NT Wright on women preachers

[Elen1107]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Neither of us knows the other.......

This is true

2 hours ago, thormas said:

.....and no one is saying anything should not be examined and addressed.

Abuse of forgiveness can sometimes be a terrible thing depending on how it  is used and how it is done.

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

On forgiveness......

The lack of forgiveness to me is like driving down a bumpy road that gets worse with fewer turn-offs. When it gets bad enough for an individual it seems to me from experience they will surrender the inability to forgive no matter what was previously making it incapable for them to do so. In extreme cases, it may take them to their dying breath. I have found there is no forgiveness for self until one forgives the 'other'  because in my view of  reality there is no 'other'. In our innermost being we are all One.

Sometimes it's enough just to forget and eventually let go, and leave the rest up to the All Mighty. If forgiveness comes it comes.

If one can forgive that's good, but people don't always honestly have a choice Just like some people can't swim the English Channel or climb Mt. Everest. We can't go around asking people to do things they simply can't do.

[Elen1107]

I keep wanting to get back to the main topic of this thread and the opening post, but I it's so searingly painful that my mind just goes blank and I keep avoiding and not looking at the subject.

One question is how does it hurt men (or males, so as to include boys/children in this), and how does it help or enhance male's lives if women are given equal voices and say in church and in spiritual matters?

One thing I can think of here is that women get the advantage of learning from all the men and male insights in scenarios where only men are doing the talking. We can then get together, just women/females and exchange ideas and insights among ourselves.  This gives women more opportunity for spiritual growth, insight and learning. I'm wondering if men are getting left out of a good number of ideas and even getting left behind.

----------------------------------------------------

The other thing that often jumps out at me, is that Paul said women cannot be preachers because he doesn't want women to be in "control" of men.

Over my lifetime I've listened to numerous teachers and preachers and lectures and so forth and I've never felt like any of these people were in "control" of me.

If I disagreed with any of them, I might not have been able to say something right then and there, but I've never felt like I couldn't express my outlook at some other time.

I don't see how being a preacher or a teacher or a lecturer puts one person in "control" of another.

-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading

[thormas]

35 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I keep wanting to get back to the main topic of this thread and the opening post, but I it's so searingly painful that my mind just goes blank and I keep avoiding and not looking at the subject.

One question is how does it hurt men (or males, so as to include boys/children in this), and how does it help or enhance male's lives if women are given equal voices and say in church and in spiritual matters?

One thing I can think of here is that women get the advantage of learning from all the men and male insights in scenarios where only men are doing the talking. We can then get together, just women/females and exchange ideas and insights among ourselves.  This gives women more opportunity for spiritual growth, insight and learning. I'm wondering if men are getting left out of a good number of ideas and even getting left behind.

The other thing that often jumps out at me, is that Paul said women cannot be preachers because he doesn't want women to be in "control" of men.

Over my lifetime I've listened to numerous teachers and preachers and lectures and so forth and I've never felt like any of these people were in "control" of me.

If I disagreed with any of them, I might not have been able to say something right then and there, but I've never felt like I couldn't express my outlook at some other time.

I don't see how being a preacher or a teacher or a lecturer puts one person in "control" of another.

Your question (how does it hurt males) seems to not appreciate that most of us engaged in this site are progressive Christian site and we have moved beyond or some have never had any issues with women voices in the Church. For example, I attended grad school in the 80s and my class included both male priests or seminarians, lay people and women including a woman priest/minister. I also have a college (female) friend who is a  priest. I am also active on Spong's old site and there are numerous women pastors/leaders who contribute and are heard. Actually, I haven't encountered any men is decades who have problems with women having an equal voice in the Church or spiritual matters. Of course, outside PC there are some leaders of the Catholic (and I'm sure other) church(s).. but who listens to them :+}  Are some men against women having equal or leadership voices? Seems so but I doubt any of them labeled themselves progressive or liberal.

I don't think women have more opportunity for spiritual growth: some have grown and continue to grow, others not so much - jut like men. 

Are you quoting Paul or pseudo-Paul?

And, I too have never felt controlled by any teacher or preacher - although I guess it could be said that as children we were 'controlled' in what we were taught and how to think about thinks ........at least for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by thormas

[Burl]

32 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I keep wanting to get back to the main topic of this thread and the opening post, but I it's so searingly painful that my mind just goes blank and I keep avoiding and not looking at the subject.

One question is how does it hurt men (or males, so as to include boys/children in this), and how does it help or enhance male's lives if women are given equal voices and say in church and in spiritual matters?

One thing I can think of here is that women get the advantage of learning from all the men and male insights in scenarios where only men are doing the talking. We can then get together, just women/females and exchange ideas and insights among ourselves.  This gives women more opportunity for spiritual growth, insight and learning. I'm wondering if men are getting left out of a good number of ideas and even getting left behind.

----------------------------------------------------

The other thing that often jumps out at me, is that Paul said women cannot be preachers because he doesn't want women to be in "control" of men.

Over my lifetime I've listened to numerous teachers and preachers and lectures and so forth and I've never felt like any of these people were in "control" of me.

If I disagreed with any of them, I might not have been able to say something right then and there, but I've never felt like I couldn't express my outlook at some other time.

I don't see how being a preacher or a teacher or a lecturer puts one person in "control" of another.

-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading

Paul used the word preachers?  Control of men?  Where and in what translation?  This needs a close reading.  

As for today, there is no scarcity of women preachers, bishops and archbishops in mainline magisterial and congregational Protestant churches.  I have not seen any female AME preachers, though.

The independent churches are independent, so idk about them.

 

[Elen1107]

1 hour ago, Burl said:

Paul used the word preachers?  Control of men?  Where and in what translation?  This needs a close reading.  

 

Well, the opening post is about "preachers". 

I used to have like 15 bibles, I had to get rid of them because of water damage to my last apartment, I know I've read the word "control" used here. I've looked it up on biblehub, it seems that most versions that they currently publish use the word "authority" instead of "control" while some use the word "dominion".

Had to take a second look at the International Standard Version, which reads as follows. I've never heard the verse put/translated that way before

International Standard Version
Moreover, in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate conflict toward a man. Instead, she is to remain calm.

Here's the list of various translations and interpretations on biblehub

https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/2-11.htm

 

1 hour ago, Burl said:

As for today, there is no scarcity of women preachers, bishops and archbishops in mainline magisterial and congregational Protestant churches.  I have not seen any female AME preachers, though.

 

This is from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research (it was done in 2010):

"The Faith Communities Today 2010 national survey of a fully representative, multi-faith sample of 11,000 American congregations found that 12% of all congregations in the United States had a female as their senior or sole ordained leader. For Oldline Protestant congregations this jumps to 24%, and for Evangelical congregations it drops to 9%.

Here's the link to the article

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question3.html

----------------------------------------------------

The video that you posted in the OP lead me to other videos on the same subject. It eventually led me to a YouTube channel called CBE International (Christians for Biblical Equality). Apparently there are a lot of sane and strong men who are standing up for this cause. I also listened to the stories of a number of women who feel that their honest, God given calling to be a preacher (or whatever one chooses to call people in that position) had been cut out from under them, either because of where they live or because of a denomination that they had become affiliated with. 

I've heard of this happening to a number of people, both male and female, in a number of different professions. It reminds me of the movie with Robin Williams called, 'Dead Poets Society' where a young man, who wishes to be a poet, commits suicide  because his parents are like forcing him to be a lawyer or something.

Here's a link to Christians for Biblical Equality, CBE International, if anyone is interested:

https://www.youtube.com/c/cbeinternational/videos

 

[Elen1107]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Your question (how does it hurt males) seems to not appreciate that most of us engaged in this site are progressive Christian site and we have moved beyond or some have never had any issues with women voices in the Church. For example, I attended grad school in the 80s and my class included both male priests or seminarians, lay people and women including a woman priest/minister. I also have a college (female) friend who is a  priest. I am also active on Spong's old site and there are numerous women pastors/leaders who contribute and are heard. Actually, I haven't encountered any men is decades who have problems with women having an equal voice in the Church or spiritual matters. Of course, outside PC there are some leaders of the Catholic (and I'm sure other) church(s).. but who listens to them :+}  Are some men against women having equal or leadership voices? Seems so but I doubt any of them labeled themselves progressive or liberal.

 

I grew up in a world where it wasn't done and didn't happen at all. I grew up in a world that didn't even have a female Muppet on Sesame Street, and when they finally did is was a vain, selfish pig. I've seen things getting better, but how much is another question.

This quote and link is from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research (it was done in 2010):

"The Faith Communities Today 2010 national survey of a fully representative, multi-faith sample of 11,000 American congregations found that 12% of all congregations in the United States had a female as their senior or sole ordained leader. For Oldline Protestant congregations this jumps to 24%, and for Evangelical congregations it drops to 9%."

Here's the link to the article

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question3.html

 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I don't think women have more opportunity for spiritual growth: some have grown and continue to grow, others not so much - jut like men. 

 

I agree with you that some people continue to grow and others not so much.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Are you quoting Paul or pseudo-Paul?

 

Probably pseudo-Paul. But so many people don't know that there is any such thing as "pseudo-Paul", never mind that so many of the books in the New Testament were written decades after the "earthly life" of Christ, or that they were edited and verses were inserted that were not in the originals and or not in the first textual witnesses. So many people think that it's "the word of God" and that's that.  

1 hour ago, thormas said:

And, I too have never felt controlled by any teacher or preacher - although I guess it could be said that as children we were 'controlled' in what we were taught and how to think about thinks ........at least for a while.

 

Yeah, that feeling of kind of being "controlled" ends in about the 5th grade if not before.

Good to hear you don't feel that way either. It would mean like surrendering like your own discernment and discretion and intelligence to what ever any speaker is saying. I think it's a good and necessary skill to develop these things and it's very intellectually and spiritually helpful and important. Apparently somebody, back in the first centuries didn't think so, and there have been a lot of people since then who have been willing to up hold that point of view. Maybe they don't know how to think for themselves or something, I don't know.  

[Burl]

There are so many poor and disastrous preachers today that gender ratios are only metrics of hollow careerism.

Better to look at the examples of women who preached Christ crucified and glorified so well that they left enduring and original legacies of faith.  

Elizabeth Ann Seaton, Katherine Drexel, Mary Baker Eddy, Mother Ann Lee, Ellen G. White, Aimee Semple McPhearson, Mary Dyer,  Mother Theresa as examples.

Paul said it best.  
 

Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I grew up in a world where it wasn't done and didn't happen at all. I grew up in a world that didn't even have a female Muppet on Sesame Street, and when they finally did is was a vain, selfish pig. I've seen things getting better, but how much is another question.

This quote and link is from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research (it was done in 2010):

"The Faith Communities Today 2010 national survey of a fully representative, multi-faith sample of 11,000 American congregations found that 12% of all congregations in the United States had a female as their senior or sole ordained leader. For Oldline Protestant congregations this jumps to 24%, and for Evangelical congregations it drops to 9%."

Here's the link to the article

Many grew up in that world but I was speaking about liberal or progressive expressions (including this and Spong's sites) in which there seem to not be those problems. I'll look at the link but it is dated by a decade.

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Probably pseudo-Paul. But so many people don't know that there is any such thing as "pseudo-Paul", never mind that so many of the books in the New Testament were written decades after the "earthly life" of Christ, or that they were edited and verses were inserted that were not in the originals and or not in the first textual witnesses. So many people think that it's "the word of God" and that's that.  

Many might not know but knowing makes a difference (and others can always learn): the real Paul, (one of) the greatest theologian of Christianity did not say that. It might be a letter included in the canon but now we know it was not Paul but one with a different view that used Paul's name. That is liberating knowledge!  If someone is convinced it is the 'word of God' then any like us who know 'better' might be barking up the wrong tree. All one can do is present and it is up to the other to listen or not.

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I grew up in a world where it wasn't done and didn't happen at all. I grew up in a world that didn't even have a female Muppet on Sesame Street, and when they finally did is was a vain, selfish pig. I've seen things getting better, but how much is another question.

This quote and link is from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research (it was done in 2010):

"The Faith Communities Today 2010 national survey of a fully representative, multi-faith sample of 11,000 American congregations found that 12% of all congregations in the United States had a female as their senior or sole ordained leader. For Oldline Protestant congregations this jumps to 24%, and for Evangelical congregations it drops to 9%."

Here's the link to the article

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question3.html

 

I agree with you that some people continue to grow and others not so much.

Probably pseudo-Paul. But so many people don't know that there is any such thing as "pseudo-Paul", never mind that so many of the books in the New Testament were written decades after the "earthly life" of Christ, or that they were edited and verses were inserted that were not in the originals and or not in the first textual witnesses. So many people think that it's "the word of God" and that's that.  

Yeah, that feeling of kind of being "controlled" ends in about the 5th grade if not before.

Good to hear you don't feel that way either. It would mean like surrendering like your own discernment and discretion and intelligence to what ever any speaker is saying. I think it's a good and necessary skill to develop these things and it's very intellectually and spiritually helpful and important. Apparently somebody, back in the first centuries didn't think so, and there have been a lot of people since then who have been willing to up hold that point of view. Maybe they don't know how to think for themselves or something, I don't know.  

We made sure we gave that gift of not surrending her own discernment and knowledge to our daughter:+}

 

[thormas]

Just now, thormas said:

Apparently somebody, back in the first centuries didn't think so, and there have been a lot of people since then who have been willing to up hold that point of view. Maybe they don't know how to think for themselves or something, I don't know.  

I don't think people necessarily surrender anything as what they were taught or heard was all they had to go on - especially in times of low literacy. I allow that many generations of people were too busy just getting by and simply trusted and depended on what they were told, what was preached. 

[Elen1107]

3 minutes ago, thormas said:

I don't think people necessarily surrender anything as what they were taught or heard was all they had to go on - especially in times of low literacy. I allow that many generations of people were too busy just getting by and simply trusted and depended on what they were told, what was preached. 

I wonder if all the hierarchical and dysfunctional stuff was taken out of the bible, all the stuff JS Spong calls the "The Sins of the Scriptures", if a lot more people without ulterior motives  would show up in the churches, and those with ulterior motives would pack it up and go away. It would make church a lot better experience, and as far as I'm concerned one much closer to Christ.

[thormas]

1 minute ago, Elen1107 said:

I wonder if all the hierarchical and dysfunctional stuff was taken out of the bible, all the stuff JS Spong calls the "The Sins of the Scriptures", if a lot more people without ulterior motives  would show up in the churches, and those with ulterior motives would pack it up and go away. It would make church a lot better experience, and as far as I'm concerned one much closer to Christ.

Maybe not show up in churches, although some would, but to have an understanding that resonates for them in the 21st C could mean a world of difference. 

It did for me in the later decades of the 20th C........and it continues today.

[Elen1107]

28 minutes ago, thormas said:

We made sure we gave that gift of not surrending her own discernment and knowledge to our daughter:+}

 

It's good to hear this. I'm glad she will not go through all the searing and incredible pain that some of us have had to live in and with. It can even effect and hurt the unborn. How people treat women can effect the prenatal/unborn both psychologically and physically.

I hope she has a great future and many great years ahead of her, & if she has children, the same for them.

30 minutes ago, thormas said:

We made sure we gave that gift of not surrending her own discernment and knowledge to our daughter:+}

 

Ten years is not that long as these things go. Don't know if there has been a more recent study of this type.

[Elen1107]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

There are so many poor and disastrous preachers today that gender ratios are only metrics of hollow careerism.

Better to look at the examples of women who preached Christ crucified and glorified so well that they left enduring and original legacies of faith.  

Elizabeth Ann Seaton, Katherine Drexel, Mary Baker Eddy, Mother Ann Lee, Ellen G. White, Aimee Semple McPhearson, Mary Dyer,  Mother Theresa as examples.

Paul said it best.  
 

Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

 

I don't see any of these women as being really progressive, except for maybe Mary Dyer. Women can be digressive as well as anyone else.

Galatians 3:28 - It's one of the best lines in the bible 🙂 

[Burl]

29 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I don't see any of these women as being really progressive, except for maybe Mary Dyer. Women can be digressive as well as anyone else.

Galatians 3:28 - It's one of the best lines in the bible 🙂 

My point was that preaching is a charism, not a job or a trade.  I think they were not only progressive, but truly called by God. 

Their path may not fully resonate with me, but they were original and authentic.  They are proof that God does call women to preach.

[Elen1107]

19 minutes ago, Burl said:

My point was that preaching is a charism, not a job or a trade.

I agree with you,... but as long as it is a job or a trade, as well as being down right wrong in so many spiritual and other ways, it's against American law to discriminate against women in paid positions, ie. the work place.

19 minutes ago, Burl said:

Their path may not fully resonate with me, but they were original and authentic.  They are proof that God does call women to preach.

The question is, what were they called to preach. If it's the same old fundamentalist stuff then who cares? They truly and honestly may even have done more harm than good.

They may have been called, but was the Jesus who called them the same Jesus that the ended up preaching about?

Edited July 28, 2020 by Elen1107

[PaulS]

I don't think we can know accurately what Paul actually thought about women being involved in the Church.  It seems to me that there appears to be some passages indicating Paul supported the involvement of women, and other passages indicating his desire to control how women may be involved or how they should behave in Church. This brief article points to some of those.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29513427

Jesus seemed to welcome women's involvement and participation, but we now better understand that Paul was treading a different path to Jesus, so who knows for sure where his thoughts lay on that matter.  

[Elen1107]

19 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't think we can know accurately what Paul actually thought about women being involved in the Church.  It seems to me that there appears to be some passages indicating Paul supported the involvement of women, and other passages indicating his desire to control how women may be involved or how they should behave in Church. This brief article points to some of those.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29513427

Jesus seemed to welcome women's involvement and participation, but we now better understand that Paul was treading a different path to Jesus, so who knows for sure where his thoughts lay on that matter.  

I keep thinking about what JS Spong has written and said about Paul. That Paul was just a person and just a man. Sometimes articulate and inspired, other times sorely mistaken, mislead and confused. He never met Jesus during his earthly life, he was not one of the 12. 

Sometimes he reminds me a bit of the way I think of Bruce Springsteen. He can say/sing something great and inspired one minute and then something odd and dysfunctional the next, sometimes in the same song. Difference is, no one expects Bruce Springsteen to be singing "the word of God". Not the same for Paul.

It's in JS Spong's book, 'Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism' that he writes about Paul in this way, as well as in some of his other books and lectures. The Book was a NY Times bestseller. He wrote it before he was teaching at Harvard. 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I keep thinking about what JS Spong has written and said about Paul. That Paul was just a person and just a man. Sometimes articulate and inspired, other times sorely mistaken, mislead and confused. He never met Jesus during his earthly life, he was not one of the 12. 

Sometimes he reminds me a bit of the way I think of Bruce Springsteen. He can say/sing something great and inspired one minute and then something odd and dysfunctional the next, sometimes in the same song. Difference is, no one expects Bruce Springsteen to be singing "the word of God". Not the same for Paul.

It's in JS Spong's book, 'Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism' that he writes about Paul in this way, as well as in some of his other books and lectures. The Book was a NY Times bestseller. He wrote it before he was teaching at Harvard. 

I have read other actual biblical scholars on Paul and never remember them saying anything similar to Spong (above).

I do love Spong but I don't always agree with him. Like Paul was gay and Mary was raped? Again, no scholarly confirmation/agreement and Spong was not an actual biblical scholar (if I remember correctly).

Edited July 30, 2020 by thormas

[Burl]

Two things to keep in mind about Paul.

First, he was in mission to the gentiles.  Lots of different cultures and backgrounds.

Second, rhetorical analysis is necessary.  Lots of diatribe.  He would explicate a single point with several examples.  A bit like Ecclesiastes where single verses can be misdirecting.

[Elen1107]

19 minutes ago, thormas said:

I have read other actual biblical scholars on Paul and never remember them saying anything similar to Spong (above).

I do love Spong but I don't always agree with him. Like Paul was gay and Mary was raped? Again, no scholarly confirmation/agreement and Spong was not an actual biblical scholar (if I remember correctly).

Have you read 'Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism'?

I remember a good deal about Paul in that book, if not others.

I don't ness. agree that Paul was gay either. Never heard him say anything about Mary being raped. Paul did seem to have some odd ideas about sexuality though. He says that people should get married just so they don't "burn with passion" or some such thing. No mention of love, no mention of children, no mention of providing or caring for children. Again, when people are married, he basically says that one partner or the other cannot say 'no' to the other. That each partner's body belongs to their spouse and they can't say 'no' unless they both agree. No mention of children, no mention of providing for children or more children, no mention that pregnancy can be a life and health threatening event, no mention that one partner might not be healthy enough. It's just about passion and the adults and that's it.

I looked up JS Spong, he has a Wikipedia page. This is what it says about his education:

He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa honor society and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1952. He received his Master of Divinity degree from the Virginia Theological Seminary in 1955. He has had honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees conferred on him by Virginia Theological Seminary and Saint Paul's College, Virginia, as well as an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters conferred by Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania.

In 2005, he wrote: "[I have] immerse[d] myself in contemporary Biblical scholarship at such places as Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School and the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

 

[Elen1107]

32 minutes ago, Burl said:

Two things to keep in mind about Paul.

First, he was in mission to the gentiles.  Lots of different cultures and backgrounds.

Second, rhetorical analysis is necessary.  Lots of diatribe.  He would explicate a single point with several examples.  A bit like Ecclesiastes where single verses can be misdirecting.

Yeah, but who was Paul to go around organizing the churches on that level? Saying women could not be preachers or even speak in church, or if all that's  pseudo-Paul, still setting up negative distinctions and limitations? In my last comment to Thormas I've mentioned some of his ideas about marriage and getting married. Who was he to inject these things into Christianity, whether it was just to one church or to the whole world?

He never met Christ. Never saw him preach or teach. He didn't spend very much time with those who did and those who knew Jesus best. He was a first century evangelist who knew Greek and was able to write, so he wrote a bunch of letters. He was sometimes great and inspired, and other times missing the mark completely. 

He was just Paul. His words are no more "the absolute word of God" than anyone who is sometimes inspired and sometimes mixed-up and just plain wrong.

Spong talks about; 'these are the words of Paul, not the words of God'. But they have been presented to the world as the infallible word of God, by just about all the Christian churches through out all time. 

[thormas]

9 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I looked up JS Spong, he has a Wikipedia page. This is what it says about his education:

He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa honor society and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1952. He received his Master of Divinity degree from the Virginia Theological Seminary in 1955. He has had honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees conferred on him by Virginia Theological Seminary and Saint Paul's College, Virginia, as well as an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters conferred by Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania.

In 2005, he wrote: "[I have] immerse[d] myself in contemporary Biblical scholarship at such places as Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School and the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge."

I have read most of Spong and I know his education. However, I believe he has said of himself that he is not a biblical scholar (not that he has not been immersed in them) and, frankly, I have never read such wild speculation ( ex.Paul and Mary) from biblical scholars. So I take some of what he says with grain of salt. I do like him better as a theologian.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by thormas

[Burl]

10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Yeah, but who was Paul to go around organizing the churches on that level? Saying women could not be preachers or even speak in church, or if all that's  pseudo-Paul, still setting up negative distinctions and limitations? In my last comment to Thormas I've mentioned some of his ideas about marriage and getting married. Who was he to inject these things into Christianity, whether it was just to one church or to the whole world?

He never met Christ. Never saw him preach or teach. He didn't spend very much time with those who did and those who knew Jesus best. He was a first century evangelist who knew Greek and was able to write, so he wrote a bunch of letters. He was sometimes great and inspired, and other times missing the mark completely. 

He was just Paul. His words are no more "the absolute word of God" than anyone who is sometimes inspired and sometimes mixed-up and just plain wrong.

Spong talks about; 'these are the words of Paul, not the words of God'. But they have been presented to the world as the infallible word of God, by just about all the Christian churches through out all time. 

Paul is absolutely more of an authority than Spong.  

[Elen1107]

1 hour ago, Burl said:

Paul is absolutely more of an authority than Spong.  

Does Paul have more authority than most Christians and the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit speaking through many, more or most Christians? A lot of Progressive Christians strongly disagree with some of his ideas, while they agree with and even strongly agree with others. This is usually our relationship to any other human being. We agree and disagree, sometimes strongly, sometimes not as much.

Paul has been raised to the status by many people as being the absolute and infallible word of God, simply by regard of who he is and how he is placed in the bible, not ness. by what he says or what his points of view are.

Spong disagrees with this. A lot of Progressive Christians disagree with this also.

Just last night I watched a teleconference between two preachers on the PC's main website. What one of them was saying was that if people want to subjugate or oppress another group, the first thing that they do is sever that person's connection to God. Make them feel that they are less than, less of a reflection of God, and if they can, make them feel  more evil, less competent, and less worthy. He talked about how this is done to female people, to gay people, to people who are in servitude or bondage. It's even done to people in relation to government and governmental authorities. 

They talked about how the bible itself is used for these purposes and that this is not a true reflection of or true overall picture of the Spirit & Light of God. One can relate to this in terms of how one interprets the bible, or do what JS Spong does and simply state that everything in the bible is not the infallible word of God. Some of it reflects the Spirit and Light of God and some of it does not. 

----------------------------

btw, it was JS Spong that introduced me to Progressive Christianity and brought me to this website. I understand that PC covers a wider umbrella and all if not many outlooks are welcome. But Spong's ideas and insights are still regarded, found very insightful and celebrated. 

[thormas]

22 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Does Paul have more authority than most Christians and the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit speaking through many, more or most Christians? A lot of Progressive Christians strongly disagree with some of his ideas, while they agree with and even strongly agree with others. This is usually our relationship to any other human being. We agree and disagree, sometimes strongly, sometimes not as much.

Paul has been raised to the status by many people as being the absolute and infallible word of God, simply by regard of who he is and how he is placed in the bible, not ness. by what he says or what his points of view are.

Spong disagrees with this. A lot of Progressive Christians disagree with this also.

As I read Burl and as I understand it, Paul is so highly regarded because of his brilliance (and sacrifice) in the early year of Christianity which culminated in his execution by Rome. When you mention Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit, I have no real idea what you actually mean in progressive Christian terms. Paul never met Jesus but he did know some of his disciples including his brother James and Peter. 

What PCs disagree with Paul and again if it is pseudo-Paul, it is not Paul. I also disagree that Paul or anyone is the absolute, infallible word of God ........but this is not a contemporary understanding and it makes sense that many PCs would reject it. Paul's place in the Bible is after the Gospels although historically he was the first 'writer' in the Christian community and his high regard had everything to do with what he said and what his point of view was.

I agree that Spong is rightfully highly regarded..............just not infallible :+}