Jump to content

Menu

Raising Kids in a Different Religion?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, mommaduck said:

Actually, it had made me fight more for the rights of others and believe that we are very much responsible for changing things for the better globally, including caring for the Earth. And, lordy, I would have walked out on that homily also! That is NOT something you would have heard in our parish. I'm sorry. Sadly, there are some awful people that came into Orthodoxy in the past 20yrs and they brought their nationalistic fundamentalism with them 😞 I would stay out of your parish also, because I'm guessing that our family would not be welcomed and I would not feel that it is a safe place for my family.

 

The Catholic church has the same issue. Fundamentalists who brought their fundamentalism with them. 

Episcopal Church has other issues - the fundamentalists just join one of the splinter Anglican groups usually, but there are plenty more focused on using the right color stole than helping the poor. And as I stated earlier, a trend in the direction of doing away with the basics of the faith entirely. It's...interesting. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I went through the same thing.  When asked the types of questions you pose, I would preface my answers with "Well, the church teaches that ..., but many people believe ..."  When they then asked, "Wel

I face this to a certain degree with some of the stories/requirements  in Islam.  Usually, I'm pretty open with my kids and will say that some people believe that this literally happened, while others

I'm confused about your question.    You daughter seems like a typical child asking questions.  Nothing earth-shattering and the Church does have answers for those.  As for behavior in church for adul

9 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

The Catholic church has the same issue. Fundamentalists who brought their fundamentalism with them. 

Episcopal Church has other issues - the fundamentalists just join one of the splinter Anglican groups usually, but there are plenty more focused on using the right color stole than helping the poor. And as I stated earlier, a trend in the direction of doing away with the basics of the faith entirely. It's...interesting. 

My mom and some of her Catholic friends refer to this as the phenomenon of people who think they are more Catholic than the Pope.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mommaduck said:

Actually, it had made me fight more for the rights of others and believe that we are very much responsible for changing things for the better globally, including caring for the Earth. And, lordy, I would have walked out on that homily also! That is NOT something you would have heard in our parish. I'm sorry. Sadly, there are some awful people that came into Orthodoxy in the past 20yrs and they brought their nationalistic fundamentalism with them 😞 I would stay out of your parish also, because I'm guessing that our family would not be welcomed and I would not feel that it is a safe place for my family.

 

I want to be very clear. The priest who preached that sermon is not racist. He's not a nationalist. He has been very influenced by other conservative Orthodox priests though. For example, he likes that Fr. Joshua Trenham 🤮. There is some ethnic diversity, at least for an Orthodox church. 

I've been to a lot of Orthodox churches over the years and I don't think what I heard was that different what was preached in other Orthodox parishes that Sunday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I want to be very clear. The priest who preached that sermon is not racist. He's not a nationalist. He has been very influenced by other conservative Orthodox priests though. For example, he likes that Fr. Joshua Trenham 🤮. There is some ethnic diversity, at least for an Orthodox church. 

I've been to a lot of Orthodox churches over the years and I don't think what I heard was that different what was preached in other Orthodox parishes that Sunday. 

 

Oh boy. Yes, there are parishes that would preach such. I don't know any Greek parishes that would though. Back to jurisdictional differences. Again, I'm sorry 😞

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 12:07 AM, Frances said:

But in certain denominations, say Catholicism and EO, women would always be rejected from the priesthood even if they thought hey had a call. Whereas some men would be accepted and some would be rejected after going through the process of discernment. And some would stop the process voluntarily.

 

So?

Women can't be fathers, men will never be mothers.  So?  There are two sexes, and in Christian theology that is not the same as hair colour or whether or not you happen to like okra.  We don't hear about God dividing up the okra lovers from the okra haters, we do hear about him making us male and female, while both are human there seems to be some specific ontology around our different physicality.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the politics issue is very touchy.  I would draw a careful line through things like talking about our responsibility around things like climate change, or poverty, and how we root that.  Is racism really about race, from a spiritual point of view?  Is climate change really about our politics?  I don't think so, I wrote a lenten meditation a few years ago about avarice, which in part was about systemic issues around it and environmental destruction.  But trying to dig down into the heart of it, it's not something that is first about political answers, that is not what we need to effect real change.  We can talk all the politics we want but until we get to the spiritual heart of the matter - a lack of love, a lack of being Christ centred, an inability to live the ascetic life, we won't get far.  Some of the political solutions we talk about, if we haven't understood the spiritual problem correctly, may be totally ineffective or even have bad effects.

Churches typically are only ok, at best, at politics, when they become too close to it they lose the ability to be properly critical.  What hey can be very good at is digging down into the depths of the gods below the politics.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

So?

Women can't be fathers, men will never be mothers.  So?  There are two sexes, and in Christian theology that is not the same as hair colour or whether or not you happen to like okra.  We don't hear about God dividing up the okra lovers from the okra haters, we do hear about him making us male and female, while both are human there seems to be some specific ontology around our different physicality.

Those examples are not remotely the same as a church or religious organization making a choice. And yes, it's a choice, a human not divine choice, no matter what they want their followers to believe.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

So?

Women can't be fathers, men will never be mothers.  So?  There are two sexes, and in Christian theology that is not the same as hair colour or whether or not you happen to like okra.  We don't hear about God dividing up the okra lovers from the okra haters, we do hear about him making us male and female, while both are human there seems to be some specific ontology around our different physicality.

I simply find it interesting that in Christianity, if a woman feels she hears a call to be a priest or minister, it depends on the denomination as to whether or not that will even be considered by those in her faith to possibly be valid. In some denominations, the end result could be her becoming a priest or minster. In others, that would never be possible. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Those examples are not remotely the same as a church or religious organization making a choice. And yes, it's a choice, a human not divine choice, no matter what they want their followers to believe.

And if it isn’t a choice involving humans, then why do some Christian denominations allow priest or minsters and others do not? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Frances said:

And if it isn’t a choice involving humans, then why do some Christian denominations allow priest or minsters and others do not? 

Because again, this goes back to how a given denomination views scripture. For the ones that understand scripture to be the Word of God, there is no choice. Scripture does talk about the qualifications for the pastoral office and those qualifications only include men. 

In denominations where scripture is understood to contain words about God, there is more leeway to dismiss passages that are deemed to be specific to the culture in which they were written.

ETA: The role of tradition in a denomination's dogma will also play a role here. 

Edited by PeachyDoodle
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Those examples are not remotely the same as a church or religious organization making a choice. And yes, it's a choice, a human not divine choice, no matter what they want their followers to believe.

 

What choice is it that you think they are making?

They don't say that they choose not to allow women to be priests.  They say the nature of the priesthood, which is understood as an ontological state, is that it is something men do.  It's explicitly connected to fatherhood and therefore maleness.   

It's not a job, administering a parish, or giving a sermon, or whatever.  None of those things are restricted to the priesthood although priests often do them.  When they talk about jobs there can be choices, theoretically you could have women cardinals, for example as there is no theological reason they must be priests, only practical ones.  Or there used to be mitred abesses, who acted in terms of administration and power as bishops, but not in terms of the Eucharist.  

 

 

Edited by Bluegoat
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

Because again, this goes back to how a given denomination views scripture. For the ones that understand scripture to be the Word of God, there is no choice. Scripture does talk about the qualifications for the pastoral office and those qualifications only include men. 

In denominations where scripture is understood to contain words about God, there is more leeway to dismiss passages that are deemed to be specific to the culture in which they were written.

Um...no. There is definitely room for both opinions within scripture. Plenty of people who hold Scripture in very high regard believe scripture refers to women deaconesses, and there is debate as to what Paul meant - both reading translation of the words and meaning in the context of the passages. 

It's not like Jesus said, "for the record - no women priests, or deacons, or ministers. Maybe they can teach sunday school, but only until kids are age 16, and they can speak in the church on Wednesday nights, but not during the main service on Sunday." 

It's not that clear, and it is disingenuous to say it is. Many scholars have studied and discussed this, for centuries. 

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

What choice is it that you think they are making?

They don't say that they choose not to allow women to be priests.  They say the nature of the priesthood, which is understood as an ontological state, is that it is something men do.  It's explicitly connected to fatherhood and therefore maleness.   

It's not a job, administering a parish, or giving a sermon, or whatever.  None of those things are restricted to the priesthood although priests often do them.  When they talk about jobs there can be choices, theoretically you could have women cardinals, for example as their is no theological reason they must be priests, only practical ones.  Or there used to be mitred abesses, who aceted in terms of administration and power as bishops, but not in terms of the Eucharist.  

 

 

But saying it is explicitly related to one aspect of the human body but not others is a choice that was made. A choice of interpretation if nothing else. I've never heard it related to fatherhood. I mean, in that case, could an infertile man be a priest? We certainly don't test that before sending men to seminary! 

Yes, the church teaches there is something physical that is required, but what exactly that is (penis? testicles? y chromosome?) and how that relates to the office of the priesthood has been explained different ways at different times and by different people, making it unclear to many that there even is a good argument. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Frances said:

I simply find it interesting that in Christianity, if a woman feels she hears a call to be a priest or minister, it depends on the denomination as to whether or not that will even be considered by those in her faith to possibly be valid. In some denominations, the end result could be her becoming a priest or minster. In others, that would never be possible. 

 

Only within the last 60 years or so though, 100 at the outside.  And contrary to what many people assume, there were priestesses in other religions in the ancient world, including some dualist groups, it's not something that people had never heard of or which was shocking.

11 minutes ago, Frances said:

And if it isn’t a choice involving humans, then why do some Christian denominations allow priest or minsters and others do not? 

 

The main difference has to do with whether they have priests or ministers.  The latter aren't seen as having any sort of ontological role, it's a job.  Changes in the view of the priesthood are a product of the Reformation for the most part.  Groups that have ministers, if they don't allow women, usually make the argument on the basis of Biblical authority.

The main exception to that is probably Anglicans, but it's noteworthy that by the time they began to allow women priests they had already lost most of their organisational commitment to sacramentalism, and it had become pretty common to have priests that weren't Christians at all in any normal sense.  Anglican theological thought had become pretty poor by the 70s.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

But saying it is explicitly related to one aspect of the human body but not others is a choice that was made. A choice of interpretation if nothing else. I've never heard it related to fatherhood. I mean, in that case, could an infertile man be a priest? We certainly don't test that before sending men to seminary! 

Yes, the church teaches there is something physical that is required, but what exactly that is (penis? testicles? y chromosome?) and how that relates to the office of the priesthood has been explained different ways at different times and by different people, making it unclear to many that there even is a good argument. 

 

 

Sexual dimorphism is a recognised and significant difference in what type of human experience, what type of body, one has, that is consistently real and recognised in every time and place, and in that matter as being a fundamental class in biology. It's the foundational dyad in almost every human mythology.  Unlike hair colour, or height, or even less human categories like race or ethnicity.  A father is a different thing than a mother, in a way that we would not say about a blond and a brunette, or if we did we'd think that was questionable ground.

I would say that it's a far more objective and universal difference than any other in human experience, and more than that in this context, it's foundational in the Christian account of what it is to be human.  It would be difficult to read the foundational texts and not conclude that sex was seen differently than hair colour, and it would be difficult also to argue that eye colour ought to be, either from the text or from the tradition.  

And is anyone really surprised that so many myths begin with a male and female principle, rather than one based on two beings of a different height or with different eye-colour?  Why does that seem so natural to us, because we are somehow sexists deep down and that has socialised us to find that particular, really unremarkable, bit of human physiology so important?

It did used to be that men with physical deformities weren't allowed to be priests, certainly eunuchs but even things like fingers missing.  But functionally I think membership in the sex class is what is seen as significant.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Um...no. There is definitely room for both opinions within scripture. Plenty of people who hold Scripture in very high regard believe scripture refers to women deaconesses, and there is debate as to what Paul meant - both reading translation of the words and meaning in the context of the passages. 

It's not like Jesus said, "for the record - no women priests, or deacons, or ministers. Maybe they can teach sunday school, but only until kids are age 16, and they can speak in the church on Wednesday nights, but not during the main service on Sunday." 

It's not that clear, and it is disingenuous to say it is. Many scholars have studied and discussed this, for centuries. 

I'm well aware of the debate. But thanks for the history lesson.

It is absolutely clear to many Christians and has been for centuries. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

I'm well aware of the debate. But thanks for the history lesson.

It is absolutely clear to many Christians and has been for centuries. 

That they are clear in what they think it means doesn't mean the scriptures themselves are clear. 

And to say it is clear says that anyone who comes to a different interpretation is what? Just making things up?

Also, for most of those centuries the reason given was that women were more easily deceived and/or not fully made in the image of God in the same way a man was. Those are not the reasons given today. 

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, I'm not saying it is clear that women CAN be priests/pastors either. I'm saying that both sides have reasonable claims on correct interpretation, and neither can claim 100 percent assurance they have it right simply based on scripture. 

And if the OP disagrees strongly with her own church's handling of that matter, and their interpretation, maybe she'd be better off somewhere that that issue isn't going to continue to crop up and get in the way of her faith journey, or her relationship with her daughter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

Because again, this goes back to how a given denomination views scripture. For the ones that understand scripture to be the Word of God, there is no choice. Scripture does talk about the qualifications for the pastoral office and those qualifications only include men. 

In denominations where scripture is understood to contain words about God, there is more leeway to dismiss passages that are deemed to be specific to the culture in which they were written.

ETA: The role of tradition in a denomination's dogma will also play a role here. 

This is interesting, thanks. But humans are making those choices about how to view scripture.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That they are clear in what they think it means doesn't mean the scriptures themselves are clear. 

And to say it is clear says that anyone who comes to a different interpretation is what? Just making things up?

Also, for most of those centuries the reason given was that women were more easily deceived and/or not fully made in the image of God in the same way a man was. Those are not the reasons given today. 

They are clear in a second-grade reading comprehension way clear.

No I don't think those who are interpreting them differently are making it up. That's absurd. As I already said, there on different views on how Christians view scripture. Some view it dogmatically, and others view it less rigidly. Which was my whole point: This difference accounts for the differences in understanding. It's hard to get around what the text actually says. But if the text isn't intended to be dogmatic, and is more a product of the culture in which it was written, then there is more leeway in how we appropriate them.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Are people really unaware that Christians have different views on the scriptures and how they are applied?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frances said:

This is interesting, thanks. But humans are making those choices about how to view scripture.

Maybe, maybe not. If part of your belief system is that God inspired these words to be written in exactly this way, is that something you're really choosing? I mean, I suppose you could reject that view for a different view (and as I said, there are certainly differing views on how scripture should be read) but a person with a dogmatic view of scripture isn't holding that view in order to apply the scriptures in a certain way. They apply the scriptures in a particular way because they hold a dogmatic view. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

They are clear in a second-grade reading comprehension way clear.

No I don't think those who are interpreting them differently are making it up. That's absurd. As I already said, there on different views on how Christians view scripture. Some view it dogmatically, and others view it less rigidly. Which was my whole point: This difference accounts for the differences in understanding. It's hard to get around what the text actually says. But if the text isn't intended to be dogmatic, and is more a product of the culture in which it was written, then there is more leeway in how we appropriate them.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Are people really unaware that Christians have different views on the scriptures and how they are applied?

Understanding the greek new testament and how to translate it into English, and into a syntax we will understand, translating idioms into something we will understand, that's 2nd grade level stuff? 

Here is one brief page just on what on earth the word that many translate as "authority" means in 1 timothy 2:12, where it says a woman shouldn't have authority over a man. (and that's leaving off the whole other translation issue where many say it should be "over her husband" not over a man) 

This is a word used ONLY ONCE in the entire new testament. It is not the word normally used for authority as we would see it. So what does it mean? What did Paul mean by using it? Answering those questions is hardly 2nd grade reading comprehension. It's something people spend years of their life trying to figure out, searching out other manuscripts, looking at context, etc etc. 

A woman shouldn't browbeat her husband rather than a woman shouldn't hold authority over a man we have an entirely different meaning, one that does not even come close to forbidding women pastors. So no, not clear. 

https://margmowczko.com/authentein-authenteo-1-timothy-2/

Edited by Ktgrok
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

And to be completely honest, the RCC and EOC recognise a female bishop. Granted, just one, but ordination cannot be taken back. We also had deaconesses (the Coptic Orthodox still have them and the EOC is having their inhouse discussions on bringing them back). We have female Saints that are Equal to the Apostles.  Add in nuns and abbesses and then the formidable yiayias and babushkas that balance the priests. Trust me, priests have been set straight by the community, especially women, in the past and (I can only speak for the Greeks...not the Russians, Antiochians, or OCA. Others will have to speak for them) they revere them in a way I never experienced in other churches. Now, if some other types of churches have a female priest or minister, I'm not going to grasp my pearls and faint. *shrugs* I'm also not going to disrespect them. If they are Rev. So and So, I will refer to her as such. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The podcast I linked a while back brought up a point I hadn't thought about much before, and may be part of what is bugging the OP - that in a tradition without women pastors/priests, particularly in those without women's religious orders, there is a pastoral vacuum left for the women of the community. There are some things they may very much need spiritual advice or mentorship with that they do not feel comfortable talking to a man about. And so in the absence of a trained, professional, screened authority like a priest or pastor, if they want to talk to a woman they get the "B Team" as she put it. They get bloggers or pastor's wives or whatever - not that there isn't a place for that but those people do not have the training and education that a Priest or minister/pastor has.

It's just something I hadn't thought about much, but it made sense to me. (she advises some kind of position or training for women in positions to mentor, even if it is not a ordained role but at least some kind of seminary degree, etc). And might be part of what is bugging Ordinary Shoes. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

The podcast I linked a while back brought up a point I hadn't thought about much before, and may be part of what is bugging the OP - that in a tradition without women pastors/priests, particularly in those without women's religious orders, there is a pastoral vacuum left for the women of the community. There are some things they may very much need spiritual advice or mentorship with that they do not feel comfortable talking to a man about. And so in the absence of a trained, professional, screened authority like a priest or pastor, if they want to talk to a woman they get the "B Team" as she put it. They get bloggers or pastor's wives or whatever - not that there isn't a place for that but those people do not have the training and education that a Priest or minister/pastor has.

It's just something I hadn't thought about much, but it made sense to me. (she advises some kind of position or training for women in positions to mentor, even if it is not a ordained role but at least some kind of seminary degree, etc). And might be part of what is bugging Ordinary Shoes. 

 

There are EO women’s orders. Several local girls /women went to be nuns at Xenia Skete or another similar place in Calif or Arizona the name of which I don’t recall. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Danae said:

 

For some groups the reason the leader of the congregation is not called a priest is that we recognize the priesthood of all believers. All baptized Christians share in Christ’s priesthood. Some are additionally ordained to the ministry of Word, Order, and Sacrament. So it’s not true that we can have female pastors because we don’t consider them priests. All the women are priests. Some of them are also clergy.

 

Yes, that's true, but in my experience that almost always, maybe even always, accompanies a different sacramental approach generally.  So I am not sure that it would be easy to treat those elements as really separate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mommaduck said:

And to be completely honest, the RCC and EOC recognise a female bishop. Granted, just one, but ordination cannot be taken back. We also had deaconesses (the Coptic Orthodox still have them and the EOC is having their inhouse discussions on bringing them back). We have female Saints that are Equal to the Apostles.  Add in nuns and abbesses and then the formidable yiayias and babushkas that balance the priests. Trust me, priests have been set straight by the community, especially women, in the past and (I can only speak for the Greeks...not the Russians, Antiochians, or OCA. Others will have to speak for them) they revere them in a way I never experienced in other churches. Now, if some other types of churches have a female priest or minister, I'm not going to grasp my pearls and faint. *shrugs* I'm also not going to disrespect them. If they are Rev. So and So, I will refer to her as such. 

 

Deconesses are funny, it's not at all clear that they were ordained in the same way a deacon was, they seem to have more like some of the other ancient orders that had a very specific job.  It wasn't the first step to the priesthood as the diaconate was.

Who are you thinking of with the female bishop, I have never heard of one who was considered a reliable example who was widely accepted.  That ordination is permanent wouldn't matter though, if it was given mistakenly, it's not a matter of trying to take it back it wouldn't be valid in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 10:40 AM, Bluegoat said:

I think the politics issue is very touchy.  I would draw a careful line through things like talking about our responsibility around things like climate change, or poverty, and how we root that.  Is racism really about race, from a spiritual point of view?  Is climate change really about our politics?  I don't think so, I wrote a lenten meditation a few years ago about avarice, which in part was about systemic issues around it and environmental destruction.  But trying to dig down into the heart of it, it's not something that is first about political answers, that is not what we need to effect real change.  We can talk all the politics we want but until we get to the spiritual heart of the matter - a lack of love, a lack of being Christ centred, an inability to live the ascetic life, we won't get far.  Some of the political solutions we talk about, if we haven't understood the spiritual problem correctly, may be totally ineffective or even have bad effects.

Churches typically are only ok, at best, at politics, when they become too close to it they lose the ability to be properly critical.  What hey can be very good at is digging down into the depths of the gods below the politics.

I agree with you that at the heart of the "political" issues is a spiritual problem. However, what I see is that certain political issues are mentioned constantly in church, i.e. abortion, gay marriage and now the new hot topic, transgenderism. But other "political" issues are not mentioned because they are too "political." It gives the impression that some issues are more important than others, not that we should understand the spiritual problem first. 

We won't get far without getting to the spiritual heart of the matter but maybe we'd make some headway. Nothing is being done now. At least not that I can see. If you look at how religious Americans vote, they religion is actually making things worse, not better. 

Essentially American Christianity is sick. It has allied itself with one political side and uses religion to justify this. In doing this, they alienate everyone else. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Deconesses are funny, it's not at all clear that they were ordained in the same way a deacon was, they seem to have more like some of the other ancient orders that had a very specific job.  It wasn't the first step to the priesthood as the diaconate was.

Who are you thinking of with the female bishop, I have never heard of one who was considered a reliable example who was widely accepted.  That ordination is permanent wouldn't matter though, if it was given mistakenly, it's not a matter of trying to take it back it wouldn't be valid in the first place.

 

St. Brigid of Kildare and it was never considered invalid and she ordained priests only when no other bishop was available. She was supposed to be ordained an abbess and the ordination for bishop was given instead. She's my patroness, so I'm pretty well read on her.

 

FTR: I never mentioned the Deaconesses as a path towards the priesthood. I mentioned them as a point that they are a women's order.

Edited by mommaduck
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I agree with you that at the heart of the "political" issues is a spiritual problem. However, what I see is that certain political issues are mentioned constantly in church, i.e. abortion, gay marriage and now the new hot topic, transgenderism. But other "political" issues are not mentioned because they are too "political." It gives the impression that some issues are more important than others, not that we should understand the spiritual problem first. 

We won't get far without getting to the spiritual heart of the matter but maybe we'd make some headway. Nothing is being done now. At least not that I can see. If you look at how religious Americans vote, they religion is actually making things worse, not better. 

Essentially American Christianity is sick. It has allied itself with one political side and uses religion to justify this. In doing this, they alienate everyone else. 

 


I completely agree with the bold part. The italicized portion is something I am glad not have experienced in this parish (I may have been absent, but I've only ever heard abortion mentioned once and even the yiayias will shush you if you bring it up in casual discussion, which happened when a gal from another parish kept pushing the discussion with me).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 12:27 PM, Ktgrok said:

Understanding the greek new testament and how to translate it into English, and into a syntax we will understand, translating idioms into something we will understand, that's 2nd grade level stuff? 

Here is one brief page just on what on earth the word that many translate as "authority" means in 1 timothy 2:12, where it says a woman shouldn't have authority over a man. (and that's leaving off the whole other translation issue where many say it should be "over her husband" not over a man) 

This is a word used ONLY ONCE in the entire new testament. It is not the word normally used for authority as we would see it. So what does it mean? What did Paul mean by using it? Answering those questions is hardly 2nd grade reading comprehension. It's something people spend years of their life trying to figure out, searching out other manuscripts, looking at context, etc etc. 

A woman shouldn't browbeat her husband rather than a woman shouldn't hold authority over a man we have an entirely different meaning, one that does not even come close to forbidding women pastors. So no, not clear. 

https://margmowczko.com/authentein-authenteo-1-timothy-2/

This is the absolutely shakiest example one could possibly select.  And if it were the only passage that related to this, I might actually agree with you.  But there are many more, and by and large they are clearer, and as a full body of work they are clear.  I, personally, would in some ways rather they didn't say what they say, but I can't in honesty say that they don't say it.

Edited by Carol in Cal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is the absolutely shakiest example one could possibly select.  And if it were the only passage that related to this, I might actually agree with you.  But there are many more, and by and large they are clearer, and as a full body of work they are clear.  I, personally, would in some ways rather they didn't say what they say, but I can't in honesty say that they don't say it.

You said it was clear. It's not, as the reference I quoted shows. and this is the best example used to show the prohibition was meant to be universal versus situational, and yet it doesn't really prove that given the various possibilities regarding translation. Others, like women being quiet in church can easily be viewed as situational, so not really clear. Again, people with a lifetime of studying greek, the scriptures, etc don't find it clear or second grade reading comprehension. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

American Christianity has not aligned itself with one political party, and plenty of churches openly support the "other" side. I walked out of a Catholic church a few months ago because the priests went in a tirade against conservatives (named them) as the homily. 

It seems to depend on both race and religion and which type or denomination of Christianity. As an example, white evangelicals lean heavily Republican. While for Catholics, whites lean Republican and Hispanics lean Democrat. And the religiously unaffiliated group is continuing to increase in size.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

There are also many other elections analyzed at this site. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

You said it was clear. It's not, as the reference I quoted shows. and this is the best example used to show the prohibition was meant to be universal versus situational, and yet it doesn't really prove that given the various possibilities regarding translation. Others, like women being quiet in church can easily be viewed as situational, so not really clear. Again, people with a lifetime of studying greek, the scriptures, etc don't find it clear or second grade reading comprehension. 

Au contraire, there are tons of people with a lifetime of studying Greek, the Scriptures, etc. who find it eminently clear.

That one reference is not the sole or even the most convincing one.  For instance, there is a passage in Titus that indicates that a pastor must be 'the husband of one wife'.  

Please note, though, that not taking Scripture seriously is not what I would say about everyone who does not have that position.  There are lots of folks who take Scripture seriously but in a magisterial rather than a ministerial way, which can result in them saying that although Scripture says those things, it's culturally bound in those areas, and that we are not bound to stick with them.  That is a little different than seeing it as a the only rule and norm of faith and practice.

To the original point, though, to me the question of women serving as pastors is not one of rights--it's orthogonal to that.  It's one of pastor vs. laity.  It's not given to very many to be pastors.  But it is given to all Christians to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, to be ever ready to give an account for the hope that is within them, to continue in prayer, to bear one another's burdens, to pray for our leaders, to generally obey governing authorities but to put God's rule over man's when they conflict, etc.  That is where my focus is.  

It is also given to all Christians to be good stewards, to balance somewhat conflicting obligations in light of Scriptures that are not always clear.  For instance, as Christians we have the joyful obligation to care for those in need.  Sometimes we have to care more for some than others--how do we decide how to do that?  It is not always clear from Scripture or the Church, but we figure this out prayerfully for ourselves, but don't bind others to that decision -- ie don't bind where God does not.

Edited by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mommaduck said:

 

St. Brigid of Kildare and it was never considered invalid and she ordained priests only when no other bishop was available. She was supposed to be ordained an abbess and the ordination for bishop was given instead. She's my patroness, so I'm pretty well read on her.

 

FTR: I never mentioned the Deaconesses as a path towards the priesthood. I mentioned them as a point that they are a women's order.

 

Interesting about St Brigid.  I'm not sure if I'd say if it was enough to establish a tradition, as there were contrary instances as well.

I mentioned that the deaconess wasn't a path to the priesthood because it suggests that it isn't the same kind of thing.  There were lots of orders in the ancient church, many of which no longer exist, and they were in some sense ordained, but not in the same way as a priest.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Frances said:

It seems to depend on both race and religion and which type or denomination of Christianity. As an example, white evangelicals lean heavily Republican. While for Catholics, whites lean Republican and Hispanics lean Democrat. And the religiously unaffiliated group is continuing to increase in size.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

There are also many other elections analyzed at this site. 

 

And it's changed over time, white Catholics used to vote Democrat quite strongly.  Similarly here in Canada Catholics tended to be strongly Liberal voters, but that is much less the case now.  And in both cases while the initial change was over limited issues it tended over time to affect the whole political view of the group.

I would actually say that the real issue is more that the state in the US has acted in a similar way to the state in Russia, aligning itself with religious groups as a way to harness power.  The real loyalty they are trying to create is to the state though, not any sort of Church, that is just a vehicle.  Some religious leaders don't see the danger, they are bamboozled themselves, while others consider it a fair trade off for power and prestige and money.  

Among secularists, a similar problem can happen with grass-roots organisations and NGOs.  They begin trying to challenge the state or hold it to account on some issue.  Then the state recognises them in some way, gives them some sort of power, access to funding, and now the groups interest is no longer so much with the people, but in making sure the state continues to supply those benefits.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Au contraire, there are tons of people with a lifetime of studying Greek, the Scriptures, etc. who find it eminently clear.

That one reference is not the sole or even the most convincing one.  For instance, there is a passage in Titus that indicates that a pastor must be 'the husband of one wife'.  

To the original point, though, to me the question of women serving as pastors is not one of rights--it's orthogonal to that.  It's one of pastor vs. laity.  It's not given to very many to be pastors.  But it is given to all Christians to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, to be ever ready to give an account for the hope that is within them, to continue in prayer, to bear one another's burdens, to pray for our leaders, to generally obey governing authorities but to put God's rule over man's when they conflict, etc.  That is where my focus is.  

It is also given to all Christians to be good stewards, to balance somewhat conflicting obligations in light of Scriptures that are not always clear.  For instance, as Christians we have the joyful obligation to care for those in need.  Sometimes we have to care more for some than others--how do we decide how to do that?  It is not always clear from Scripture or the Church, but we figure this out prayerfully for ourselves, but don't bind others to that decision -- ie don't bind where God does not.

That point was that if it was that clear it wouldn't have people with years of study coming to different conclusions, which they do. Because you can find evidence both ways. Also, the majority of denominations that have male only ordination don't fire their pastors if one of the pastor's kids is not a believer, also part of that passage in Titus, so it certainly isn't held to be a universal binding list of requirements. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ktgrok said:

That point was that if it was that clear it wouldn't have people with years of study coming to different conclusions, which they do. Because you can find evidence both ways. Also, the majority of denominations that have male only ordination don't fire their pastors if one of the pastor's kids is not a believer, also part of that passage in Titus, so it certainly isn't held to be a universal binding list of requirements. 

You know what?  I elaborated on my post above in such a way that it pretty much answers this, because I felt like my original post was incomplete in that regard.  It must have posted right when you were writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You know what?  I elaborated on my post above in such a way that it pretty much answers this, because I felt like my original post was incomplete in that regard.  It must have posted right when you were writing.

I still don't think you are getting that I'm saying that people who believe in the authority of scripture, for that reason alone, believe women can and should be ordained. Not because of progress or rights, but strictly because of scriptural reasons. 

There is room for either way depending on how one translates things, understands them, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I still don't think you are getting that I'm saying that people who believe in the authority of scripture, for that reason alone, believe women can and should be ordained. Not because of progress or rights, but strictly because of scriptural reasons. 

There is room for either way depending on how one translates things, understands them, etc. 

I do understand what you are saying.  However, I don't think you understand what I am saying.  They believe in the authority of Scripture differently than 'the only rule and norm of faith and practice' if they do.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

And it's changed over time, white Catholics used to vote Democrat quite strongly.  Similarly here in Canada Catholics tended to be strongly Liberal voters, but that is much less the case now.  And in both cases while the initial change was over limited issues it tended over time to affect the whole political view of the group.

I would actually say that the real issue is more that the state in the US has acted in a similar way to the state in Russia, aligning itself with religious groups as a way to harness power.  The real loyalty they are trying to create is to the state though, not any sort of Church, that is just a vehicle.  Some religious leaders don't see the danger, they are bamboozled themselves, while others consider it a fair trade off for power and prestige and money.  

Among secularists, a similar problem can happen with grass-roots organisations and NGOs.  They begin trying to challenge the state or hold it to account on some issue.  Then the state recognises them in some way, gives them some sort of power, access to funding, and now the groups interest is no longer so much with the people, but in making sure the state continues to supply those benefits.

Back when I was Catholic, I knew a priest who would say things about Catholics being poor. I remembered thinking he was deluded. The Anglo Catholic Church is pretty upper middle class now; at least when you consider people who attend Mass regularly. 

I remember a debate on an Orthodox forum about charging for Sunday school. The former Evangelicals were shocked that a church would charge for Sunday school. I was shocked that a church WOULDN'T charge for Sunday school. But someone made a point I hadn't considered - apparently CCD (or whatever they call it today - Faith Formation?) fees are a sore point for some Catholics because it can add up, especially if the family is one of the few that follows the birth control rules. This person contended that fees for things like CCD make non middle class Catholics feel unwelcome in their church. 

My daughter attended Catholic school for 3 years and it was clear that her classmates were exposed to a lot of right wing news. She was at this school during the 2016 election. She told me that Hillary Clinton was going to kill a disabled student at the school. She said that Clinton was going to kill all of the babies. She didn't understand that one and wanted to know what that meant. She was in 1st grade at the time. These are things she heard from other kids. She was told by these kids that voting for Clinton meant you wanted to kill babies. The school principal and other parents shared on their FB feed a sermon where a priest said that you shouldn't go to communion if you vote for HRC. That's Catholic America today, at least in my observation. Extremely partisan and hostile to anyone with a different opinion. 

Orthodoxy is a lot less partisan than Catholicism. I've never heard an Orthodox priest preach about who you should vote for. Orthodox laypeople are a different matter. In my observation, they fall into a few different groups. There are the ethnic Orthodox and they tend to vote Democratic. The ex-Evangelical Orthodox vote GOP. The hipster Orthodox range. If they're young, they're likely to be on the fringes politically. Sometimes libertarian or even communist. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I do understand what you are saying.  However, I don't think you understand what I am saying.  They believe in the authority of Scripture differently than 'the only rule and norm of faith and practice' if they do.  

No. That is not necessarily true. If they believe the Scripture itself, when properly translated, allows for women's ordination they do not need to hold a different view of the authority of Scripture. 

Anymore than a church like yours, which does not require men to hold their hands up when they pray, or women to cover their heads at all time, etc etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2019 at 1:24 AM, Ordinary Shoes said:

Back when I was Catholic, I knew a priest who would say things about Catholics being poor. I remembered thinking he was deluded. The Anglo Catholic Church is pretty upper middle class now; at least when you consider people who attend Mass regularly. 

I remember a debate on an Orthodox forum about charging for Sunday school. The former Evangelicals were shocked that a church would charge for Sunday school. I was shocked that a church WOULDN'T charge for Sunday school. But someone made a point I hadn't considered - apparently CCD (or whatever they call it today - Faith Formation?) fees are a sore point for some Catholics because it can add up, especially if the family is one of the few that follows the birth control rules. This person contended that fees for things like CCD make non middle class Catholics feel unwelcome in their church. 

My daughter attended Catholic school for 3 years and it was clear that her classmates were exposed to a lot of right wing news. She was at this school during the 2016 election. She told me that Hillary Clinton was going to kill a disabled student at the school. She said that Clinton was going to kill all of the babies. She didn't understand that one and wanted to know what that meant. She was in 1st grade at the time. These are things she heard from other kids. She was told by these kids that voting for Clinton meant you wanted to kill babies. The school principal and other parents shared on their FB feed a sermon where a priest said that you shouldn't go to communion if you vote for HRC. That's Catholic America today, at least in my observation. Extremely partisan and hostile to anyone with a different opinion. 

Orthodoxy is a lot less partisan than Catholicism. I've never heard an Orthodox priest preach about who you should vote for. Orthodox laypeople are a different matter. In my observation, they fall into a few different groups. There are the ethnic Orthodox and they tend to vote Democratic. The ex-Evangelical Orthodox vote GOP. The hipster Orthodox range. If they're young, they're likely to be on the fringes politically. Sometimes libertarian or even communist. 

I think part of the change in the Catholic demographic over time is that it used to be lots of working class immigrants. Then with upward mobility that changed quite a bit. But then you had more Hispanic immigrants that were Catholic, so the divide by race in relation to politics makes sense.

I was back in my hometown in the rural Midwest during the 2016 election. And there was lots of talk about priests being reported for saying the same thing about HRC. Growing up, I mainly saw the social justice, serving the poor, nuns on the bus, Catholic Worker House, etc. side of Catholicism. And I never heard of paying for CCD classes. I’m not sure many of the very large families in our parish could have done that. It seems very naive in retrospect, but it wasn’t until I was older and had left the Church that I discovered there were two pretty distinct factions within the church.

I think Bluegoats theory is interesting and is something I have been pondering since reading it.

 

Edited by Frances
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Interesting about St Brigid.  I'm not sure if I'd say if it was enough to establish a tradition, as there were contrary instances as well.

I mentioned that the deaconess wasn't a path to the priesthood because it suggests that it isn't the same kind of thing.  There were lots of orders in the ancient church, many of which no longer exist, and they were in some sense ordained, but not in the same way as a priest.  

 

On St. Brigid, I never said it was.

My response about Deaconesses was originally in response to Katie. It points out that there are orders and positions for women. It has zilch to do with the priesthood. It's a position and one that required ordination. It was specific to women and the duties were often the same as you find of many diaconates in various churches. I honestly don't care if it's "the same thing". That was never the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 3:14 PM, Ktgrok said:

Also, this is my new favorite quote. 

“I think Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew we were turning his letters into torah.” 
—F. F. Bruce

 

That reminds me of something I saw years ago. I don't remember who said it or the exact wording but it went along the lines of "Many who call themselves Christians are actually Paulians". 

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...