Churches that don't allow women to be leaders.

[formergothardite]

Can you just explain exactly how you would tell a little girl who wants to be a priest in your church but can't that your church is treating her equally to men?

[Austin]

I think comparing Jim Crow laws to women not being allowed to be pastors is a stretch. I'm QFTing the idea that feminism is supposed to be all about choice, but only if it's the "right" one. And choosing to agree with a church that denies women church leadership roles is the wrong choice.

FWIW that's my first time using QFT and it wasn't the best fit here I can see now

But see, that's the thing: you don't have the choice. You've convinced yourself to be satisfied with the only option you've been given.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

The problem here is that certain posters are sexist, but they think some amount of sexism is good. But in our society, sexism is generally considered bad, so they can't just admit that they're sexist and happy about it (they probably don't even admit this to themselves). That makes it harder to have any kind of honest conversation. If they would just say "Yeah, it's sexist but I agree with it anyway" then we could just agree to disagree and let them go on their merry way. But instead they have to insist that they're not sexist by some amazing mental gymnastics.

[i]Okay, this was really interesting and it made me think. I do of course, like most people, have a negative idea of the word sexist and automatically think "oh, heck no". But after reading your post and looking up the definition (1.

attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles 2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.) I can agree that my view can be considered sexist, and I am okay with that. But I would say it is an attitude based on a biblical precept not on traditional stereotypes. But the idea that having said that, you'll agree to disagree and let me go on my merry way is a load of crap. You're still going to tell me how wrong I am. And I honestly don't mean this to be bitchy, but I don't really care what any of you think. My beliefs are based on the Bible and my conscience is clear about my views of women.

I know they're just itching to say "Men and women are just plain different. They just are. Men can't be good at women's roles and women can't be good at men's roles and there's all there is too it. Those roles are both good, but just plain different." And then maybe we could actually get somewhere. But until they admit that they favor discrimination, we can't get anywhere.

[i]I absolutely think men and women are different, but I think it's completely possible for women to be good at "men's roles' and vice versa. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be doing them. And I never mentioned any roles besides church leadership.

Think about it this way. What if I said that women are good at being rocket scientists and men are good at being brain surgeons? They're just innately wired that way, whether through nature, God, or whatever. Men could be rocket scientists, but they just wouldn't be as good at it as women. Women could try to be brain surgeons, but they would all be dissatisfied with that lifestyle and would ultimately drop out. It's better if we just keep them separate. It's better to only allow them into certain roles. Would that be sexism or not? Yes, of course it would be. I don't agree that men and women are just so innately different that they have to be forbidden from certain roles. It doesn't matter how important those roles are because there's more variety among the sexes than between them. Excluding an entire group from a role is discrimination, full stop.

I'm sure there are plenty of women who would make good pastors, that's not the point at all.

ETA italics and bold to my stuff since I botched trying to add it in

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

Ooh, I did a really bad job of inserting my stuff into that quote, crap how do I fix that?

[formergothardite]

What is the point then? If women would make great pastors, why can't they be treated equally to men? Do Bible verses justify discrimination?

[ShesCrafty]

Shit lost an entire reply.

First off, whoa, where do you get the impression I don't think men would be good taking care of kids or nursing? I was raised by I man who had only daughters and had to raise us as a single parent. Thanks I've seen men cook for bake sales, wear aprons, clean up sick kids and do their level best to teach us the intricacies of walking in high heels. Part of the job to him, nothing to see there in his mind.

Yes, feminism is about choice, and that means that not all of us find the same things important or sexist (and I'm using your working definition of sexist, something that is evil and put in place to belittle a woman). Rest assured EOs have more than there share of educated women in the world, so if a time comes where male priests are revisited, we don't need women outside the church to explain equality to us, or that Jesus had female disciples, or that there is no Jew or Gentile, Man or Woman in the eyes of God. We understand all that right now, and yet female priests are not a priority on the fix it list, which like any man made institution's fix it list, always has to be worked on and things get bumped up or down depending on what the church as a whole sees as its most pressing priorities. You can ask any EO, and you will see I'm not lying, the subject of women priests is not on the radar. It hasn't been discussed and hushed up, it is not tearing apart parishes (though God knows plenty of other stuff does), it just is not an issue right now.

Edit to add: As for the American Revolution and voting, men and women who belong to EO churches vote both in church and in government, so it appears we can handle voting with male priests.

Nobody here is using a working definition of sexism as "evil and put in place to belittle woman" that you made up, they are using the actual definition of sexism, which is discrimination against women. And I absolutely believe you when you say you have many educated women in your church and that the subject of women priests is not on your radar. However, just because discrimination isn't on your fix-it list, doesn't mean it's right.

[formergothardite]

You know, Josiah (non-Duggar) based his beliefs that slavery is fine and gays should be stoned on biblical precepts and the Bible. Are you okay with that too? Should we just accept these things that harm and remove rights from people "because the Bible says so"?

[Arete]

formergothardite, I have already written what I would tell a little girl with a question earlier in the thread. Do you think these question don't come up or we just say "Shut up and read the Bible?" I would tell any little girl it's one role that has historically gone to men because it was modeled on this (Aaronic priesthood). God says we are equal in his eyes no matter how we serve. It is supposed to be about the service.

[formergothardite]

AretaJo, But what would you say if she said, I don't feel equal? I want to serve in this way, what is it about girls that makes them not able to do so?

And are the Bible and history justification for discrimination?

[Guest Anonymous]

Ok...to answer everybody's questions...here goes:

1) If using the strict dictionary definition of sexist and sexism then yes you can consider my church sexist. However, we are not even in the same realm as the fundies talked about here. I know FJ will probably disagree, but oh well, you have your beliefs and opinions, and I have mine. As I said before, I will not turn my back on a place and people who have helped me through some of the worst days of my life, despite all the warnings of how dangerous anyone on FJ says this is. I am in absolutely no danger of being turned into a frumper-wearing, submissive, helpmeet, doormat, brood-sow.

2) As to what I would tell a little girl....I would point out our church beliefs. But, I would also tell her to follow her heart. If she wanted to lead a revolution for female leadership, I would fully support her, and who knows I just might join her.

Now, there you have it. I've told you what you wanted to hear, and I'm done trying to explain this any further. Going 1000 rounds of "don't you see how bad this is" and the like is pointless as you will get the same answers I posted above.

Oh, and whoever sent a request to follow me on Twitter....ain't gonna happen. I'm assuming it's someone from FJ since it referenced the Duggars and other fundish stuff. Anyway, I hardly use Twitter, and when I do (or when I get around to setting up my account the way I want it that is), it's to help my local National Weather Service, Emergency Management, and Storm Spotters Network. Oh, but thanks. You've just reminded me I need to do those things since spring season severe weather is quickly approaching and I'm a trained weather spotter for my area.

[formergothardite]

Genie, at least you are admitting your church is sexist and doesn't treat women equally to men. I think it is sad that you are cool with it and won't fight for change unless someone else does it first, but at least now you are being honest and not trying to tell us that your church treats men and women equally.

I can respect people being honesty, I don't respect what you believe, but at least you ar now being honest. That is something.

[ShesCrafty]

Ok...to answer everybody's questions...here goes:

1) If using the strict dictionary definition of sexist and sexism then yes you can consider my church sexist. However, we are not even in the same realm as the fundies talked about here. I know FJ will probably disagree, but oh well, you have your beliefs and opinions, and I have mine. As I said before, I will not turn my back on a place and people who have helped me through some of the worst days of my life, despite all the warnings of how dangerous anyone on FJ says this is. I am in absolutely no danger of being turned into a frumper-wearing, submissive, helpmeet, doormat, brood-sow.

2) As to what I would tell a little girl....I would point out our church beliefs. But, I would also tell her to follow her heart. If she wanted to lead a revolution for female leadership, I would fully support her, and who knows I just might join her.

Now, there you have it. I've told you what you wanted to hear, and I'm done trying to explain this any further. Going 1000 rounds of "don't you see how bad this is" and the like is pointless as you will get the same answers I posted above.

Oh, and whoever sent a request to follow me on Twitter....ain't gonna happen. I'm assuming it's someone from FJ since it referenced the Duggars and other fundish stuff. Anyway, I hardly use Twitter, and when I do (or when I get around to setting up my account the way I want it that is), it's to help my local National Weather Service, Emergency Management, and Storm Spotters Network. Oh, but thanks. You've just reminded me I need to do those things since spring season severe weather is quickly approaching and I'm a trained weather spotter for my area.

:lol:

You're almost too ridiculous to reply to but here goes. Just because your church isn't as bad as some fundie churches doesn't mean you get a pass. The guy that steals a car for a joyride isn't as bad as the guy that opens fire in a shopping mall, but guess what? They both go to prison! (In theory ;) ). But I will give you credit for actually admitting that your church is sexist, which is more than can be said for a few posters.

[valsa]

If using the strict dictionary definition of sexist and sexism then yes you can consider my church sexist. However, we are not even in the same realm as the fundies talked about here.

1) You ARE the fundies talked about here

2) Sexism is sexism. Racism is racism. Discrimination is discrimination. You don't get a pass because you're slightly less terrible that someone else.

I have a feeling if some people's church taught them the sky was neon green, they'd argue that you were wrong about it being blue until the day they die.

[fluttershies]

formergothardite, I have already written what I would tell a little girl with a question earlier in the thread. Do you think these question don't come up or we just say "Shut up and read the Bible?" I would tell any little girl it's one role that has historically gone to men because it was modeled on this (Aaronic priesthood). God says we are equal in his eyes no matter how we serve. It is supposed to be about the service.

Only, church leadership in the Bible has nothing to do with Aaronic priesthood. Jesus was the final altar sacrifice, church leaders just lead the congregation and nowhere in the Bible is their role likened to priests. You can't say that only men can be priests because of the Aaronic priesthood when it's not even relevant.

Edited to ask what EO stands for - is it Episcopal something? Because the 39 Articles (ie one of the key texts in Episcopalianism/Anglicanism) refutes transubstantiation and so the Eucharist is not the physical body and blood of Jesus. So the Aaronic priesthood really is irrelevant here because there is no sacrifice made.

[AudreyE]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time tonight to read this entire thread, but I think it might be helpful to submit this article by Professor Bart D. Ehrman from the University of North Carolina. It's called "Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie.

D'oh! Raise your hands, if your life is being dictated by a liar.

[Lady]

What would you tell a little girl in your church who wants to be a pastor and is crying because she is told that being a woman means she is never good enouh to do so? How would you explain that she isn't being treated as lesser than men and that your church is sexist?

None of the people claiming that saying women can't be pastors/priests/deacons/leaders isn't sexist or treating women as less have been able to explain how it isn't.

That would never happen at my church, but if I came across such a girl I would explain that some men are afraid of her because she has a very special power that they don't. She has the power to give life, and some small men are intimidated by it because they know they can't. I would say that she will meet people along life's way who will try to belittle her and make her believe she is less than she is. I would tell her to never give those small minded people such power and that she can do anything she wants to do.

[formergothardite]

So to sum these posters feeling on discriminating against women in the church:

Babycakes thinks discrimination is ok because it is in the Bible and being in the Bible means it's not really discriminating (even though it is).

AretaJoy thinks discrimination is okay because it is historical and Biblical and so it isn't really discrimination (even though it is).

Genie admits that it is discrimination but she is going to wait till somebody else starts to fight against it to join in.

That pretty accurate?

[Boltingmadonna]

In the Catholic Church, the priest is actually referred to as "alter Christus," which in Latin means, "another Christ." Men can actually BECOME JESUS. But women can't. Because . . . ladyparts!!1! As my catechism teacher, who later became a theologian and tried to argue for equality, once said: "You can't be like Jesus if you can't pee like Jesus." That about sums it up.

[Guest Anonymous]

So to sum these posters feeling on discriminating against women in the church:

Babycakes thinks discrimination is ok because it is in the Bible and being in the Bible means it's not really discriminating (even though it is).

AretaJoy thinks discrimination is okay because it is historical and Biblical and so it isn't really discrimination (even though it is).

Genie admits that it is discrimination but she is going to wait till somebody else starts to fight against it to join in.

That pretty accurate?

Yay! You finally got the answers you wanted...not that they needed to be answered in the first place since your mind was already made up. The fact that you think any of this means me or any of the people quoted here are fundies, is hilarious, because I get the distinct impression that you view anybody with any religious conviction as a fundie.

[valsa]

I get the distinct impression that you view anybody with any religious conviction as a fundie.

You keep saying this sort of thing, to more than one person. Believe me, most people who are critical of the shitty practices of various religions (well, certain religion, as others are considered acceptable religions to shit on) have heard this line before and rightly dismissed it. Knowing that people with harmful and dangerous religious beliefs are fundies is not the same as thinking anybody with any religious conviction is a fundie. You're just using more common tactics to silence those who disagree with you.

[Jessica]

Genie, there are quite a few of us on here who are religious, and even--gasp!--Christians! We just don't view women as lower than men.

[O Latin]

I attend a church that allows women to be pastors or other leadership positions. We don't have any women pastors right now, although we have in the recent past. However, if a church I was considering didn't allow women to be pastors/leaders, it would not necessarily be an absolute deal breaker (I could see myself becoming Catholic someday, for example). I don't agree with it, but I don't expect that I could ever find a church that I agreed with 100% about everything, so if I want to belong to a church, I will have to accept that there will be things I don't agree with.

[Rachel333]

Genie, there are quite a few of us on here who are religious, and even--gasp!--Christians! We just don't view women as lower than men.

I know this is off-topic, but are you including yourself in that? I haven't met many former LDS non-fundie Christians. I feel like usually they're atheist or more less commonly conservative Evangelicals.

Anyway, yes, I agree. I'm on the fence about whether I still consider myself Christian or not, but I don't feel like people on here are anti-Christian at all, just very anti-fundamentalism, as they should be.

[Maude]

Geniebelle, the point is that regardless of the beliefs of your church, and of your own beliefs, assigning people roles based on their sex is sexism (there is no room for opinion, it's a fact, plain and simple). It assumes that the particular sex alloted that role is somehow better equipped to handle it [simply because of their genetalia], and doesn't allow for the variation between the sexes that we know exists. Tradition is no excuse.

If you're okay with an all-male leadership, why are you not okay with women keeping silent in church? It's along the same line.

I was raised in a UU church. We've had both male and female ministers. I'm pretty sure I was dedicated as an infant by a female minister in the church.

[Jessica]

I know this is off-topic, but are you including yourself in that? I haven't met many former LDS non-fundie Christians. I feel like usually they're atheist or more less commonly conservative Evangelicals.

Yes. I'm not claiming any denomination though. Fairly liberal, some Quaker leanings, and after being caught up in The Rules for so long, I'm now a spirt-of-the-law kind of a gal than a letter-of-the-law. I'm tired of that lifestyle. I'm glad to be free of the constant peer pressure and guilt-tripping. About a year ago an older lady was giving a lesson and she had some medical condition where she had to wear pants because she had to put her legs up and didn't want people seeing her underwear. She was going on and on apologizing like crazy for wearing pants because of that. I wanted to say... "LADY. You're constantly serving other people with all you've got even when you're sick. You're nice to everyone! You just radiate happiness and love. STOP APOLOGIZING!" You'd think she had stolen something or spread a rumor around the ward. She wore pants for a medical reason... the horror! Ahh, it's great to be free!