Biblical womanhood

5,974 Views | 117 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by quash
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Baylor prof profiled in the New Yorker in an article about the impact of a book about complemtarianism she wrote

https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

What this article doesn't point out is that there are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. In the older story, God creates men and women simultaneously in the first story only after creating all of the other life on earth, in the second, Adam comes first. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis



Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"For too many years, she said, she had stayed silent about the fact that women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did"

She is either making this up in her head or she spent years going to a church that does not teach the Bible or Christianity.

"This is not about deconstructing faith; its about deconstructing culture," Barr said.

Oh we know....and Barr is decades late to that party.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just ordered a chicken and eggs from Amazon. I will let you know.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

"For too many years, she said, she had stayed silent about the fact that women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did"

What a shame she went to such a bad church for so many years that doesn't teach scriptural truth.

Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I remember the Def Leppard song titled Women. It was an affirming, elevating song about the fairer sex. Of course, at the time, there were only two genders. But we are much smarter than that now.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

I remember the Def Lepard song titled Women. It was an affirming, elevating song about the fairer sex. Of course, at the time, there were only two genders. But we are much smarter than that now.
Yep,

I'm not even sure what Barr is arguing about. There is no such thing as a "woman" anyway.

Gender exists on a spectrum.

Even vaginas don't exist anymore as liberals have told us...the correct term is front hole.

https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2723175-Only-trans-women-have-vaginas-women-have-front-holes

http://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Trans_Safer_Sex_Guide_FINAL.pdf

"FRONT HOLE: We use this word to talk about internal genitals, sometimes referred to as a vagina. A front hole may self-lubricate, depending on age and hormones."


Progressivism is moving at lighting speed to erase the group previously known as "women" from our society.

These front hole having....feminine presenting individuals may look back fondly on the horrific cis-gendered patriarchy in a few decades. At least it was willing to acknowledge they exist and have a place in the order of human society.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Carlos Cruz said:

I remember the Def Lepard song titled Women. It was an affirming, elevating song about the fairer sex. Of course, at the time, there were only two genders. But we are much smarter than that now.
Yep,

I'm not even sure what Barr is arguing about. There is no such thing as a "woman" anyway.

Gender exists on a spectrum.

Even vaginas don't exist anymore as liberals have told us...the correct term is front hole.

https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2723175-Only-trans-women-have-vaginas-women-have-front-holes

http://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Trans_Safer_Sex_Guide_FINAL.pdf

"FRONT HOLE: We use this word to talk about internal genitals, sometimes referred to as a vagina. A front hole may self-lubricate, depending on age and hormones."


Progressivism is moving a lighting speed to erase the group previously known as "women" from our society.

Those front hole having....feminine presenting individuals may look back fondly on the horrific cis-gendered patriarchy in a few decades. At least it was willing to acknowledge they exist and have a place in the order of human society.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Carlos Cruz said:

I remember the Def Lepard song titled Women. It was an affirming, elevating song about the fairer sex. Of course, at the time, there were only two genders. But we are much smarter than that now.
Yep,

I'm not even sure what Barr is arguing about. There is no such thing as a "woman" anyway.

Gender exists on a spectrum.

Even vaginas don't exist anymore as liberals have told us...the correct term is front hole.

https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2723175-Only-trans-women-have-vaginas-women-have-front-holes

http://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Trans_Safer_Sex_Guide_FINAL.pdf

"FRONT HOLE: We use this word to talk about internal genitals, sometimes referred to as a vagina. A front hole may self-lubricate, depending on age and hormones."


Progressivism is moving a lighting speed to erase the group previously known as "women" from our society.

Those front hole having....feminine presenting individuals may look back fondly on the horrific cis-gendered patriarchy in a few decades. At least it was willing to acknowledge they exist and have a place in the order of human society.


Front hole? Look all you want but you will not find it there.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Biology is one reason for gender roles. There are other aspects to the two genders that matter as well. There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them. On the other hand, it is incumbent on men to take leadership in the church so that women do not have to fill that void. When you see a woman teaching and leading men in the church and at home that is an indication that the men are failing.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.
true...

[The narrative that has dominated feminist discourse since the 1960s, women are weak until we strike out every feminine trait that distinguishes us from men. This message has been repeated with increasing volume for decades, echoing from the studios in Hollywood to the ivory towers of higher education, chanted by the women in white at the 2019 State of the Union Address. Behind every iteration is a reminder that women are always victims. Even as feminism promises women that we can "have it all" and "be anything we want," we are told we will remain powerless until we cease to behave like women and instead become like men. Traditionally feminine virtues of modesty and chastity are flagged as signs of sexual repression. We must subvert our natural ability to bring forth new life if we want to achieve anything substantive in our lives. Most of all, we must have the ability to destroy our own children or we will never succeed. -Kelly Marcum, Professor King's College London]

[The inherent flaw within the feminist ideology: it is built upon the belief that women are indeed inferior to men, until they eschew anything that might actually mark them apart as women. -Kelly Marcum, King's College London]
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Biology is one reason for gender roles. There are other aspects to the two genders that matter as well. There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them . On the other hand, it is incumbent on men to take leadership in the church so that women do not have to fill that void. When you see a woman teaching and leading men in the church and at home that is an indication that the men are failing.
oof.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Biology is one reason for gender roles. There are other aspects to the two genders that matter as well. There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them . On the other hand, it is incumbent on men to take leadership in the church so that women do not have to fill that void. When you see a woman teaching and leading men in the church and at home that is an indication that the men are failing.
oof.
I wish you would have also underlined the bolded message for greater emphasis.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Biology is one reason for gender roles. There are other aspects to the two genders that matter as well. There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them . On the other hand, it is incumbent on men to take leadership in the church so that women do not have to fill that void. When you see a woman teaching and leading men in the church and at home that is an indication that the men are failing.
oof.
I wish you would have also underlined the bolded message for greater emphasis.
It sticks out enough bolded. Again, I think women should be able to have roles of power and authority. Reality says that most women don't want that, or may not be suited for it, but there are plenty of great female pastors.

You're the kind of guy that would walk out of church if a female showed up to preach, spouting nonsense about men failing to lead, and that tells me everything I need to know about your faith, and your position on equality. You have your bubble, and are not going to venture outside.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Biology is one reason for gender roles. There are other aspects to the two genders that matter as well. There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them . On the other hand, it is incumbent on men to take leadership in the church so that women do not have to fill that void. When you see a woman teaching and leading men in the church and at home that is an indication that the men are failing.
oof.
I wish you would have also underlined the bolded message for greater emphasis.
It sticks out enough bolded. Again, I think women should be able to have roles of power and authority. Reality says that most women don't want that, or may not be suited for it, but there are plenty of great female pastors.

You're the kind of guy that would walk out of church if a female showed up to preach, spouting nonsense about men failing to lead, and that tells me everything I need to know about your faith, and your position on equality. You have your bubble, and are not going to venture outside.
When I am before The Creator of the Universe, I will not have to worry about what you think and I will not be judged according to what you wrote. Even today, I receive no blessing or consequence on account of you. Therefore, what you think of me means nothing to me.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Biology is one reason for gender roles. There are other aspects to the two genders that matter as well. There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them . On the other hand, it is incumbent on men to take leadership in the church so that women do not have to fill that void. When you see a woman teaching and leading men in the church and at home that is an indication that the men are failing.
oof.
I wish you would have also underlined the bolded message for greater emphasis.
It sticks out enough bolded. Again, I think women should be able to have roles of power and authority. Reality says that most women don't want that, or may not be suited for it, but there are plenty of great female pastors.

You're the kind of guy that would walk out of church if a female showed up to preach, spouting nonsense about men failing to lead, and that tells me everything I need to know about your faith, and your position on equality. You have your bubble, and are not going to venture outside.
1. Why should women have roles of power and authority over men? In what context should they exert this power/authority? What in church history or human nature leads you to believe this is correct or normal?

2. And specifically as it regards church organizations...if women in leadership helped churches/religious orgs to thrive. Then why is mainline Christianity and Reform Judaism dying out? You could not find a more female "empowerment" religious organization than the Episcopal church. Yet the Episcopal church has an average age of 69 and has lost half its members since 2001. It will most likely not exist by the year 2050.

https://forward.com/scribe/402104/where-have-all-of-the-reform-synagogues-gone/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reform-judaism-managing-for-decline/

https://protestia.com/2021/07/08/with-a-median-congregational-age-of-69-the-episcopal-church-is-literally-dying/

https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/09/21/episcopal-membership/
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Biology is one reason for gender roles. There are other aspects to the two genders that matter as well. There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them . On the other hand, it is incumbent on men to take leadership in the church so that women do not have to fill that void. When you see a woman teaching and leading men in the church and at home that is an indication that the men are failing.
oof.
I wish you would have also underlined the bolded message for greater emphasis.
It sticks out enough bolded. Again, I think women should be able to have roles of power and authority. Reality says that most women don't want that, or may not be suited for it, but there are plenty of great female pastors.

You're the kind of guy that would walk out of church if a female showed up to preach, spouting nonsense about men failing to lead, and that tells me everything I need to know about your faith, and your position on equality. You have your bubble, and are not going to venture outside.
1. Why should women have roles of power and authority over men? In what context should they exert this power/authority? What in church history or human nature leads you to believe this is correct or normal?

2. And specifically as it regards church organizations...if women in leadership helped churches/religious orgs to thrive. Then why is mainline Christianity and Reform Judaism dying out? You could not find a more female "empowerment" religious organization than the Episcopal church. Yet the Episcopal church has an average age of 69 and has lost half its members since 2001. It will most likely not exist by the year 2050.

https://forward.com/scribe/402104/where-have-all-of-the-reform-synagogues-gone/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reform-judaism-managing-for-decline/

https://protestia.com/2021/07/08/with-a-median-congregational-age-of-69-the-episcopal-church-is-literally-dying/

https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/09/21/episcopal-membership/
Why shouldn't women have roles of power and authority over men?

The current president of Baylor is a woman. Do you have a problem with that?

White evangelical protestant denominations are experiencing a decline. How might the way evangelicals treat women in their congregations have affected that? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/08/rapid-decline-white-evangelical-america/
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.
You are hitting alot of different points in this post.

1. No one is bashing women on this thread. Not even close.

2. The massive push to normalize transgenderism comes after the equality massive top down media/capitalist/neo-liberal successful push to legitimize and normalize homosexuality. Those efforts were successful. If you don't think normalizing transgenderism, especially Male to Female transgenderism, won't have enormous effects on regular women in the future you are gravely mistaken.

3. You are correct that most people can barely remember a time when women were not fully integrated into the work force and modern capitalist society. If fact today they dominate the modern university campus. The vast majority of graduates today are women and not men. Of course the massive entrance of women to the working world has more to do with Wall St. and the capitalistic system wanting more workers than it does anything to do with "making women happy". But that is a subject for another day.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/gender-education-gap/546677/

https://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/why-do-women-outnumber-men-college

J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

J.B.Katz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.
You are hitting alot of different points in this post.

1. No one is bashing women on this thread. Not even close.

2. The massive push to normalize transgenderism comes after the equality massive top down media/capitalist/neo-liberal successful push to legitimize and normalize homosexuality. Those efforts were successful. If you don't think normalizing transgenderism, especially Male to Female transgenderism, won't have enormous effects on regular women in the future you are gravely mistaken.

3. You are correct that most people can barely remember a time when women were not fully integrated into the work force and modern capitalist society. If fact today they dominate the modern university campus. The vast majority of graduates today are women and not men. Of course the massive entrance of women to the working world has more to do with Wall St. and the capitalistic system wanting more workers than it does anything to do with "making women happy". But that is a subject for another day.
The treatment of women in evangelical churches has absolutely nothing to do with transgenderism. Go fish.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

Redbrickbear said:

J.B.Katz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.
You are hitting alot of different points in this post.

1. No one is bashing women on this thread. Not even close.

2. The massive push to normalize transgenderism comes after the equality massive top down media/capitalist/neo-liberal successful push to legitimize and normalize homosexuality. Those efforts were successful. If you don't think normalizing transgenderism, especially Male to Female transgenderism, won't have enormous effects on regular women in the future you are gravely mistaken.

3. You are correct that most people can barely remember a time when women were not fully integrated into the work force and modern capitalist society. If fact today they dominate the modern university campus. The vast majority of graduates today are women and not men. Of course the massive entrance of women to the working world has more to do with Wall St. and the capitalistic system wanting more workers than it does anything to do with "making women happy". But that is a subject for another day.
The treatment of women in evangelical churches has absolutely nothing to do with transgenderism. Go fish.
Well that was a slight digression from the main topic.

So lets stick to the topic.

Where is your evidence that "women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did" heresy is actually being taught in the majority of evangelical churches?

Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

Redbrickbear said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Carlos Cruz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Get back to me on "actual equality" when women start getting on, building, and falling off of skyscrapers at a rate equal to me. Or doing the other dirty jobs men do in numbers equal to men. Good grief, some of you think equality means being nearly identical in most or all respects. That is simply not the case.

Equality isn't about being the same, just being treated equally. Biology still exists. Men will always dominate construction. Good grief.
Then stop complaining about other roles where women's participation is restricted.

You've misread my post. Equality means a woman should have the opportunity to do any given job. Biology means most women will not be building skyscrapers. It's not restrictive to set standards according to what a job requires.

You are advocating restrictions based on gender (dangerous in 2021, watch out), and I'm not.
Biology is one reason for gender roles. There are other aspects to the two genders that matter as well. There are reasons women should not teach men in church or have authority over them . On the other hand, it is incumbent on men to take leadership in the church so that women do not have to fill that void. When you see a woman teaching and leading men in the church and at home that is an indication that the men are failing.
oof.
I wish you would have also underlined the bolded message for greater emphasis.
It sticks out enough bolded. Again, I think women should be able to have roles of power and authority. Reality says that most women don't want that, or may not be suited for it, but there are plenty of great female pastors.

You're the kind of guy that would walk out of church if a female showed up to preach, spouting nonsense about men failing to lead, and that tells me everything I need to know about your faith, and your position on equality. You have your bubble, and are not going to venture outside.
1. Why should women have roles of power and authority over men? In what context should they exert this power/authority? What in church history or human nature leads you to believe this is correct or normal?

2. And specifically as it regards church organizations...if women in leadership helped churches/religious orgs to thrive. Then why is mainline Christianity and Reform Judaism dying out? You could not find a more female "empowerment" religious organization than the Episcopal church. Yet the Episcopal church has an average age of 69 and has lost half its members since 2001. It will most likely not exist by the year 2050.

https://forward.com/scribe/402104/where-have-all-of-the-reform-synagogues-gone/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reform-judaism-managing-for-decline/

https://protestia.com/2021/07/08/with-a-median-congregational-age-of-69-the-episcopal-church-is-literally-dying/

https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/09/21/episcopal-membership/
Why shouldn't women have roles of power and authority over men?

The current president of Baylor is a woman. Do you have a problem with that?

White evangelical protestant denominations are experiencing a decline. How might the way evangelicals treat women in their congregations have affected that? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/08/rapid-decline-white-evangelical-america/
Again are we talking Churches or universities/businesses?

There is no historic justification or women to assume the role of Priest in Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy or Pastor in evangelical Christianity.

True that many denominations are experiencing decline. But none the way mainline Christianity and reform Judaism have imploded.

If lack of women in leadership was the problem...why has it not stopped the freefall collapse among the mainline and reformed?

In fact the most extreme gender role practicing Jews and Christians are experiencing the most growth.

Hasidic Judaism has a growth rate of 4%-5% yearly. They number 1.8 million....that growth rate is astonishing.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/haredi-population-growing-twice-as-fast-as-total-israeli-population-report/

And the Amish Christians have 7-10 children per family and are on track to hit 7 million members by the end of the century.

https://amishamerica.com/7-million-amish-by-2100/
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

Baylor prof profiled in the New Yorker in an article about the impact of a book about complemtarianism she wrote

https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

What this article doesn't point out is that there are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. In the older story, God creates men and women simultaneously in the first story only after creating all of the other life on earth, in the second, Adam comes first. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis






It's not the topic of the thread, I know, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are not two creation stories. There is a creation story in Gen 1, and a non-chronological summary of the creation story in Gen 2.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

J.B.Katz said:

Redbrickbear said:

J.B.Katz said:

Porteroso said:

Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.

The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.

It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.

This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.


Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.

There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.

I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.
You are hitting alot of different points in this post.

1. No one is bashing women on this thread. Not even close.

2. The massive push to normalize transgenderism comes after the equality massive top down media/capitalist/neo-liberal successful push to legitimize and normalize homosexuality. Those efforts were successful. If you don't think normalizing transgenderism, especially Male to Female transgenderism, won't have enormous effects on regular women in the future you are gravely mistaken.

3. You are correct that most people can barely remember a time when women were not fully integrated into the work force and modern capitalist society. If fact today they dominate the modern university campus. The vast majority of graduates today are women and not men. Of course the massive entrance of women to the working world has more to do with Wall St. and the capitalistic system wanting more workers than it does anything to do with "making women happy". But that is a subject for another day.
The treatment of women in evangelical churches has absolutely nothing to do with transgenderism. Go fish.
Well that was a slight digression from the main topic.

So lets stick to the topic.

Where is your evidence that "women were taught that they mattered less to God than men did" heresy is actually being taught in the majority of evangelical churches?


Yes, let's.

Barr's article questions the orthodoxy explained in this article, which also shows some of the weaknesses of the orthodoxy and how far you have to stretch to get to the rigid 1950s roles evangelicals want to claim the Bible supports.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/09/21/what-draws-women-religion-that-says-men-should-be-charge/

NEW ORLEANS Growing up in rural Mississippi, Gracie Robinson decided early on that she would never get married.
In her Baptist church, she heard the preaching: The Bible orders women to be submissive to their husbands. Robinson didn't want to be submissive.

This summer, 26 and unmarried and enrolled in a seminary 300 miles from the dusty backwater she describes growing up in, she's holding court, ranting over garlic fries and gumbo that she'll never let a man control her.

"Every time I think about it, it just burns me up!" she says, as the other female seminarians laugh and clap.
And then Robinson's tone changes. Matter-of-fact, she says about a husband: "True enough, he is the head of the household. And he is the spiritual leader."

And her friends wholeheartedly agree to that, too.
This is the challenge and the contradiction of being an evangelical woman today: Embracing the beliefs of a community that teaches it's the will of God for men alone to lead churches and families, while also fiercely arguing for women's equal worth.

That complex position has exploded into public view over the past several months. The evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, has faced a string of #MeToo scandals the head of the denomination's executive committee and the pastor grandson of its most famous evangelist, the Rev. Billy Graham, both resigned over inappropriate sexual relationships; a Memphis church's handling of pastor Andy Savage's sexual encounter with a teenager was condemned in nationwide headlines; revered denominational leader Paul Pressler was accused of sexual assault.

But by far the scandal that has rattled the community the most is that of Paige Patterson. A towering Southern Baptist leader, Patterson was fired from his job leading one of the denomination's six seminaries when it came to light that he had not reported two women's allegations of rape to the police. When Patterson returned to the pulpit last week, he made comments about a woman's body and questioned the validity of some sexual assault allegations.

Women were instrumental in Patterson's downfall, signing a petition against him by the thousands. But women also continue to rally around him. "I'm a Southern Baptist lady," said a pastor's widow who took the microphone at the denomination's annual meeting. "I am not a #MeToo." When angry donors sent a letter after the meeting protesting Patterson's firing, 14 of the 25 signers were women.

At the denomination's seminaries, intellectual centers of evangelical Christianity, female students who cannot be ordained as pastors are wrestling with what exactly draws them to a faith that preaches their own ineligibility for leadership.

"Seeing something as God's divine order, there's a clarity to that. I think there's also a strong dislike in many quarters of feminism and what some of these women believe feminism stands for an anti-child or anti-family emphasis they perceive in feminism," said R. Marie Griffith, who was raised Southern Baptist and who directs Washington University in St. Louis's Danforth Center on Religion and Politics. "For many women, they do believe that's God's order. . . . The preferred mode would be: Okay, men will be the spiritual leaders."

Southern Baptist seminaries enrolled 12 percent more women from 2012-2016, following more than two decades of gradual growth in women's enrollment. Over those same decades, the denomination led by Patterson and Pressler doubled down on a theology of gender that emphasizes male leadership.
At New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, a summer intensive just for women taught these same conservative principles while students explored just where the boundaries lie.

"God created men and women equal in worth and value, but different in role and function. Different is just different. Different isn't bad," teaches Rhonda Kelley, the wife of the seminary's president and the head of its women's ministry program. "Our biblically assigned role is to submit to men that God placed in authority over our lives."

She says that women who don't obey this plan end up dissatisfied with their lives; on her PowerPoint presentation, bold letters describe it as a "sure path to destruction for home and family."

Reading the Bible in Kelley's class, students learn to scour passages for evidence of this biblical plan for women. For instance, after reading the story of Deborah the judge who led Israel for a time, including commanding troops on the battlefield one student acknowledged that some readers see the story as the Bible condoning an example of a woman in power.

The student said she was searching for another interpretation: "What I settled on in my heart is Deborah did it in reverence for the leadership God intended men to have, in humility rather than saying, 'I know what to do. I'm going to lead this battle,'" she concluded.

After the students read passages about the prophet Huldah, the judge Deborah, the prophet Miriam, and the queen Esther, Kelley put up a slide that concluded: "There is not a biblical pattern of women in positions of spiritual leadership (i.e. prophet or judge)."

Her students, like the women who spoke out against Patterson, express their concerns as women even while pledging their adherence to tradition. When the class reads a book suggesting a wife should follow her husband if he wants to move for his job, many of them search for a way to reject that guidance, saying their own careers should be important, too.

"I agree with the Christian view. And I agree with, yes, woman as helper. But it's the implications," one says.
Nickolee Roberts chimes in. "I'm like yes, you're right, this is biblical. Then I get to the practical applications and I'm like, no, I don't agree with you. Let me throw the book out the window."

That's what seems to be quietly happening in some evangelical circles throwing some older practices out the window, without throwing out the interpretation of the Bible at its core.

The shake-up around gender in the Southern Baptist Convention caused some subtle ripples in the classroom here. Jill Nash, studying for her Master's in Divinity, sat down on the first day of her Christian Ethics class and found, not unusually for a seminary class, that she was the only woman out of seven students. (Kelley, who runs the program of women-specific courses, calls the core courses required of all M.Div. students, male and female, "the boy classes.")

What was unusual was the greeting the professor offered: "Obviously Jill is the only female here. We should treat her like a sister in Christ," he said, to Nash's great surprise. She thinks Patterson was on the instructor's mind.

Nash, who works for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, didn't marry until she was 42, so in the last few years, she's given a lot of thought to the questions now bubbling up in the convention about what female submission means. "Sub it means to come under a mission. If you see the direction someone's going that you're dating as something you've got to really come under can I come under that? Can I support that?" she said to friends at dinner that night, after that Christian Ethics class. "That husband is to love you as Christ loves the Church. And who doesn't want to submit to that? I want to cook dinner for him every night. I want to wash his clothes."

Milly Horsley, 26, agreed: "Who doesn't want to submit to that kind of love?"

Horsley is no stranger to male-dominated professions not only is she a seminary student, but she also patrols the campus with a firearm in the wee hours of the night, as the only female officer of the campus police. She said she has felt frustrated that Southern Baptist men don't always listen when women try to tell them about important issues, including sexual abuse in the church.

But she doesn't think the solution is opening more jobs to women. "I've never met a Southern Baptist lady who said, 'I'm doing all this. I wish I could be a pastor.' If I really wanted to be a pastor, I would change denominations. But I believe we're the closest to the Bible. If I disagreed with it, then I wouldn't be here," she said. "Scripture says a man shouldn't be constantly under the headship of a woman. That has to be our model above all."

Jade Perkins is also getting a master's degree at the seminary but agrees women shouldn't be pastors. First, she's not sure a woman could handle the criticism: "Women are more emotional than men. People in the church can be harsh. A woman can break down emotionally more."

And second, there's the wardrobe: "Men, Sunday after Sunday, have to preach in front of their congregations, and they're going to wear a suit. A woman instead would have to make sure her outfit looks good, she's modest, her hair looks good, her makeup looks good. A woman's going to be pulled apart about what she looks like."

Perkins said she takes these stumbling blocks as a sign from God that women really don't belong in that pulpit.

But all the same, she's frustrated with the career opportunities available to her and to her fellow female seminary graduates. "Especially in the Southern Baptist realm, you're not going to have a woman as the pastor. Or the associate pastor, typically. Rarely the youth pastor. So if you're a woman, you have to be the children's pastor," she said. And then she pointed out that most churches don't have the budget for a fourth pastor, so that means a woman won't get hired for a ministry job at all. "Usually, women are secretaries."
This is the push-and-pull of the evangelical woman: Believing in the basic rightness of a hierarchy that puts men at the top of the church and family; pushing at every boundary for more opportunities as a modern woman.

In the classroom, Kelley passed out a list of 83 different roles of authority in a church, from church treasurer, to writer of biblical commentary, to singer in the choir, to greeter at the door. Wayne Grudem, the prominent conservative theologian who wrote the list, argued that 14 out of the 83 jobs should be for men only including serving as a deacon or elder of the church, serving on the governing board of a denomination, presiding over a baptism, teaching theology in a seminary, preaching regularly to the church, and being ordained as a pastor.

Students skimmed the fine-printed list. They thought of each role they play in their own churches, where they teach and babysit and lead committees and organize events and preach and counsel and befriend and console.

Silently, they pondered whether the Bible meant for them to do it all.
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biblical image of women in college? I always thought the idea was to date a Jezebel for 2 years before finding a Ruth to take home and meet the folks.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JXL said:

J.B.Katz said:

Baylor prof profiled in the New Yorker in an article about the impact of a book about complemtarianism she wrote

https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

What this article doesn't point out is that there are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. In the older story, God creates men and women simultaneously in the first story only after creating all of the other life on earth, in the second, Adam comes first. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis






It's not the topic of the thread, I know, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are not two creation stories. There is a creation story in Gen 1, and a non-chronological summary of the creation story in Gen 2.
That's the evangelical position on these two stories but I do not think it's correct: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis

The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.

For example, though the stories describe some of the same events, they order them differently. InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity. The first account uses the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning "God," whereas the second uses the tetragrammaton, YHWH (often represented by "Lord").

The stories are also very different in literary style. The first account appears neatly organized into three days of preparation followed by three days of actual formation. Each day concludes with the formulaic expression "and there was X." By the seventh day, all creation exists in its proper sphere, and God rests. This orderly pattern suggests an orderly universe. The second story (beginning in the second half of Gen 2:4 and continuing through the end of chapter 3) lacks both the structure and the focus of the first creation account. It is much less formulaic; rather, it is a dramatic narrative in a series of seven scenes.

Because of these and other divergences, it is likely that separate authors with distinct theological views and agendas wrote these myths. The differences in the accounts reflect the unique way each author conceptualizes the deity. In Gen 1, God is distant, creating through speech according to a master plan. This image contrasts with Gen 2, where the author depicts God as a human-like figure who walks in the garden and, like a potter working with clay, has a hands-on, trial-and-error approach to creation. God in this version seems more accessible than the transcendent creator of Gen 1.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

JXL said:

J.B.Katz said:

Baylor prof profiled in the New Yorker in an article about the impact of a book about complemtarianism she wrote

https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

What this article doesn't point out is that there are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. In the older story, God creates men and women simultaneously in the first story only after creating all of the other life on earth, in the second, Adam comes first. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis






It's not the topic of the thread, I know, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are not two creation stories. There is a creation story in Gen 1, and a non-chronological summary of the creation story in Gen 2.
That's the evangelical position on these two stories but I do not think it's correct: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis

The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.

For example, though the stories describe some of the same events, they order them differently. InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity. The first account uses the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning "God," whereas the second uses the tetragrammaton, YHWH (often represented by "Lord").

The stories are also very different in literary style. The first account appears neatly organized into three days of preparation followed by three days of actual formation. Each day concludes with the formulaic expression "and there was X." By the seventh day, all creation exists in its proper sphere, and God rests. This orderly pattern suggests an orderly universe. The second story (beginning in the second half of Gen 2:4 and continuing through the end of chapter 3) lacks both the structure and the focus of the first creation account. It is much less formulaic; rather, it is a dramatic narrative in a series of seven scenes.

Because of these and other divergences, it is likely that separate authors with distinct theological views and agendas wrote these myths. The differences in the accounts reflect the unique way each author conceptualizes the deity. In Gen 1, God is distant, creating through speech according to a master plan. This image contrasts with Gen 2, where the author depicts God as a human-like figure who walks in the garden and, like a potter working with clay, has a hands-on, trial-and-error approach to creation. God in this version seems more accessible than the transcendent creator of Gen 1.

The author of the story is a Mormon scholar. Error on top of error. Would he like to go find Joseph Smith's special glasses so that he can understand the foundations of his own faith? Or does he simply live to corrupt others' understanding and the foundations of the Christian Bible?
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

1. Why should women have roles of power and authority over men? In what context should they exert this power/authority? What in church history or human nature leads you to believe this is correct or normal?
In any role, any context, women should feel free to pursue leadership. Most women do not, but some are definitely suited for leadership. The thing in human nature that leads me to believe that's correct and should be normal is our desire for freedom.

In the context of religion, I'd ask you what instruction, or word from God, would you not be willing to receive from a woman? Do you believe God only speaks to men, and men then share that with women? If a woman has a thorough knowledge of the Bible, is it at all Biblical for her to not share that to the ends of the earth?

And in practical terms, we should all know who has authority over the church. Christ alone. The idea that men should be the sole interpreters on stage before an audience is as archaic as the dark ages churches, where we were told the common man wasn't even supposed to read the Bible, let alone interpret it. Both ideas are from the same vein of sexism.

In real life, I may respect my pastor, but he has no real authority over me. And you may say yours has authority over you, but the first time you strongly disagree with him, you'll do your own thing too. I'd be shocked if you toed the line 100%. A shepherd of men and women is not a position of authority, but of leadership. It is a person who decides how a church would be best served on any given Sunday. Key word being served. To be a pastor is to be a servant.

I don't expect to convince you on the authority front, but anyone should be able to admit that women can serve God, and can serve the church. You may deny that women are capable of speaking God's word from a hunk of wood on a stage, but I do not.
Quote:

2. And specifically as it regards church organizations...if women in leadership helped churches/religious orgs to thrive. Then why is mainline Christianity and Reform Judaism dying out? You could not find a more female "empowerment" religious organization than the Episcopal church. Yet the Episcopal church has an average age of 69 and has lost half its members since 2001. It will most likely not exist by the year 2050.
Christianity is dying out. Are you really saying it's because Episcopals allow women to be pastors? It's because the outside world finds the religion more and more disgusting. And that is because the religion resembles the life of Christ less and less. A few authors in the Bible did say that women can't speak the word of God on the podium, but Christ never did. He was all about empowerment. Empowering males and females. You won't find Christ telling a woman her place, but instead you'll find him telling everyone to follow him. I think that means people follow in whatever way that he leads them, and anyone who says they know better than God, how any given person should be serving, needs to seriously re-examine their faith.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

J.B.Katz said:

JXL said:

J.B.Katz said:

Baylor prof profiled in the New Yorker in an article about the impact of a book about complemtarianism she wrote

https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

What this article doesn't point out is that there are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. In the older story, God creates men and women simultaneously in the first story only after creating all of the other life on earth, in the second, Adam comes first. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis






It's not the topic of the thread, I know, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are not two creation stories. There is a creation story in Gen 1, and a non-chronological summary of the creation story in Gen 2.
That's the evangelical position on these two stories but I do not think it's correct: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis

The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.

For example, though the stories describe some of the same events, they order them differently. InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity. The first account uses the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning "God," whereas the second uses the tetragrammaton, YHWH (often represented by "Lord").

The stories are also very different in literary style. The first account appears neatly organized into three days of preparation followed by three days of actual formation. Each day concludes with the formulaic expression "and there was X." By the seventh day, all creation exists in its proper sphere, and God rests. This orderly pattern suggests an orderly universe. The second story (beginning in the second half of Gen 2:4 and continuing through the end of chapter 3) lacks both the structure and the focus of the first creation account. It is much less formulaic; rather, it is a dramatic narrative in a series of seven scenes.

Because of these and other divergences, it is likely that separate authors with distinct theological views and agendas wrote these myths. The differences in the accounts reflect the unique way each author conceptualizes the deity. In Gen 1, God is distant, creating through speech according to a master plan. This image contrasts with Gen 2, where the author depicts God as a human-like figure who walks in the garden and, like a potter working with clay, has a hands-on, trial-and-error approach to creation. God in this version seems more accessible than the transcendent creator of Gen 1.

The author of the story is a Mormon scholar. Error on top of error. Would he like to go find Joseph Smith's special glasses so that he can understand the foundations of his own faith? Or does he simply live to corrupt others' understanding and the foundations of the Christian Bible?
Whether these are 2 different stories is an old, old argument. I happen to think they are:

https://biologos.org/articles/israels-two-creation-stories/

The book of Genesis includes two very different creation stories. The first, "Genesis 1" runs from verse 1:1 to the middle of 2:4 (2:4a). The second, "Genesis 2," runs from verse 2:4b to 2:25.

Beginning in the 18th century, European Old Testament scholars discussed this point in earnest. The next two centuries brought the discovery of numerous creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan. With the discovery of these creation stories, scholars could now see clear evidence to support a nonliteral reading of the Genesis texts, since each biblical story shares characteristics of different Near Eastern stories. (We will look at this issue in future posts.)

Some modern scholars have relished in simply "dividing" the two stories as a way of undermining the Bible. That attitude has turned some people off to exploring the dual nature of the creation stories. But seeing two creation stories in Genesis is not the invention of modern biblical scholars.

For example, the ancient Jewish interpreter Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to AD 50) understood Genesis 1 and 2 to be contradictory. This was not a problem for Philo, however. Rather, it signaled to him that the two stories were not meant to be understood historically. God meant them to be understood as pointing to realities deeper than the merely historical.

For readers today, there are four very good reasons to focus on the differences between the creation stories in Genesis.

First, if this is what Scripture presents, as many alert readers have indicated, it is reason enough for us to look at it carefully.

Second, two different perspectives on creation in Genesis suggest (as it did to Philo) that "recording history" is not the point. That is clearly a very important point to ponder in the discussion between Christianity and evolution.

Third, outlining the distinctives of the two creation stories encourages respect for what is actually written, rather than obscuring those elements in order to achieve some artificial unity. Genesis 1 and 2 is not the only place in the Bible where two different versions of the same story are placed side-by-side. (For example, there are two genealogies in Genesis 4 and 5 and two accounts of the spread of humanity in Genesis 10 and 11. There are also two distinct histories of Israel, one in Samuel/Kings and the other Chronicles, and four distinct tellings of the story of Jesus.) So, when we see the "two-ness" of the creation story, we should pay close attention to what we can learn from this.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

Carlos Cruz said:

J.B.Katz said:

JXL said:

J.B.Katz said:

Baylor prof profiled in the New Yorker in an article about the impact of a book about complemtarianism she wrote

https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

What this article doesn't point out is that there are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. In the older story, God creates men and women simultaneously in the first story only after creating all of the other life on earth, in the second, Adam comes first. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis






It's not the topic of the thread, I know, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are not two creation stories. There is a creation story in Gen 1, and a non-chronological summary of the creation story in Gen 2.
That's the evangelical position on these two stories but I do not think it's correct: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis

The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.

For example, though the stories describe some of the same events, they order them differently. InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity. The first account uses the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning "God," whereas the second uses the tetragrammaton, YHWH (often represented by "Lord").

The stories are also very different in literary style. The first account appears neatly organized into three days of preparation followed by three days of actual formation. Each day concludes with the formulaic expression "and there was X." By the seventh day, all creation exists in its proper sphere, and God rests. This orderly pattern suggests an orderly universe. The second story (beginning in the second half of Gen 2:4 and continuing through the end of chapter 3) lacks both the structure and the focus of the first creation account. It is much less formulaic; rather, it is a dramatic narrative in a series of seven scenes.

Because of these and other divergences, it is likely that separate authors with distinct theological views and agendas wrote these myths. The differences in the accounts reflect the unique way each author conceptualizes the deity. In Gen 1, God is distant, creating through speech according to a master plan. This image contrasts with Gen 2, where the author depicts God as a human-like figure who walks in the garden and, like a potter working with clay, has a hands-on, trial-and-error approach to creation. God in this version seems more accessible than the transcendent creator of Gen 1.

The author of the story is a Mormon scholar. Error on top of error. Would he like to go find Joseph Smith's special glasses so that he can understand the foundations of his own faith? Or does he simply live to corrupt others' understanding and the foundations of the Christian Bible?
Whether these are 2 different stories is an old, old argument. I happen to think they are:

https://biologos.org/articles/israels-two-creation-stories/

The book of Genesis includes two very different creation stories. The first, "Genesis 1" runs from verse 1:1 to the middle of 2:4 (2:4a). The second, "Genesis 2," runs from verse 2:4b to 2:25.

Beginning in the 18th century, European Old Testament scholars discussed this point in earnest. The next two centuries brought the discovery of numerous creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan. With the discovery of these creation stories, scholars could now see clear evidence to support a nonliteral reading of the Genesis texts, since each biblical story shares characteristics of different Near Eastern stories. (We will look at this issue in future posts.)

Some modern scholars have relished in simply "dividing" the two stories as a way of undermining the Bible. That attitude has turned some people off to exploring the dual nature of the creation stories. But seeing two creation stories in Genesis is not the invention of modern biblical scholars.

For example, the ancient Jewish interpreter Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to AD 50) understood Genesis 1 and 2 to be contradictory. This was not a problem for Philo, however. Rather, it signaled to him that the two stories were not meant to be understood historically. God meant them to be understood as pointing to realities deeper than the merely historical.

For readers today, there are four very good reasons to focus on the differences between the creation stories in Genesis.

First, if this is what Scripture presents, as many alert readers have indicated, it is reason enough for us to look at it carefully.

Second, two different perspectives on creation in Genesis suggest (as it did to Philo) that "recording history" is not the point. That is clearly a very important point to ponder in the discussion between Christianity and evolution.

Third, outlining the distinctives of the two creation stories encourages respect for what is actually written, rather than obscuring those elements in order to achieve some artificial unity. Genesis 1 and 2 is not the only place in the Bible where two different versions of the same story are placed side-by-side. (For example, there are two genealogies in Genesis 4 and 5 and two accounts of the spread of humanity in Genesis 10 and 11. There are also two distinct histories of Israel, one in Samuel/Kings and the other Chronicles, and four distinct tellings of the story of Jesus.) So, when we see the "two-ness" of the creation story, we should pay close attention to what we can learn from this.
It is still silly to quote a Mormon for commentary or scholarship on the Christian Bible.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Carlos Cruz said:

J.B.Katz said:

Carlos Cruz said:

J.B.Katz said:

JXL said:

J.B.Katz said:

Baylor prof profiled in the New Yorker in an article about the impact of a book about complemtarianism she wrote

https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

What this article doesn't point out is that there are actually 2 creation stories in Genesis. In the older story, God creates men and women simultaneously in the first story only after creating all of the other life on earth, in the second, Adam comes first. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis






It's not the topic of the thread, I know, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are not two creation stories. There is a creation story in Gen 1, and a non-chronological summary of the creation story in Gen 2.
That's the evangelical position on these two stories but I do not think it's correct: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis

The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.

For example, though the stories describe some of the same events, they order them differently. InGen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity. The first account uses the Hebrew word Elohim, meaning "God," whereas the second uses the tetragrammaton, YHWH (often represented by "Lord").

The stories are also very different in literary style. The first account appears neatly organized into three days of preparation followed by three days of actual formation. Each day concludes with the formulaic expression "and there was X." By the seventh day, all creation exists in its proper sphere, and God rests. This orderly pattern suggests an orderly universe. The second story (beginning in the second half of Gen 2:4 and continuing through the end of chapter 3) lacks both the structure and the focus of the first creation account. It is much less formulaic; rather, it is a dramatic narrative in a series of seven scenes.

Because of these and other divergences, it is likely that separate authors with distinct theological views and agendas wrote these myths. The differences in the accounts reflect the unique way each author conceptualizes the deity. In Gen 1, God is distant, creating through speech according to a master plan. This image contrasts with Gen 2, where the author depicts God as a human-like figure who walks in the garden and, like a potter working with clay, has a hands-on, trial-and-error approach to creation. God in this version seems more accessible than the transcendent creator of Gen 1.

The author of the story is a Mormon scholar. Error on top of error. Would he like to go find Joseph Smith's special glasses so that he can understand the foundations of his own faith? Or does he simply live to corrupt others' understanding and the foundations of the Christian Bible?
Whether these are 2 different stories is an old, old argument. I happen to think they are:

https://biologos.org/articles/israels-two-creation-stories/

The book of Genesis includes two very different creation stories. The first, "Genesis 1" runs from verse 1:1 to the middle of 2:4 (2:4a). The second, "Genesis 2," runs from verse 2:4b to 2:25.

Beginning in the 18th century, European Old Testament scholars discussed this point in earnest. The next two centuries brought the discovery of numerous creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan. With the discovery of these creation stories, scholars could now see clear evidence to support a nonliteral reading of the Genesis texts, since each biblical story shares characteristics of different Near Eastern stories. (We will look at this issue in future posts.)

Some modern scholars have relished in simply "dividing" the two stories as a way of undermining the Bible. That attitude has turned some people off to exploring the dual nature of the creation stories. But seeing two creation stories in Genesis is not the invention of modern biblical scholars.

For example, the ancient Jewish interpreter Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to AD 50) understood Genesis 1 and 2 to be contradictory. This was not a problem for Philo, however. Rather, it signaled to him that the two stories were not meant to be understood historically. God meant them to be understood as pointing to realities deeper than the merely historical.

For readers today, there are four very good reasons to focus on the differences between the creation stories in Genesis.

First, if this is what Scripture presents, as many alert readers have indicated, it is reason enough for us to look at it carefully.

Second, two different perspectives on creation in Genesis suggest (as it did to Philo) that "recording history" is not the point. That is clearly a very important point to ponder in the discussion between Christianity and evolution.

Third, outlining the distinctives of the two creation stories encourages respect for what is actually written, rather than obscuring those elements in order to achieve some artificial unity. Genesis 1 and 2 is not the only place in the Bible where two different versions of the same story are placed side-by-side. (For example, there are two genealogies in Genesis 4 and 5 and two accounts of the spread of humanity in Genesis 10 and 11. There are also two distinct histories of Israel, one in Samuel/Kings and the other Chronicles, and four distinct tellings of the story of Jesus.) So, when we see the "two-ness" of the creation story, we should pay close attention to what we can learn from this.
It is still silly to quote a Mormon for commentary or scholarship on the Christian Bible.
Scholars are scholars. Most Mormon scholars I know, know that the Mormon church is bunk.

You just don't want to engage in a discussion of women's role in the church and whether evangelicals with their submission/no teaching doctrine on women have got it wrong, as Prof Dunn say they have.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.