The Theological Basis For Feminism? (Jesus, Earth, beliefs, bible)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by divine

the equality.

How about this for starters:

'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' - Galatians, 3:28

James

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Victor

No doubt. But no matter how one slices it, there are real differences between the sexes.

"Maleness" and "femaleness" mean much more than mere possession of certain genitalia. Rather, they are complete roles and ontological realities created by God IMO.

I agree there are differences, but i disagree that there are specified roles.

Originally Posted by Victor

It isn't orthodox, traditional Christians who are hung up on maleness either; rather it is the "gender radicals" who favor women's ordination. I'd be quite content to accept the fact that God came to earth as a Man and taught His disciples and recorded in His inspired Revelation that only men ought to be ordained, just as He gave Mary the unfathomable honor and privilege of bearing God and serving in a sublime way as a Co-Redemptrix and Spiritual Mother.

Really? Can you point me to a passage or two where Jesus says only men can be in the priesthood?

Also, last time i checked men can't give birth - therefore if God wanted to incarnate through human birth rather than simply manifesting, he needed a woman. He had to give some woman the honour of being theotokos, he had no choice. Therefore, i don't think choosing Mary as mother can be compared to the idea of teaching an all male-priesthood.

Originally Posted by Victor

As I said before, some folks get confused with role differentiation vs. inequality. But I suppose if I wanted to milk my 3 month old real bad, the emotional response would be that of inequality, while not accepting the role differentiation.

It's just the way it is.

Well, physical differences are unalterable (although you could breast feed if you really wanted too, just take some oestrogen), but assigned roles - that of bread-winner, head of household, childcarer, housekeeper, are traditionally assigned roles that are now thankfully altering.

In the past, in Christian societies, women weren't allowed to hold positions of power, often weren't allowed to earn their own money and were expected to serve their husbands - this i believe comes from the concept of God as a male.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Really? Can you point me to a passage or two where Jesus says only men can be in the priesthood?

Not one that could settle the matter with complete clarity, no. Most all can easily be interpreted away with your own tradition/bias.

Church arguments are based on the historical events of the Church, the apostolic teachings, a Sacred Tradition which has never acknowledged a valid female ordination, and scriptural references from both testaments.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Also, last time i checked men can't give birth - therefore if God wanted to incarnate through human birth rather than simply manifesting, he needed a woman. He had to give some woman the honour of being theotokos, he had no choice. Therefore, i don't think choosing Mary as mother can be compared to the idea of teaching an all male-priesthood.

That wasn't the comparison I was trying to make. I used Mary to show that the early church was not a bunch of male chauvinistic pigs. That men in the Church of every society have been perfectly content that the most elevated human (aside from God) is in fact a women.

In fact it would have been perfectly normal for Christ to have choosen women in an authoritative role at the time. Many pagan religions did this. It was not something the people of the time were unfamiliar with. This really does spring from the Judaic Tradition through which we come from.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Well, physical differences are unalterable (although you could breast feed if you really wanted too, just take some oestrogen), but assigned roles - that of bread-winner, head of household, childcarer, housekeeper, are traditionally assigned roles that are now thankfully altering.

In the past, in Christian societies, women weren't allowed to hold positions of power, often weren't allowed to earn their own money and were expected to serve their husbands - this i believe comes from the concept of God as a male.

I'm starting to think you and I are seeing role differences a little different. Role differences are not necessarily associated with power and authority (although they can be). To me, it's simply "you do this, and I'll do that". It's what's better for the whole of the household that usually determines it.

All in all, both me and my wife share duties on every level.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Victor

Not one that could settle the matter with complete clarity, no. Most all can easily be interpreted away with your own tradition/bias.

I quite agree.

Originally Posted by Victor

Church arguments are based on the historical events of the Church, the apostolic teachings, a Sacred Tradition which has never acknowledged a valid female ordination, and scriptural references from both testaments.

Your tradition, yes. Mine suggests equal male and female rights to be apostles and clergy. But then, we're never going to agree on matters of tradition.

Originally Posted by Victor

That wasn't the comparison I was trying to make. I used Mary to show that the early church was not a bunch of male chauvinistic pigs. That men in the Church of every society have been perfectly content that the most elevated human (aside from God) is in fact a women.

I apologise, i think i misread your post.

Originally Posted by Victor

In fact it would have been perfectly normal for Christ to have choosen women in an authoritative role at the time. Many pagan religions did this. It was not something the people of the time were unfamiliar with. This really does spring from the Judaic Tradition through which we come from.

Hmmm, i think this may need further discussion. I was of the impression that Christ chose men as his public apostles because women would not have been taken seriously by the Jewish populace of the time.

Originally Posted by Victor

I'm starting to think you and I are seeing role differences a little different. Role differences are not necessarily associated with power and authority (although they can be). To me, it's simply "you do this, and I'll do that". It's what's better for the whole of the household that usually determines it.

Maybe so. I simply do not see gender roles (outside the physical) as being necessary nor inherent.
My mother raised me and my brother after my father died, therefore i don't believe that a woman cannot offer what a Father figure alone can.

Originally Posted by Victor

All in all, both me and my wife share duties on every level.

I'm sure you do, and this was never supposed tyo be an attack upon how Christians chose to live their lives. My entire point is that i believe that, in the past, women were subjugated because of a male concept of God, which inturn transferred to a concept of male dominance.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Maybe so. I simply do not see gender roles (outside the physical) as being necessary nor inherent.
My mother raised me and my brother after my father died, therefore i don't believe that a woman cannot offer what a Father figure alone can.


I'm sure you do, and this was never supposed tyo be an attack upon how Christians chose to live their lives. My entire point is that i believe that, in the past, women were subjugated because of a male concept of God, which inturn transferred to a concept of male dominance.

I see what you mean. I'm sure it did. It can see how it could have so easily crept into homes and the perception of the everyday man.

A good example is the "macho" in Mexican men (being Mexican and all) that is very real. Although I think this was more of a false perception mixed with cultural factors that caused this. Not necessarily doctrines of the Church (aside from being clergy).

[roli]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Is there a theological basis for feminism? If so, what is it?

Can it be said of deity that deity is either male or female? And if deity cannot be said to be either male or female, does that imply a theological basis for an equality of the sexes?

In Genisis there is proof that God possesses attributes and characteristics of both male and female ,how else could He create such diversity in the 2.
Therefore how could He be a respector of persons,there is no partiality with God

Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
They were equally clothed with the rightousness of God that is the only way God could walk with them and fellowship with them.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Still equal
Gen 2:24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
One flesh is indeed equality,yet of course there still remains order as there is in all aspects of society and life,think how ineffective something is that has 2 heads,there will be confusion disension,divison,revolt,rebellion as we see in our homes and businesses and all society.
Even after their sin and disobedience they were still equal in many ways even though it was the woman who initially took from the tree.

Gen 3:16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Then God establishes Kingdom order over the house by making the woman ,for a lack of better terms, subserviant to the man,(Kingdom order) as Paul makes clear in the next verse here in 1Cor 11:3, but woman have been trying to change Gods order of Kingship and Kingdom authority and order ever since.
1Cr 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.