perhaps a few prized women were fought over. But the reality for the vast bulk of women was completely different.

@Birdie As far as I know, he is the first Neo-Jungian internet celebrity, so in terms of his interface with culture, he is at least original in that respect if not actually with the underlying ideas - certainly he attributes an awful lot to Jung

Not much time to talk now, and will be out of the conversation for a while.

Certainly his ideas of Christianity and the Bible being an expression of the collective unconsciousness of society, thus rendering it entirely figurative and only useful as a metaphorical guide to your psyche sounds very Jungian to me.

He is a thoroughly interesting speaker, though.

I don't know enough about Jung to have an informed view - the little I'd heard previously to encountering Peterson sounded like incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo. I think you are selling things short with your "only" there: the way I think he's describing things is that humans are constantly developing heuristics to deal with the complexities of life. These are passed along as memes with the best (long-term survival of cohesive societies) ones coalescing as archetypes that distill wisdom.

To me he seems to be continually echoing proverbs - wisdom is the chief thing, whatever you do get wisdom, and here is the best source, and this is why it's the best source...

@fredsbend " One where men killed each other for the right to marry her, or just to protect her name? Or one where her passions held such sway that entire nations warred because of her? Feminists see "women were commodities". Romantics see "women were prized, and their passions you fought for and earned". Thank You

@LeeWoofenden "Yeah, all of that chivalry stuff was more myth than reality." ?

@bruisedreed I know Jordan Peterson very well,great man,I have heard 1000 hours I guess of Jordans teaching.