Now back.
Right.
And yes, I should have said, "part of the Bride of Christ." But how can a part of the Bride represent the Groom?
In case you'd not noticed, Ministerial roles really arne't part of the congregation. They are seperate form it. Preachers preach to congregations, when preachign they are not part of it.
Zarove, what you are saying is that the Incarnation was not about Jesus being human, but about Jesus being male.
No, Im saying Jesus was male and thats rather foundational to his being.
But perhaps we should take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. Jesus wasn't just male, but a Jewish male. If His fleshly particulars matter so much, then all ministers should be male and Jewish.
All Christians are in a way Jews. Christianity developed out of Judaism. COnverts to Judaism can become Rabbi's. So this logic is flawed. As only a Christian can preach, then only a Jew ever does, as Christianity is a Sect wihtin Judaism when viewed Historically.
Do you realize what you're saying about women? If Christ's maleness is what matters, then as a female I cannot be a Christian to the same degree a male is. I am a lesser being, a second-class citizen in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Jesus beign male matters in our undestanding of who he was, not in our ability to follow him. No one is a Second-Class citesen. In fact no one is a Citesen, but a SUbject. Really Republicans need to learn how Monarchy works.
That said, you are expected to be Subject to Jesus who is our King. You have the same Liberty in Christ to do that in your daily life as anyone else. Not being able to preach form a Pulpit is not really restrictign you from this end.
I cannot represent Christ to the world like a man can. Is this what Christ taught? Christ who defied cultural conventions to give His message to the woman at the well in Samaria, effectively making her His messenger to the Samaritan people? Christ who insisted that in "sitting at his feet, listening to his word" (which was a phrase used to describe a disciple learning doctrine from a rabbi with a view to becoming a rabbi in turn), Mary was "choosing the good part, which shall not be taken away from her"? Christ who deliberately appeared first after His resurrection to women like Mary Magdalene (He could easily have just waited for her to bring Peter and John and then appeared to them), so that the 12 apostles HAD to begin their witness by acknowledging that though the world of that time would not accept the witness of a woman, Christ was insisting that they had to do so?
But no one is sayign you cant witness your faiht to the world, do good works for the Curch, lead a Christian Life, or tell others of the Christ.
What is beign discussed is the Ministerial Role wihtin the Church itself, which noe of the examples you listed held.
I would really like to see some Scriptural support for the idea that church leaders "represent the Father" or "represent Christ" to the people. Chapter and verse please. I don't think it's in there.
Then you need to study the Scriptures more.
1 Corintuians Capter 11 discusses the topic of praying whilst veield and says that the Head of man is Christ and the head of woman is Man.
2 Corinthians 2:10 also mentiosn this concept, though more generlaly for the Christian.
Ill cover other verses later.
As for Mary and the other female saints, do you really think that honoring a few women makes up for oppressing all the rest of them?
DOesn't this presuppose that others are beign Suppressed?
As I said, even today and outside of Cahtolsiism as well as in, many women are regarded highly, in their own communities, for thier rle in the CHurch, without beign Preachers.
In truth, women who distinguished themselves by their piety and holiness were most often considered to be anomalies who had "transcended their sex." "What a woman she is, if it is permissible to call such a manly Christian a woman!" was a common sentiment. (Jerome, Epistle 29, quoting Paulinius of Nola regarding Melania the Elder, circa AD 419.)
QUotign one man, Jerome, won't do. Others, such as Francis of Assisi, CLement, Ignatisus, and Origen woudl not use sich a Phrase.
o your point is moot.
Martin Luther. Should I regard his teachings on women as Scriptural when he said, "If women get tired and die of [child]bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die as long as they bear; they are made for that." He also said, "Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, and accordingly they possess intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips. Women ought to stay home; the way they were created indicates this, for they have broad hips and a wide fundament to sit upon, keep house and bear and raise children." Granted that Luther also granted women more respect as wives and mothers than medieval Catholicism ever had, I still am under no obligation to consider his every teaching biblical, just because I am a Protestant.
Midaevel Cahtiliisms treatment of women wasnt all hthat bad either.
But my poitn is, you have no Scriptural Case either.
As for this:
Heck, Ideally the Church doesn't even listen to men when they say they are called, they have to be subjected to rigerous testign and consultation, and then the Churhces approve them, in he vast majority of Churches I know of. People dont ust get up, say "I've been called", and then get to preach from Pulpits.
Honestly, this is over the top. Do you really, honestly think women don't attend seminaries, but just sit around expecting to be able to say, "I''ve been called," and then get up and preach?
This is a Strawman. My point was, even men who say "I've been called" aren't lisyened to, and just accepte don their owrd they have been.
A man I know in Texas wants ot be a Priest, but he didn't just go up to his Bishop, say "I've been called", and then begin Seminary. They want him to take a year or two for DIscernemnt.
Then THEY will determien if he is fit.
Then he will train.
Then THEY will decide if he is Ordaiend tot he Deaconate.
WHile women woudl also attend Semenaries if allwoed to PReach, the poitn was you complained that men are taken at their word for saygn they had been called and women not. THis is not true of Men. At leats in a Properly rnning Church.
What kind of view of women is this? Women do attend seminaries whenever men will let them, and often distinguish themselves above all their classmates in scholarship, moral character, and mental acumen-- and then when they graduate, find nowhere to exercise their gifts.
GLorification fo women is not osmethign I prefer either. The whole "BEtter than men can" attiide is oftne unsettling.