• Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
choralcrusader8613

Lori Alexander 15: Leaving A Fire With Her Makeup Bag

460 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, onemama said:

I think half (or more) of the church leadership problem stems from misunderstanding what Church is and what Church leadership is called to do.   If Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head (for everything that means) of the Church, then the leadership should be doing what Jesus does: serve, help grow, equip, be an example.  Jesus taught that whoever wants to be the greatest should become a servant to all.  So leadership is a position of service, not of being served. 

Sadly, the Church today is more like a club or a business. Leadership is all about teaching, preaching and exercising authority, but there's little talk about serving and being an example.  Christian leaders lead, primarily, by example.  How much emphasis is placed on the requirements laid out in some of the epistles and in the book of Acts?  How much emphasis is placed on being imitators of Christ -as described in Philippians 2 or Ephesians 5-?  

There's this wrong concept of church and family as organizations built around relationships of authority and submission, where one or a few rule, and everyone else is in submission to the authorities.   But the passages suggest something different to me.  Yes, there's authority -in the church- but it's authority in serving and being an example. Much like any other authority that we trust and want to follow because they actually show us what we want or need to know.  A bad leader shouldn't be followed. A leader who is basically out there to make money or make a name for himself is not a true Church leader. A leader that doesn't live a life worth imitating isn't a good leader.  In that sense, women are leaders and there are female leaders in the Church. Jesus even pointed out a certain woman as an example of love and faith.  

What is the job of a church leader? Much like a teacher in a school, a church teacher or leader is concerned with helping those in his/her care to learn and grow. Ephesians 4 says:  (11-16)

 

I found this list of Bible verses that go into leadership and what it implies.  Should it be male only? I don't think so. Does Jesus want the men to be the ones who take the responsibility to oversee the Church? It appears to say that, and I have nothing against that. But it's servanthood, not domination or demanding submission.  

www.openbible.info/topics/church_leadership

In order to help kids learn and grow, though, a teacher has to plan lessons, keep records and be in a safe functional space. So then we add a whole lot of other layers to that. 

Church is much the same. Yes, the primary job is what you lay out here. But we can't teach our kids the faith in an open field (especially in Nebraska in February). We need a space with walls and a roof and preferably HVAC. We need materials and technology. We need people to teach. 

We can't serve the community in the middle of an open field, either. Our parish operates the community food bank for our entire county. In order to do so, we need a space, paid staff, grants (which need written and managed), accounting, and on and on...

We cannot do the things the church is called to do in the 21st Century without some of the structures of business (at least on a non-profit level). So leadership has to exist on that level as well. 

I could also, after a lifetime in Protestant churches with no hierarchy or authority by design, argue that some actual administration and accountability is necessary, but I really don't want to go there. Let's just say that when my priest needed medication for mental health reasons, it was not a big deal. When the wife of the pastor at my grandpa's authority free Protestant church did, all hell broke loose. And that is only one example. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, louisa05 said:

 


Again though...why go after the Catholic Church first in this area? Why in a world with IFB and Michael Pearls have people in this thread decided that the real villain of gender inequity is a denomination that has made progress, allows women many positions of leadership and is actively moving toward more?

 

This is not a race to determine who is holier. I am the one who said that the RCC still sticks to old gender roles stereotypes. I am not American and honestly I don't give a flying fuck about who is the worst between Michael Dickhead Pearl and the RCC. The fact that MP is a monster doesn't diminish the fact that the RCC has its own issues. Also, from a strictly personal pov, MP's absurdities have no impact on my life, while the RCC backwardness does. My story is under spoiler for length and potentially identifying details. 

Spoiler

I live in Italy,  a lay country where unfortunately the RCC still unduly holds power. I am an educator (not a teacher, something more similar to an OT therapist) and I work with drug addicts. My first job, I was 22, was with a state sponsored not-for-profit (cooperativa in italian) who operates dozens of inpatient facilities throughout Northern Italy. The cooperativa is owned and composed by members of a lay congregation. I had no personal ties to this congregation but three of my strict relatives are members so, even if as an informal policy they usually employ only members of the congregation (and because they couldn't find  an available congregation member on a short notice) they hired me. For two years I worked for them literally day and night, I was the youngest and the only one without children, Mr laPG works in another region 300 km away, so I often worked from 7:00 am when patients woke up to 10:45 pm when they went to bed and also slept in the facility most of the week. I was paid only for 38hr per week.

The congregation makes a big thing out of issues like virginity before marriage, family wholesomeness and preaches it to the patients (ridiculous if you think that they were mostly over thirty,  had multiple sexual partner and terrible family history). But they also stress on repentance, reconciliation, forgiveness and redemption. In fact the facilities accept people of both sexes something that even lay facilities rarely do (sentimental complications arise often among people who are "closed" together in rehab for months or years). Once we found out that one of the men was having sex with one of the women, we couldn't find another facility that accepted her before three days, meanwhile my boss closed her alone in a bedroom at night in spite of every security concern.

Patients had to attend prayer moments in an internal chapel thrice a day, Mass on Sundays and were pressured into seeking the sacrament of reconciliation. I could go on. Anyway even if I felt less Catholic every day, I closed my eyes, shut up my conscience and accepted all this and more and enjoyed my job but resisted pressures to become a member of the congregation.

After two years and a half I fell pregnant, we weren't trying but it happened and me and Mr laPG were happy about it. Problem was we weren't married and can't marry in a church because he is a divorcee. I was literally told by my boss that I couldn't be an educator  and be in infringement of Catholic ethics. Luckily Italian law bans firing a pregnant woman but I had to take an early maternity leave as soon as I was showing thanks to laws about dangerous working environment (somehow they circumvented that issue two years later when my ex coworker got pregnant). I stayed in extended maternity leave after giving birth until my contract expired and wasn't renewed.

Finding another job was really difficult because most facilities (there aren't that many in this area) are operated by Catholic not for profits, sponsored by the state obviously.

Also I know pretty well the girl who took my place and I know she was pressured into marrying her fiance even if he is a serial cheater and the whole town knows it.

I agree that apparently the RCC doesn't stereotype gender role in ever day life, especially in comparison with evangelical fundies, but it does at a theological level. According to the RCC women are ontologically different from men and are bestowed with a different call to fulfil god's plan. Christ's maleness is of utmost importance and it is the main reason for priests being males as @Cleopatra7 already explained. Being deacons is NOT the same as being priests.  Women's diaconate wouldn't infringe Christ's maleness. Also every practicing Catholic up to date with his/her sacraments can baptize if he/she believes that the going-to-be-baptized is in life threatening danger (on this regard, it's interesting the last Inquisition trial in Bologna, 1870ca, a Jewish child fell ill, the housemaid secretly baptized him fearing he would die and go to hell. The court ruled that the baptism was valid and gave the RCC the power to seize him and educate him as a Catholic in Rome).

Personally I am not holding my breath on the Commission for Women Diaconate. The Commission on Family discussion lasted a couple of years and ended with a long text full of void words and unfulfilled hopes. I agree that the RCC moves at glacial pace, glaciers are melting as quickly.

As for the Virgin Mary and her theological recognition as a woman and the human being closest to Christ, the RCC felt the necessity to proclaim as a dogma that she wasn't like a common woman. She was immaculate since her own conception because God  couldn't choose a vessel tainted by sin to carry his son. What was god fearing? That his divinity wasn't enough to protect Christ from the close contact with the sins of a lowly common woman? And yet the Church preaches that, even if a priest committed the most heinous sins, the Sacraments performed through his hands (including Eucharistic consecration during Mass) are valid. So was god fearing Mary's sins or the Church fearing her femininity? I mean, if a woman, a common woman, a very godly woman but without god's "little help" to get rid of her sins and become "superhuman", could carry Christ in her womb, their theory about the necessity of priests maleness would seem even more baseless. 

In the end a Church that preaches the evilness of contraception and actively lobbies to deny women control over their bodies and the non existence of any non-binary gender, has a big problem with gender equality. A Church that proclaims  that a woman is automatically excommunicated as soon as she gets an abortion when not even murderes aren't automatically excommunicated, DOES discriminate against women. 

19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Again though...why go after the Catholic Church first in this area? Why in a world with IFB and Michael Pearls have people in this thread decided that the real villain of gender inequity is a denomination that has made progress, allows women many positions of leadership and is actively moving toward more?

 

Who's going after them first?? Catholicism only came up in this thread after a discussion about Michael Pearl and his special brand of evangelical protestantism. As @laPapessaGiovanna said, it's not a race. The fact that fundies are more sexist doesn't mean that the CC is somehow exempt from criticism. It's why I have to roll my eyes when people start fawning over Pope Francis when he talks about women's equality. I find him much more admirable than his predecessor (not that that's saying much), but he's the freaking pope. Easy for him to talk about women's rights when he occupies a position that has never been (and let's be honest, will never be) occupied by a woman. Perhaps he should start pondering on the plank in his own eye. 

People have often used similar arguments to shout down Western feminists who strive for things like equal pay and reproductive rights, because women in other countries have things worse. But you don't have to care about only one or the other.  

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lori's latest notebook scribble is all about the difference between egalitarian marriages and complementarian, or 'Biblical' marriages. There's so much to snark on and to be appalled at in the comments, but this gem of an exchange made me roll my eyes so hard they almost got stuck:

Reader:

 

Quote

It doesn't take a village to raise a child but for some women it takes a housekeeper and a nanny.

Lori:

Quote

 ...yes and this is sad. All children would chose to be raised by their mother and not a housekeeper or nanny.

:laughing-rolling::laughing-rolling::laughing-rolling:

 

22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments of the notebook doodle...just wow.  Lori is using these posts to lash out at her own daughter.

Reader:

Quote

My husband and I do not have children, we both work full-time jobs in addition to running a grain and livestock farm, and I own my photography business. I take pride in maintaining our home inside and outside, and I also enjoy helping him with chores and the farm. If a need arises both of us pitch in where needed. I would still consider our marriage equal, but from this post it implies that I need to just be a stay at home wife. Can you clarify a little more please.

Lori:

Quote

But if any provide not for HIS own, and specially for those of HIS own house, HE hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. (1 Timothy 5:14)

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2)

There were some women who supposed that, the moment they became Christians, they were to run about everywhere. “No,” says the apostle, “let them keep at home.” There is no gain to the Christian Church when the love, and the industry, and the zeal, which ought to make a happy home, are squandered upon something else.”
~ Charles Spurgeon

From the beginning of time, the roles were clearly established. After sin entered the world, God told Adam that he was to till the ground with the sweat of his brow (provide for his family) and the woman would have pain in childbirth (her role was raising children).

 The Proverbs 31 woman "looked well to the ways of her household and ate not the bread of idleness." She did not have a job away from her home.

Reader:

Quote

 I must be doing this all wrong. I can't have children or I would have a house full of them. So does this mean I am not doing the will of God for my life because I choose to work outside the home and contribute financially to our home.Karen Bauer Boyer or can you chime in here and add some clarification for me? I always thought that I was honoring God and my husband with the contributions that I am able to make in spite of us not being able to have children.

Lori:

Quote

 Ashley, if you can't have children you can still adopt or foster children. There are so many children in need of a mother and father, a family. Women were created to nurture, not provide.

Lori:

Quote

 All children would chose to be raised by their mother and not a housekeeper or nanny.

Well Lori, maybe you should have thought of that when you left your own child to cry for HOURS, and your NANNY had to step in and be the mother you refused to be.

Quote

Lucy was a Nanny sent from heaven who never wanted to let Cassi cry, so she held her hours a day.

Lori is a mean, cruel woman.  She is furious that she can't control other women and force them to do all of the things she never did.  I also think she's jealous that her daughter is so successful.  Makes me absolutely sick that a mother would make passive aggressive jabs at her own child.

17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is starting to go well beyond cognitive dissonance. She's lost the plot completely.:pb_confused:

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!!!!!!! I can't even begin to describe how happy I am that I have found this forum. I happened upon this crazy lady months ago when someone on my FB shared her post. She is a certified NUT. She completely takes scripture out of context and interprets it her way...all while saying women shouldn't be in a place of leading others! UM WHAT?

I also wonder if she says things to her daughter/in laws about what she is so outspoken against.....:argumentative:

Edited by YourMamaKnew
15

Share this post


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

This is starting to go well beyond cognitive dissonance. She's lost the plot completely.:pb_confused:

It's crazy.  I know a lot of people think Lori doesn't intentionally lie/mislead her readers, but I am fully convinced she knows exactly what she's doing.

For a long time she kept up the photo of her youngest daughter and her nanny @ the youngest daughter's wedding.  That's where the quote about the "nanny sent from heaven" came from.  

When she got called on it, she went back and deleted the picture.  All of the others were still there.  She was covering her tracks.  She can't act all outraged about other women having a nanny, if they can easily see proof that she couldn't even be bothered to pick up her own crying baby.  She has openly admitted that she would have left her to cry for "hours at a time", but the nanny couldn't bear it, so she held her.  THAT is who Lori Alexander really is.  

The person who sabotaged her birth control?  THAT is who Lori Alexander really is.

The person who threatened neighbors  and told them to shut their dog up "or else!"? THAT is is Lori Alexander really is.

The person whose children were afraid of her? THAT is who Lori Alexander really is.

The person who tried to get phone numbers so she could personally contact people who left negative Amazon reviews?  THAT is who Lori Alexander really is.

And now she's setting up "laws" so that she can control other women and shame her own child...and she's doing it because that's who she is.  

 

Edited by Koala
18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when I think she can't get any lower, she goes straight for the jugular on the woman who cannot have children. Another commenter (apparently knows the woman IRL) says: 

Quote

t takes a village to raise a child. You are an awesome "mothering" role model to your nieces and nephews. But furthermore to you brother and sister. You all lost one of the best role models as your mother went to be with Jesus. I am very proud of how you have stepped up to not only provide help with the caregiving of them babies but offering support to your siblings. I know that you mom is especially proud of the loving and nurturing Christian woman that you have become. I firmly believe that God has a plan for each and every one of us. Working side by side when you can with your husband and providing him a home full of love and support is not always an easy task especially when you also contribute by working outside the home. Keep doing what you are doing kiddo. You are doing it right, and it is noticed by myself and many others.

 
 

To which Lori the Blessings Snot replies: 

Quote

 it doesn't take a village to raise a child. This isn't a biblical precept. It takes a mother and father committed to the ways of the Lord to raise godly offspring.

 
 

One of these things is not like the other; one of these things is definitely not godly.

Edited by polecat
11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, onemama said:

I think half (or more) of the church leadership problem stems from misunderstanding what Church is and what Church leadership is called to do.   If Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head (for everything that means) of the Church, then the leadership should be doing what Jesus does: serve, help grow, equip, be an example.  Jesus taught that whoever wants to be the greatest should become a servant to all.  So leadership is a position of service, not of being served. 

Sadly, the Church today is more like a club or a business. Leadership is all about teaching, preaching and exercising authority, but there's little talk about serving and being an example.  Christian leaders lead, primarily, by example.  How much emphasis is placed on the requirements laid out in some of the epistles and in the book of Acts?  How much emphasis is placed on being imitators of Christ -as described in Philippians 2 or Ephesians 5-?  

There's this wrong concept of church and family as organizations built around relationships of authority and submission, where one or a few rule, and everyone else is in submission to the authorities.   But the passages suggest something different to me.  Yes, there's authority -in the church- but it's authority in serving and being an example. Much like any other authority that we trust and want to follow because they actually show us what we want or need to know.  A bad leader shouldn't be followed. A leader who is basically out there to make money or make a name for himself is not a true Church leader. A leader that doesn't live a life worth imitating isn't a good leader.  In that sense, women are leaders and there are female leaders in the Church. Jesus even pointed out a certain woman as an example of love and faith.  

What is the job of a church leader? Much like a teacher in a school, a church teacher or leader is concerned with helping those in his/her care to learn and grow. Ephesians 4 says:  (11-16)

 

I found this list of Bible verses that go into leadership and what it implies.  Should it be male only? I don't think so. Does Jesus want the men to be the ones who take the responsibility to oversee the Church? It appears to say that, and I have nothing against that. But it's servanthood, not domination or demanding submission.  

www.openbible.info/topics/church_leadership

I was with you until the part where you say it appears to say that Jesus wants men to be the ones to take responsibility to oversee the church. Even if such men have the requisite spirit of servanthood, I would still have a problem with half the human race being excluded from this form of service because no penis. There is no intrinsic "male" quality that makes men superior church leaders.

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh ugh ugh. It's so bloody ignorant of people who say "just adopt!" like you can walk into an agency and pick a child there and then, easy peasy. It can take years to be approved (or you may be rejected), it can take ages for you to be matched with a child... plus it costs money. Also, most people who DO want to adopt want a little baby- likely white- not an older child with emotional baggage and trauma issues. It can be extremely stressful for all concerned.

11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mango_fandango said:

Ugh ugh ugh. It's so bloody ignorant of people who say "just adopt!" like you can walk into an agency and pick a child there and then, easy peasy. It can take years to be approved (or you may be rejected), it can take ages for you to be matched with a child... plus it costs money. Also, most people who DO want to adopt want a little baby- likely white- not an older child with emotional baggage and trauma issues. It can be extremely stressful for all concerned.

But with God all things are possible!! If God is on your side of course it will be easy. The good Lord will drop a child on your door step! Yeah, right. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Koala said:

It's crazy.  I know a lot of people think Lori doesn't intentionally lie/mislead her readers, but I am fully convinced she knows exactly what she's doing.

<snipped for brevity>>

I vacillate. Some days I'm with you. Other days, I really think she's just lost her mind. I mean, how on earth can she honestly think we've all forgotten about the nanny?:VAPLEURER:

11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Transformed Wife : Jennifer, yes and this is sad. All children would chose to be raised by their mother and not a housekeeper or nanny.

I replied : "Did you feel this way when YOU had a nanny?" She promptly deleted my post and blocked me. Hypocrite. :confused2:

21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, YourMamaKnew said:

I replied : "Did you feel this way when YOU had a nanny?" She promptly deleted my post and blocked me. Hypocrite. :confused2:

Hey, at least now she KNOWS we haven't forgotten about the nanny! :dance:

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like The Godly Mentor has been on a cleaning spree.  The nanny and adoption comments appear to be gone.  Can't have anyone knowing how horribly she treats people.    Or that she had a nanny to care for children.

I wonder if The Horse of Truth made her delete it....

 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AlwaysDiscerning, I second the remarks about "other people's sex escapades", but I'd bet neither you nor I rely on the Lori standby of "ten minutes and lube"...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Koala said:

Looks like The Godly Mentor has been on a cleaning spree.  The nanny and adoption comments appear to be gone.  Can't have anyone knowing how horribly she treats people.    Or that she had a nanny to care for children.

I wonder if The Horse of Truth made her delete it....

 

I'm still seeing the nanny ones (except @YourMamaKnew 's comment, of course), and one adoption comment. I keep refreshing the page expecting them to disappear, though. It's only a matter of time. She's probably busy making a big salad for dinner right now. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's back for me as well.  It's weird.  I can't see it from my phone, but it shows up on my computer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one way to conceptualize how institutional misogyny differs in the RCC versus Gothardism or VF is to utilize Ernst Troeltsch's church vs sect dichotomy.  Churches are firmly ensconced into all aspects of mainstream society, including the ruling classes and government. The plus side of this is that churches are able to have their tastes and values promoted, implicitly or explicitly, by the state, but the downside is that they can be seen as "compromised" and lacking in genuine piety and/or prophetic witness. The RCC is generally seen as the church par excellence, but the various Protestant state churches in Western Europe and the Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe would also be considered churches in this scheme as well. In comparison, sects are smaller religious bodies that want to be separate in some way from mainstream society and maintain a higher degree of personal purity than allowed in the churches. The very smallness of sects allows for a stricter lifestyle than the churches and micromanaging (think of how Bill Gothard's curly hair fetish became law in ATI). While sects may desire to change wider society, this is tempered by their need for personal purity. Sects can become churches, as seen by how an obscure Jewish apocalyptic movement became the official religion of the Roman Empire. However, this happens at the expense of purity of doctrine and/or practice.

To apply the church-sect model to Christian misogyny, let's compare the RCC to ATI. The RCC consists of over a billion people, at least on paper. The Holy See has observer status at the UN, an international lobbying arm in the form of C-FAM, state church status in many countries, bishop's conferences and lay organizations that lobby at the national and local level, a huge network of health care services, and moral influence at a personal level. Women may be able to exercise some limited authority at the parish level, but it's always at the discretion of the local priest; the most obvious example is that girls can be altar servers in some parishes, but not in others. Any scraps of individual empowerment at the local level are canceled out by the huge amount of institutional misogyny that the RCC promotes on the national and international level. Bill Gothard will never have the international influence a pope will, even though he can micromanage his followers' lives on a level that Francis might secretly desire but can never achieve. In comparison, as a sect, female ATI members suffer from  more blatant misogyny on a day to day basisthan your average Western Catholic woman (assuming she's not an SSPX supporter or something like that). However, ATI members are unable to project their views onto wider society qua ATI members, as conservative Catholics can. On the various Duggar programs, Gothard must remain the eminence grise that cannot be named. To put it another way, there will never be an ATI SOTDRT graduate Supreme Court justice, but the presence of conservative Catholics on the bench makes a huge difference.

On topic? Lori Alexander is a hypocritical monster.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

I was with you until the part where you say it appears to say that Jesus wants men to be the ones to take responsibility to oversee the church. Even if such men have the requisite spirit of servanthood, I would still have a problem with half the human race being excluded from this form of service because no penis. There is no intrinsic "male" quality that makes men superior church leaders.

In what way do you disagree with my conclusion?  From Scriptures, it does appear that Jesus, the founder and head of his church, wants men to take on the responsibility.  I don't believe that means women can't lead, be an example, teach the Scriptures or otherwise serve. There is proof that women did all of these things. 

Jesus praised Mary for listening to him instead of being busy serving him.  Jesus took the time to talk with women and minister to them. He had time for anyone who had time for him. Jesus first appeared to a woman when he was risen from the dead and it was the women who overcame the fear and went to embalm him when the sabbath was over, suggesting tremendous devotion. Jesus was born of a woman, and when that woman was called to be his mother, her family and fiancé all had to accept that calling. Joseph's life was turned upside down because of his fiancé's, and then wife's, calling.  There's no question that women are fully equal in the eyes of Jesus.  In Paul's epistles we find women mentioned by name: Chloe, Euodia and Syntyche, Lydia, Lois and Eunice -grandmother and mother of Timothy-, and more that I can't remember right now. 

But Jesus chose twelve men to be his core group of disciples, even if there were women who were just as devoted to him, if not even more.  He told Peter "on this rock I will build my church".  In the apostle Paul's letters there are women deacons mentioned and there is a list of requirements for women deacons, but not one for women elders. Timothy was discipled by his mother and grandmother. Priscilla is mentioned with Aquila, which suggests co-leadership.

All those facts have lead me to the conclusion I shared.  But I consider it a secondary issue in the grand scheme of things and reserve the right to change my mind if further study proves my first conclusion wrong.  I won't walk out of a church if a woman preaches. Why should I if she's preaching truth?  I'm more concerned with the message than the messenger.

Blessings! (evil smile with tongue in cheek)  

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, louisa05 said:

We cannot do the things the church is called to do in the 21st Century without some of the structures of business (at least on a non-profit level). So leadership has to exist on that level as well. 

I could also, after a lifetime in Protestant churches with no hierarchy or authority by design, argue that some actual administration and accountability is necessary, but I really don't want to go there. Let's just say that when my priest needed medication for mental health reasons, it was not a big deal. When the wife of the pastor at my grandpa's authority free Protestant church did, all hell broke loose. And that is only one example. 

I completely agree with you, Louisa!  I think we may be talking past each other here.  I'll try to explain myself better.

- By being imitators of Christ I mean in his character, not that we have to meet in open fields.  Here are a couple passages that describe what that means:

-  Be imitators of God, therefore, as beloved children, 2and walk in love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant sacrificial offering to God. (Ephesians 5:1-2)

- 1Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

5In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!  Philippians 2: 1-8

-  Of course we need structures and things have to be done correctly.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you applies to the way we treat pastors, too.   We employ teachers and give them solid contracts, holidays, benefits (at least here in Germany),  the same should be extended to a person who is expected to serve the Church full time.  The leader should have the heart of a servant and the parishioners (for lack of a better word) should honor their leaders. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loaded post today:

Quote

A few years ago, I began getting horrible muscle pain in my knees, legs, and elbows. I couldn’t get down on the floor without a lot of pain. I was even thinking I was going to have to give up blogging because I thought it was hurting the muscles in my forearm.

Oh dear give up blogging! This is serious. 

Quote

When I saw my doctor, I told her about my muscle pain and she told me it was due to getting older. “It’s just part of life.” I suspected that it was due to my pituitary dying. (I did make a YouTube health update, if you’re interested. One woman commented on it and told me that I have been healed by the whipping post that Christ bore for me. Poor deceived woman. Christ healed me from sin and damnation, but not suffering and eventually death. Yes, God can heal but He doesn’t always chose to do so; take the Apostle Paul as an example.)

But I thought pain was a great teacher? How nasty calling the commented a "poor deceived woman". 

Quote

I don’t like “It’s just part of life” answers so I search and research for answers

.I guess she doesn't like "its God's will" then either. Same thing. 

7

Share this post


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

In what way do you disagree with my conclusion?  From Scriptures, it does appear that Jesus, the founder and head of his church, wants men to take on the responsibility.  I don't believe that means women can't lead, be an example, teach the Scriptures or otherwise serve. There is proof that women did all of these things. 

Jesus praised Mary for listening to him instead of being busy serving him.  Jesus took the time to talk with women and minister to them. He had time for anyone who had time for him. Jesus first appeared to a woman when he was risen from the dead and it was the women who overcame the fear and went to embalm him when the sabbath was over, suggesting tremendous devotion. Jesus was born of a woman, and when that woman was called to be his mother, her family and fiancé all had to accept that calling. Joseph's life was turned upside down because of his fiancé's, and then wife's, calling.  There's no question that women are fully equal in the eyes of Jesus.  In Paul's epistles we find women mentioned by name: Chloe, Euodia and Syntyche, Lydia, Lois and Eunice -grandmother and mother of Timothy-, and more that I can't remember right now. 

But Jesus chose twelve men to be his core group of disciples, even if there were women who were just as devoted to him, if not even more.  He told Peter "on this rock I will build my church".  In the apostle Paul's letters there are women deacons mentioned and there is a list of requirements for women deacons, but not one for women elders. Timothy was discipled by his mother and grandmother. Priscilla is mentioned with Aquila, which suggests co-leadership.

All those facts have lead me to the conclusion I shared.  But I consider it a secondary issue in the grand scheme of things and reserve the right to change my mind if further study proves my first conclusion wrong.  I won't walk out of a church if a woman preaches. Why should I if she's preaching truth?  I'm more concerned with the message than the messenger.

Blessings! (evil smile with tongue in cheek)  

 

 

I am not a bible literalist, as it is the Holy Spirit that leads and guides me. The more I read, the more troubled I became with translation problems and cultural bias rendering present day interpretations of Scripture as less than accurate. 

Commonly accepted canonical writings say that Jesus had 12 males apostles (He also had a special group of 72 that he sent out which may have included women). For some reason, no writings of women who were contemporaries of Jesus are included in the canon, while many writings of Paul, who never met Jesus, are included. Hmmmmm...

Also, I believe that the rock Jesus intended to build his church upon is the truth of what Peter said, not Peter himself.

Like you, I consider many of these things secondary issues. My Christian practice is simple, I carve away everything that doesn't reflect God's love as Jesus told us in the two great commandments.

As a woman and a member of a minority race, I am wary of any scriptural interpretation that arbitrarily excludes any group. There is neither male nor female in Christ, that's on there too! I would rather err on the side of being less exclusive than more.

I appreciate your discussion, and blessings back at ya', haha!

 

 

7

Share this post


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

In what way do you disagree with my conclusion?  From Scriptures, it does appear that Jesus, the founder and head of his church, wants men to take on the responsibility.  I don't believe that means women can't lead, be an example, teach the Scriptures or otherwise serve. There is proof that women did all of these things. 

 

 

 

I looked at the verses in the link you gave, and the vast majority of them were not said by Jesus, but Paul, etc.

I admit I didn't read deeply into the ones that quoted Jesus, but I didn't see him explicitly men only can be leaders.  Did I miss it?

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now