Is it true that Rick Warren's church won't let women....

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

serve in any type leadership role within the church???? I'm trying to look that up but I haven't found it on google.

[babylonsister]

1. Horror! Thanks for enlightening us!111!. nt

[PeaceNikki]

2. Many churches don't.

[davidinalameda]

12. mine does

[PeaceNikki]

13. I didn't say "all", I said "many".

I know not all. But many.

[Maven]

3. Yes, it is.

http://theocracyrus.wordpress.com/2008/12/

[Beacool]

129. Screw Warren!!!!!!!!!

And what the hell was Obama thinking?????

"Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church and Purpose Driven Life fame has been selected to give an invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Warren’s selection is absolutely unsatisfactory to a number of folks. The GLBT crowd is up in arms because of Warren’s support of Proposition 8 in California. Women are upset because women are given a subservient role in the church. Women are barred from leadership roles, and when a woman does come into a high-ranking position, she must have a man act as her supervisor. Progressives are flipping out because Warren is very, very conservative. And atheists, agnostics, and others think there shouldn't’t be an invocation at all."

Yeah us little ladies are only good to fuck, clean, cook and have babies.........

:grr:

[IndianaGreen]

4. This is true. Women cannot have authority above men.

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/whatwebelieve/index.html

[ShortnFiery]

53. Too bizarre! Bag that load-O-crap.

:P

[beachmom]

80. Your link proves nothing. In fact, nobody on this thread has proven a thing.

Somebody needs to provide a quote from the website or an article, that explicitly forbids women from being a minister or teaching or any kind of leadership role. Otherwise, this whole thread is just hot air.

[IndianaGreen]

128. Here is an archived link (Saddleback has been scrubbing their website for the past days)

Women and 1 Corinthians 14?
Question: I was reading in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that women are not allowed to speak in the church. Whoa – what’s up with this!?

Answer: Historical perspective really helps with this one. In that day, men and women sat on different sides of the church. For a woman to ask her husband a question she would have to shout it to the other side of the church or disrupt the church service by getting up and walking over to him. Apparently, this is exactly what was happening in the Corinthian church, and their worship services were becoming a zoo. Paul is saying, "Listen during the worship service, and talk about your questions on the way home."

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ if God." 1 Corinthians 11:3

http://web.archive.org/web/20071214040302/http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_20

[Phredicles]

5. Gosh, I didn't even know he was Catholic.

:P

[merh]

7. there are eerie similiarities

:freak:

[No Elephants]

25. Nota all that eerie. They are both using the Bible as the starting point.

[merh]

30. True

One has to wonder, would the reaction be the same if the pope were the one giving the invocation?

[No Elephants]

31. I think there might well be issues these days, especially with this particular

Pope. As I understand it, he was in charge of "handling" the pedophile priest situation. Given how it was in fact handled, it may be hard for some to listen to him "pontificate" about anything sexual, from gays to abstinence to adultery, etc.

I understand the ex cathedra distinction, but still.

[merh]

34. Perhaps you are correct.

But I think many DUers would be torn, they are proud practicing catholics and they believe they can distance themselves from the pope. I don't see how they can with this pope. His stances against gays, birth control, in vitro, stem cell research, women in positions of authority within the church all run afoul of the progressive agenda.

I stopped practicing years ago when I realized that the popes are not for civil rights and in my view, they are not very christian.

[NoPasaran]

49. As least he'd have the nazi cred so many here seem to crave

:sarcasm:

[marshall]

21. A Catholic Muslim Orthodox Jew!

Oppression of women is everywhere.

[LostinVA]

23. Women can have leadership roles in the Church

They should be allowed to be priests, imo, but both Religious and Lay women both have leadership roles in the Church outside of the Holy See. If they didn't. the American Church would collapse.

[No Elephants]

33. In a lot of evangelical churches, women take "leadership" roles, too, but

only to the extent the males allow them to.

If the males were to change their minds, the role women were allowed to take would change with the minds of the men. That is true of the Catholic Church as well. Greater participation by women is conveniente of the Catholic Church, though, given that they no longer have enough men willing to do what they want/need done and women are clamoring for more of a role. So, how much of a "leadership" role for women is it, really, be it the Catholic Church or evangelicals? (Sorry, I guess I am "holiday tired" today and therefore not as positive as I would prefer. Just so fed up with discrimination of any kind--religious, ethnic, gender, orientation. Sick of it happening; sick of having to deal with it; sick of talking about it.)

[merh]

39. No, they are not allowed leadership roles. Name me a female

priest, monsignor, bishop, cardinal, etc. Those are the leadership roles, the other roles you reference are allowed responsibilities, but hey never get to be leaders of the religion, the faith, the parish. I'm surprised you accept the token positions as leadership roles.

[lukasahero]

123. Are you asking just about Catholics?

Because here's a real quick Google of just Methodist Bishops:
Marjorie Swank Matthews 1980
Leontine T. Kelly 1984
Judith Craig 1984
Susan Murch Morrison 1988
Sharon A. Brown Christopher 1988
Amelia Ann B. Sherer 1992
Sharon Zimmerman Rader 1992
Mary Ann Swenson 1992
Charlene P. Kammerer 1996
Susan Wolfe Hassinger 1996
Janice Riggle Huie 1996
Beverly J. Shamana 2000
Violet L. Fisher 2000
Linda Lee 2000
Nélida (Nelly) Ritchie 2001
Deborah L. Kiesey 2004
Jane Allen Middleton 2004
Mary Virginia Taylor 2004
Sally Dyck 2004
Minerva G. Carcaño 2004
Rosemarie Wenner 2005
Peggy Johnson 2008
Elaine J. W. Stanovsky 2008

[merh]

125. just catholics

thanks

[LostinVA]

124. I don't believe you actually read my post then

They are allowed leadership roles within the Chutrch outside of thepriesthood. Not token positions, leadership roles. I stated women should be allowed to hold the priesthood, and I despise the fact they can't. However, compared to certain denominations and religions, they have a voice. They adminsiter some of the sacrament. They teach men. They make decisions. This is mainly on the parish level, and it is but crumbs from teh table. But, the point I was making is that I don't personally know one Catholic woman -- and I know alot -- who would put up with the garbage the women at Warren's ministry do. They woudl revolt, and the Church at teh local level would implode.

[merh]

127. I did read your post

that is why I responded to it.

So you think women should be happy being allowed to work within the corporation and not hope or expect to be the head of the corporation?

That is the simple way to put it.

But the deeper issue, the more spiritual, is that women cannot preside at the eucharist, celebrate the sacraments of penance (reconciliation), matrimony (weddings), baptism or anointing of the sick. Administering the sacraments is not quite the same as presiding at the sacraments.

[HEyHEY]

6. yes, but we can just view it as something "We disagree on" okay?

[EFerrari]

8. That's right The oppression of women is just an opinion!

[PeaceNikki]

9. I think you totally missed the reference

[EFerrari]

16. I was chiming in. My chimes must need regrooving.

:)

[HEyHEY]

11. haha... dude, I'm not being serious

[EFerrari]

15. I wasn't either.

lol

:hi:

[madeline_con]

10. HEyHEY, the combination of the bear and your comments

has been hilarious tonight. Thanks! :)

[LostinVA]

24. Reasonable people can agree that sometimes misogynism is okay

[QC]

45. It's not misogyn! It's just a prspective! n/t

[Clio the Leo]

32. thank you NT

[Ecumenist]

14. It wouldn't surprise me. That the typical funamentalist opinion about women

being leaders.

[leftstreet]

17. Only the Beautiful Women

"I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see"...Rick Warren

[RC]

18. He looks like a beer drunk tailgater.

[spooky3]

19. That would require a highly unnatural inclination on their parts.

[CTyankee]

40. I can't imagine any woman in her right mind wanting to have sex with THAT!

You have just grossed me out for the day withthat picture...

[Beacool]

130. What woman, who is not brainwashed or being paid,

would want to have sex with that ugly guy??????????

:puke:

[Recursion]

20. He's a Southern Baptist, so women usually can't be pastor

However, the SBC values congregational autonomy, and some congregations ordain women. Warren's church is not among them. Any other role in the church is open to women: deacon, lay reader, various officer roles, etc.

And, I want to stress again because I'm sick of how this board doesn't bother to learn the difference, he is an evangelical but not a fundamentalist.

[No Elephants]

27. Thank you. And even all evangelicas are not like him.

[No Elephants]

22. Probably. In the Pauline Epistles, Paul kind of brings the Orthodox

Jewish view of women's role at home and church into the New Testament.

Women were/are supposed to submit to their husbands in all things. In places of worship, men and women sat on separate sides. If a woman had a question about something said or done during the service, she was supposed to remain silent until she got home, where she was supposed to ask her husband.

On edit: I hasten to add that neither Jesus nor any of his original 12 disciples are quoted on this until Paul comes into the picture. Paul never met Jesus. However, Paul, for some reason, starts setting rules for everyone, including the disciples who had spent 3 years, night and day, with Jesus. And, for some reason, they seem obedient to him.

Some churches/denominations have moved on from following the directives exactly as written. Otherw never did. Some stopped but have gone back to them with renewed fervor. Take your pick.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. And Paul is also the only one in the NT to

speak against gay folk. Jesus did not. So anyone who does not follow the rules of Paul about women, has no standing to quote Paul's rules to me about anything else.

[bighart]

50. just for the sake of clarity Paul also wrote that a husband and wife

are to submit to one another in reverence to Jesus. Ephesians chapter 5 verse 21 and this is the preface to the whole wives submit to your husbands thing.

[LostinVA]

26. You are correct -- they can't even teach Sunday School -- and, they must completely subjugate

Nor can they have abortions, even if rapes, even if having the baby will kill them, even if it's incest. Themselves to their husbands. Sounds like Saudi Arabia, eh? Except Warren allows them to drive.

[No Elephants]

28. And to donate.

[No Elephants]

29. They cannot teach Sunday School, even to females? Wow, even I had a woman

Sunday School teacher as a kid and my church would not let us wear makeup or allow us (male or female) to dance or listen to any music but hymns. Well, they did not stop us at home, but they told us it was sinful. LOL< dancing is in the Old Testament. I think even David does it. However, he was not dancing with a female. (And if he were, he no doubt would have left room between them "for the Holy Ghost, LOL).

[phleshdef]

37. Half of what you just said are OUTRIGHT LIES. Skim their actual website...

It has women's ministry stuff all over the place. It also has sermons given by Warren's wife. A little googling, and you will also find that she is a director over their AIDS/HIV ministries.

The stuff about abortion is true. The rest of what you said is a complete lie. And comparing it to the plight of women in Saudi Arabia is disgusting and an insult to the horrible things women in the middle east have to endure.

[LostinVA]

41. Errr -- no, it isn't, everything I've said is true

I have no idea why you are trying to defend him.

Women can have NO LEADERSHIP ROLES IN HIS CHURCH. WOMEN MUST 100% SUBJUCATE THEMSELVES TO THEIR MEN. He does indeed have different rules for his own wife -- taht has been noted on here before. It is very, very similar to how women in the Midlle East are treated by their Theocracys.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

51. You are totally wrong and you know it -- spinspinspin away

Saying you think Warren is an okay pick for the prayer is one thing, defending his repulsive beliefs and trying to spin them into something benign is another. He is well known scum.

[Maven]

54. Yes, and they all have to have MEN OVER THEM

Get a fucking clue and don't you dare call LostinVA a liar.

You're the one with the wrong information.

[LostinVA]

57. They conveniently left out that part

Although, "Women's Ministry" should have bought them a clue.

Thanks.

[phleshdef]

76. LOL. He said they can't even teach Sunday school. That lie was easy enough to expose.

I never denied that a man is as the top tier of the church leadership. But women DO in fact have leadership roles in the church and according to their website, its not just over other women.

I'm not defending their point of view. I think all religion is basically shite. But I'm sick of the exagerrating and denial of context on this Warren issue.

[Maven]

79. 1. LostinVA is female

2. Stop calling people liars, it's against the rules

3. You obviously have an axe to grind here, beyond the search for "truth"

[phleshdef]

85. My apologies to VA for not knowing her gender. I don't have an axe to grind, I'm just annoyed...

...at the fact that we have spent the past week harping on the choice of who is giving the invocation prayer instead of the issues that directly affect where policy is going over the next 4 years.

The more of these threads regarding Warren's ideology are created, the more threads I see blowing out of proportion the magnitude of just how extreme that ideology is. Basically saying that women are treated as slaves, have no voice in that particular church and comparing it to the horrible conditions that women in Saudi Arabia are exposed to is very dishonest. Ultimately, the only reason people are even talking about it here is they are trying to tie those beliefs to Obama and are trying to make those beliefs even more extreme seeming than they actually are.

For the record, I don't agree with any church of any religion. I believe in gay marriage. And if I thought for a second about believing in my wife being subservient to me, I'd have a divorce and an ass kicking coming my way.

[bluedawg12]

84. advising women that if their husbands beat them...they should try harder

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

>>Warren led a group of evangelical churches in pushing a reluctant Bush administration to adopt a global AIDS policy, resulting in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, launched in 2003.

Other PEPFAR grantees, as Jacobson's colleagues in the global AIDS movement have witnessed, use their funds to promote fundamentalist interpretations of marital roles, advising women that if their husbands beat them, they should try harder to please them.<<

Also read the full article about the diversion of HIV/AIDS by the fundys to evangalize and convert;

>>In Kay Warren's initiative, those include the core argument that "healthy choices" require faithfulness to the principle of abstinence, and "faithfulness requires faith": an evangelical priority that echoes her husband's reassurance to the far-right World Net Daily that his number one priority in his AIDS work was the salvation of non-Christians<<

[phleshdef]

89. I read the whole article... "other PEPFAR grantees" implies grantees other than Warren's church...

...or maybe I'm reading that totally wrong. But that seems to be the casse.

[bluedawg12]

121. Warren was a leader in pushing **** to form PEPFAR

"That year, Warren led a group of evangelical churches in pushing a reluctant Bush administration to adopt a global AIDS policy, resulting in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, launched in 2003."

He remains a visible leader giving the PEACE medal to **** a few weeks ago.

The grantee is part of PEPFAR.

If even one grantee, as a member of PEPFAR, is a proponent of wife beating in submission to the will of the husband, the leader(s) of that organization have a duty to condemn this point of view and speak out.

The buck stops at the top.

Silence is complicity.

[Ian David]

43. Are all 478 of your prior posts also as completely wrong and full of shit, too? n/t

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

48. You don't get it. Maybe you're not an it-getter. n/t

[LostinVA]

55. I proved you wrong THREE times, but you still spinspinspin

His beliefs on women and their roles are very well known, and have been for a long time.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

66. I ahven't lied at all -- you raelly need to quit calling me a liar -- against DU rules

[phleshdef]

71. Fine. I'll rephrase. Stop exagerrating.

[LostinVA]

72. I'm not

[phleshdef]

77. Comparing the plight of women at this kind of church to whats going on in the middle east...

...is exactly that. Period.

[LostinVA]

83. Becasue it is very similar --

[bluedawg12]

90. It's only similar if husbands beating wives is a concern LOL.

When condoned by a powerful religious institution say the PEPFAR group, or the religious leaders in Saudi.

That's the only similarity. :sarcasm:

[phleshdef]

92. Right because Saddlebackers beat, stone and execute women...

And women aren't allowed to be seen within 10 feet of another man that isn't her husband.
And they aren't allowed to get a divorce if their husband is cheating on them.
And they have to wear Burka's.
Oh, and Saddleback doesn't believe in women getting access to education.

Oh wait, none of that is true at all. Which is why it isn't even close to the same thing.

The truth is, they preach that the husband is the head of the household and they probably wouldn't approve of having a woman pastor. I think they are wrong on both counts but that is NOTHING like what is going on the middle east. Nothing at ALL.

[LostinVA]

97. Are you raelly this ignorant or just refusing to admit Warren sucks?

[phleshdef]

100. I've said he "sucks" a billion times. Stop trying to dodge the fact that you exaggerated.

[plantwomyn]

119. "I've said he "sucks" a billion times."

Exaggerate much?

[bluedawg12]

102. In harping on one phrase you are missing the point

this guy is manipulative. He is a right wing soical conservative who has insinuated himself into politics big time.

He calls himself:pastor to Presidents.
“In fact, in the first place, I’m a pastor, and people might misunderstand,” he continued. “I don’t deal with policy issues with Barack Obama or President Clinton or John McCain. I just don’t. That’s not my role. My role is to pastor these guys.”
http://christianpost.com/article/20081217/rick-warren-not-satisfied-with-making-abortions-rare.htm

Come on, when did DU turn into a fan gallery for fundys in politics? this doesn't even sound like us.

Did you approve when *** and the fundys ran this nation?

If you are invested in PE Obama, and I am as well, and we both voted for him, then give him credit for being human and making mistakes, correcting the course when needed, the ability to evolve and not being so fragile that contrarian views will destroy his future work. It won't. He's the one who has selected a team of "rivals" because he can handle debate and dissent.

[phleshdef]

106. Debate and dissent is fine. Exaggerating the severity of the Warren prayer and overrating his role..

...is another story.

[bluedawg12]

114. The symbolism of that invocation is in question and the message it sent.

As far as overrating Warren's role read this, the fundy has already been at work deep with in the Dem leadership--and mark my words, phleshdef, this guy Ricky is very good at what he does.

Just read about how he hones in on each member of Congress from Schumer to Clinton to find their soft spot to get them to agree why Warren must remain a "single issues" voter.

He is giving not an inch. He cannot, it is the basis of his mega church and mega bucks and 20 million book sales.

This guy is a big time, right wing, cultural warrior, who is just slick enough to appear like a fat joival wolf in sheeps clothing. Let's not be fooled. PE Obama has his reasons, I am certain he sses more of the up than down side, I am guessing he thinks Warren can be of use and at the same time controlled. I am not sure of the control part. PE Obama will have the weight of the crumbling world on his shoulders come January, while Warren will have nothing else to do but to focus himself on building his own power base and grow his empire.

Old saying: he who foolishly rides the back of the tiger often ends up inside.



http://christianpost.com/article/20081217/rick-warren-not-satisfied-with-making-abortions-rare.htm

>>Furthermore, Warren noted that it was Obama who first brought the issue up during a Democratic Senate Caucus that Warren was invited to speak at.

“Hey Rick, let’s talk about the big elephant in the room,” Warren recalled Obama saying.

“When we Democrats … do stuff for the poor and we do stuff for the sick, we don’t get many letters about it. But when we vote to support abortion we get thousands and tens-of-thousands of letters. What’s the issue here?” Obama had asked, according to Warren.

In response, Warren told Obama and the other Democrats in the room – which included Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer – that almost everybody has a single issue that they care about.

Turning to Clinton, Warren said the New York senator would likely not vote for someone who she felt was wrong on the civil rights issue, even though she might agree with them on everything else.

“And I went around the room and when I came to Chuck Schumer I said, ‘Chuck, how bad, if you had a candidate and he was right in every single area that you agreed with but he’s a Holocaust denier?’

“‘There’s no way you’re gonna vote for a holocaust denier,’” Warren recalled telling the Jewish American politician. “That’s a single issue issue for you.”

With that said, Warren told the Democrats, “For these people who believe life begins at birth, all right, at conception, it’s an American holocaust. They believe that there’s 40 million people who should be here. And to them that’s an issue.” <<

Edit: "sating" chnaged to "saying" typo.

[plantwomyn]

122. The role of Warren's "prayer" and the severity of it's meaning.

Obama chose Warren to perform the Invocation Prayer for his Inauguration Ceremony to become OUR President.

Warren will forever represent Obama as the man he asked to call upon G-d "for help or support" and "authority or justification" for his Presidency.

in·vo·ca·tion
1 a: the act or process of petitioning for help or support ; specifically often capitalized : a prayer of entreaty (as at the beginning of a service of worship) b: a calling upon for authority or justification
2: a formula for conjuring : incantation
3: an act of legal or moral implementation : enforcement

Warren has gone on record that he equates homosexuality with pedophilia, incest and bigamy.

Belief.net editor Steven Waldman: But what about, like, partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

Rick Warren: You know, to me, not a problem with me. But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

The irony of Warren sighting the "5,000 year definition of marriage" is mindblowing. Lot and his daughters,Jacob with Leah and Rachel, David and his multiple wives. It goes on and on. About 1009 B.C. is the start of David's reign so it can't have started more than 3000 years ago. So what year did this "one man and one woman" thing start?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

69. Women's ministrys are, by definition

under the direction of a male minister, the same way a lady's auxilary in any other organization ultimately answer's to a man in the men's organization they are attached too. Duh!

Who are their directors, treasurers, presidents, and other officers and executives? That will tell you whether or not women are allowed to lead. Show me a church where woman don't hold executive offices and it's a church where they aren't allowed to.

[merh]

95. That is how it is in the catholic church

women do not have equal rights, they do not have the right to leadership roles.

For this reason Catholic women, joining the international movement "We Are Church," call for the recognition of:

* Women's essential contribution in the construction of the Kingdom of God;

* Women's right to speak and vote in all ecclesiastical councils;

* Women's right to have full access to church ministries.

* Human Rights for women, also in the Church!

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Women%27s+perspectives+on+human+rights+in+the+Catholic+Church.+(Sexual...-a0105915324

[Jamastiene]

93. Of course their web site doesn't tell the truth NOW.

It has been scrubbed.

If you look through the internet archive of their Q&A before they scrubbed it (just recently), you'll find this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071214040302/http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_20

They believe women should not be allowed to speak in church.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

73. wow not even a women's class? i went to a very strict class before but we had women

over the sunday school, over the nursery and over church events.

[phleshdef]

35. Looked through their website... his own wife gives sermons and she headed up their AIDS/HIV program.

And I see lots of stuff for women's ministry all over their website.

I don't know what their exact belief is. I imagine like most of these kinds of churches, they teach that the husband is responsible for the well being of the household and thus is the head of the household. But I can't find anything to back that assumption up.

However, they definately allow women to have leadership roles in the church. Skimming through their website shows many examp

[Bluenorthwest]

38. And yet to do so is a contradiction of the direct

teachings of St Paul, whom they use to bash gay folk. So Paul was wrong about Mrs Ricky, but right about gay folk, is that it? Look over there, there's another cherry to pick.
Maybe Rick and you should put out a redacted Bible, so the rest of us can clearly see which parts you are calling the word of God, and which parts you are saying are just too much trouble, or whatever. Which jots and titles are you removing? What are you adding? America needs to know.

[phleshdef]

42. 1. I decided years ago I'm all but agnostic 2. Paul was addressing an issue related to the times...

Back to 1.

Don't fucking lump me in with Warren. I don't believe in Christianity or any other religion. However, I was raised in a similar type of church so I know how they think. How foolish of you to rush to such a judgement.

Back to 2.

My understanding is that there was a problem with women, who were not formally educated on spiritual matters, asking too many questions during the services of one of the particular churches. This was causing a problem with actually getting through the services. The reason for this is because women weren't being taught anything really prior to Christianity so they had to catch up on the basic principles of the Hebrew faith to even begin to understand what was being talked about. Paul told them to knock it off and wait till they got home and let their husbands fill in the blanks for them.

Anyhow, I looked it up because the OP asked and it made me curious as well. I don't mind people bashing a church for their beliefs, but I do mind people making shit up when they have no clue what they are talking about. The truth is more important than promoting a bad perception of your enemies.

[LostinVA]

47. I didn't make up anything -- everything I said was true

YOU are trying to act like different rules for his wife and "Women's Ministry" mean I and others are lying. Women have NO LEADERSHIP ROLES IN HIS CHURCH. They ARE ORDERED to 100% subjugate themselves to their men. No abortions -- ever. And, it IS the same as any theocracy in the world, including the women of the Middle East.

Why in the hell would you try to defend a person like this by trying to spin their repulsive beliefs into something more benign???

[Bluenorthwest]

86. You are taking Rick's part here, so that is how I dealt with you

I was also raised in a similar church. I also know how they think, and what is written.
Your rationalization that Paul was addressing an 'issue related to the times' is not bad. Why is that not applied to Paul's other rantings? Like about gay folks? Just wondering. If it applies in one place, should they not apply the same thinking in every place?

But in the meantime, it does say what it says about the role of women, and Warren's church does not practice that in the same literealist way that it wishes to practice other rules and that is hypocriy.
They are the apostate church, the generation of vipers that you may recall from youth.

[phleshdef]

96. My church was envangelical but they also believed in female pastors.

So its not exactly the same.

As for the part about Paul, I was addressing one specific part, yes. I also won't deny that Paul was nuts. There is no point in saying that this church or that church is contradicting its' own Bible. The Bible does a good enough job contradicting itself and there is no need to make that argument.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. But yes there is a need to make that argument

until they admit it. If they do not follow Paul, they simply have no standing to selectivly impose Paul on others. It is this simple: people who are eating a pulled pork and cheddar sandwich don't get to tell others to eat kosher. And if they do, they should be subject to ridicule and truth telling.
If Jesus said no divorce, and yet your church allows such people to join, but Jesus said nothing about gays and you reject gays, you are simply not following Jesus. And if they are not following Paul either, at a certain point one must aske whom they are following. In their own lives, that is.
They have no standing, for they practice no faith. They just say they do. That is not the same.

[QC]

58. Generally speaking, and I grew up fundy, women can only exercise leadership

over children and other women.

So they can teach women's and children's Sunday school classes, and run the women's group, and make casseroles for Wednesday night suppers, but the moment a man enters the scene they must go back into submissive mode.

And, if you don't mind me asking, why are you so emotionally invested in this guy?

[phleshdef]

64. I'm invested in the truth because at the end of the day, it pertains to the PE that I support.

People on here are all ready tying Obama to gay-hate, now they want to tie him to sexism where the roles of women in leadership are concerned. Thats what all this is about and you know it.

[LostinVA]

68. Warren is a well-known misogynist

[QC]

78. Yes, I figured that was your reason,

but I had hoped it was something more honorable than blind defense of a politician.

[phleshdef]

82. Whats blind about it? Obama is the only reason people are talking about it...

...and most of the talk have been attempts to tie his own political policy stances to a hard right wing religious fueled philosophy. Saddleback certainly expouses a point of view that go directly against progressive intentions, but they aren't the freaking church of Hitler and evangelical churches certainly don't treat women like they are treated in the middle east. The more misinformation and exaggerations being spread about this church then that will ultimately lead to people making more misinformed statements and exaggerations about PE Obama.

This is why we have spent the past week on DU, talking about THIS instead of the economy or getting out of Iraq or Obama's cabinet choices or any of the other stuff thats actually important.

My goal isn't to stifle dissent. I'd just like to see it directed towards something that actually impacts the direction that we are heading in for at least the next 4 years.

[QC]

87. Believe it or not, some of us believe that getting into bed with Warren is wrong.

That's why they are talking about it. Some people have different priorities from yours.

Look, I voted for and contributed to John Edwards, but you don't see me sitting here saying that it's good to screw around on one's ill wife, and a great thing to put the mistress on the campaign payroll.

Edwards did something very wrong. I am not going to tie myself into knots to justify it.

Obama blew it on this. He is not perfect. He made a big mistake. Why is it so hard to admit that the man is, well, a man, able to make mistakes just like any other man.

[phleshdef]

98. Because I don't view it as some huge mistake.

For many of the reasons others here don't view it as a mistake. I have faith that Obama will prove that he is a friend to the GLBT community through his policies. Aside from that, I do believe in reaching across the aisle. And my opinion of the other side of that aisle is that its full of bigots. You CAN'T really reach out to the religious right without reaching out to bigots. Sure you can name ministers who don't fall into that category, but I don't consider them part of that particular aisle.

America is full of religious bigots, probably more of them than we would like to admit.

[QC]

101. Fine. Others do consider this a mistake.

They have the right to say their piece, and you have the right to argue against them.

[bluedawg12]

88. Then you are over invsted in the PE that you support

if you think this is about tying Obama to gay-hate. This is about a difference in policy execution.

That kind of tripe has already been posted here and locked.

This is about tying the man that the PE honored to the many things he is, among them a gay hater.

[phleshdef]

103. Wait, I'm "over-invested" if I think its about tying Obama to something bad?

That doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

Then you turn around and say "its about a difference in policy execution", which is saying that Obama choosing Warren reflects on how he will execute policy, which basically means his potential policies are going to be tied to gay hate.

How about, in your next post, you make a point that actually disputes the problem I have with the issue instead of just typing something and hoping that it drives something home.

[bluedawg12]

111. It's about a bad decision.

that does not make PE Obama bad.

It's about "its about a difference in policy execution", let me explain, inviting Warren is a policy execution.
the policy is outreach to people of varying opinions.

I never said, "it reflects on how he will execute policy."

This decision to invite warren has a policy behind it, per PE Obama.

We disagree that this is the way to effect change in regards to gay civil rights.

We just finished eight years of a dim wit who could only muster a "stay the course" philosophy.

PE Obama is a hell of a lot (light years ahead) smarter than dumbya. He can handle dissent. That I am sure of.

Here is perhaps a more articulate way of saying what I am trying to express here:

http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-what-the-warren-appointment-will-cost/

>>As an old community organizer he should recognize that he has prematurely set up a culminating event of reconciliation without laying the required groundwork and without doing the necessary healing first, and without clearly stating the limits of religion, especially conservative evangelical religion, in government, and realizing the intense pain this would cause many of his supporters who have been subject to homophobic hate and after the abuses of the last eight years under Bush. This will go into his next book as an embarrassment that became a stepping stone for his personal growth as he learns to be a fine president. The time for Rick Warren might have been his second inauguration after there was an actual reconciliation to celebrate”<<

[Jamastiene]

105. This thread asked a question about Rick Warren, not Obama.

This thread is ABOUT Rick Warren, not Obama. I realize you are sensitive about Obama, but this thread isn't about him. This thread is about Rick Warren. Perhaps, you could go find one of those threads of which you speak and debate it where it is actually happening.

[phleshdef]

107. Why is the thread is General Discussion: Presidential then?

Give me a break. Every thread being posted about Warren all goes back to the fact that Obama chose him to give the invocation. Otherwise it wouldn't be posted here at all. Thats silly and you know it.

[Jamastiene]

110. We wouldn't even be talking about Warren if Obama hadn't honored him.

You are right on that. That should tell you something. Half of the people here wouldn't even know who this Warren character was if Obama hadn't invited him. The reason people are discussing him in GD: P is because Obama invited him.

That doesn't change the fact that the thread is about Rick Warren's beliefs. If anybody tied Warren to Obama, it was Obama himself, by inviting him.

[Bluenorthwest]

108. The truth about Warren

is contained in Warren's words and actions about others. If Obama is your concern, then perhaps the issue is that Obama ought to be thinking about the level of discourse he is giving his blessing to, which is Warren's level and lexicon. One of the things I took from my church learning, is that our actions return to us. So one good reason not to badmouth others is because if you do so, you will get badmouthed as well. Cast your bread upon those waters. Dig a pit, and you fall in it. When Obama allows such attacks and rheotoric as Warren uses to be presented as legitimate, he is inviting that level of attack and rhetoric against himself, and worse, against his own family, for families are being slandered. When Warren trashes gay people, he is speaking of someone's son or daughter. Father or mother, sister or brother. What goes around, it does in fact come around.

I very much agreeed with Obama's stand against Don Imus's cruel jokes. And with his reasons for taking that position. The post-Warren Obama will have no standing to take such a position against a comic, when he has allowed similar slanders by clerics who pretend to speak for God. The world needs the Obama who could stand up against hate speech, not the guy who will look like a simpering hypocrite if he takes selective stands.

If invective becomes the language of this time as it has been for so long, that will be the doing of our leadership's example, just as it has been for so long.

[polichick]

52. Women who belong to churches that discriminate against them are fools.

[ShortnFiery]

56. Or beaten down into a state of "learned helplessness" ... sort of like many Americans after

9/11 and the horrific reign of the BushBotBorg. :shrug:

[polichick]

61. Whatever the reason, still fools. It's long past time to WAKE UP!

[ShortnFiery]

70. Yes, but the collective "we" will be required to assist in waking them from the authoritarian ether.

People who have been abused and beaten down have lost their "will" to make their station in life better.

I have a number of women acquaintances who are "under the thumb" of an overbearing husband. Thank goodness my better-half likes my assertiveness because the men I see with these women are "abhorrent" to me ... we'd be taking baseball bats to each other's heads if we were locked in the same room for five minutes. :blush:

If I was not blessed with a strong father figure who taught me never to be intimidated by a man, I too could be in their position of being unwittingly submissive. It's a horrible place to be, but once stuck there, it takes outside help to encourage people to grow and enjoy behaving in an independent manner.

Many people turn to organized religion (authority figures) - out of a NEED to have order and structure in their lives.

It's NOT healthy for one's mental health to submit to many of these charlatans, i.e., authoritarian husbands and/or ministers.

[LostinVA]

59. Fools or with extremely bad self esteem

I don't get it.

[polichick]

63. And sad that they keep sending their children to such places...

...to be taught that women are less than ~ even to be raped (both boys and girls) by the clergy.

Whatever the reason, still FOOLS!

[LostinVA]

65. Both boys and girls will likely grow up to continue the abuse and self abuse

That's what happened to Andrea Yates.

[polichick]

67. True - what a horrific story Andrea's was!

[LostinVA]

74. Whenever people say,"She was an adult, blah blah blah"

I'm always like, they have NO IDEA how living within a theocractic envionment like that can affect a person.

[beachmom]

81. Agreed, except I have not seen definitive proof in this thread.

The OP asked a question. Nobody has answered it. There are women included in the "ministry team", although in lesser roles than the minister:

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/ministry/ministryteam.html

If this is about women not being ministers, well that is not unique to Saddleback. I grew up Catholic, after all. But clearly, they do hold positions.

[bluedawg12]

91. I don't think they are going to publish their restrictions against women

with the same zeal they self promote themselves as moderate good guys, just like Dobson only "a different tone."

[LostinVA]

99. They did, but they JUST scrubbed it -- you have to read the cached version

[bluedawg12]

109. I spent too much time at their web site just now LiV

That they scrubbed it does not surprise me this is a big business, he had PR guys watching trends and they know damned well that he is under scrutiny.

His work on HIV/AIDS, PEPFAR, the PEACE medal he gave **** recently for HIV?AIDS work and the power this creep has in being the one to push Bush into starting the AIDS/HIV in Africa program is disturbing. not because of the idea of good work to help the sick in Africa, but because that too is tied in with rw fundy ideology about fighting HIV and not preventing it other than that which doesn't work very efficiently: abstinence.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism


We have had enough of a POTUS who surrounds himself with fundy preachers, eight years of that was enough.

BTW, I was wrong, PE Obama did have a sit down with the Dems and preacher rick and Ricky seemed to give nothing, not an inch, but sounded as if he held the dem Senators in thrall- let's never under estimate the enemy, I am surprised the DU'ers don't recall our mistrust of the far right. WTF?

http://christianpost.com/article/20081217/rick-warren-not-satisfied-with-making-abortions-rare.htm

[beachmom]

113. Then provide a link. I mean, you make these accusations without

a shred of proof. Prove it.

[bluedawg12]

115. Here ya go beachmom

The role of women’s ministry is “social networking.”
“... to build relationships, encourage, and support one another– to talk, laugh, cry, process, and journey through life together. We do this through on-campus, home, and workplace small groups...”

The role of men’s ministry indicates a full spectrum of involvement: worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and mission

http://www.saddleback.com/aboutsaddleback/somethingforeveryone/women/index.html
Our hope is for every woman to be a part of our ministry and find a place of love and acceptance that will result in deeper friendships. We seek to build relationships, encourage, and support one another– to talk, laugh, cry, process, and journey through life together. We do this through on-campus, home, and workplace small groups; various women’s events and retreats; and more! Click here to learn more about getting in a small group with other women at our Lake Forest campus.

http://www.saddleback.com/aboutsaddleback/somethingforeveryone/men/index.html
You’ll also find men who are willing to lift you up and support you in your daily walk with the Lord. You’ll find men who are progressing personally, spiritually, and relationally as they learn how to become the man they were created to be – God’s Man.

Saddleback is a church built on the five biblical purposes of worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and mission. Our goal is to help men understand and apply each of these purposes from a man’s unique perspective and responsibility.

......
http://mayberrychurch.com/?p=48

The Mayberry Driven Church
Ministry When You’re not Saddleback and You’re up a Willow Creek…

Women in Ministry: Can we change?
This piece is written by Stan Gundry and I read it over at Jesus Creed.

An excellent list of questions for either side of the fence to be able to answer:
• If women are not to be the leaders and teachers of men, how does one account for Deborah, Huldah, Phillip’s daughters, and Priscilla’s role in the instruction of Apollos?
• Why is it that Paul instructs women to be silent in one place and acknowledges with apparent approval that women publicly pray and prophesy in another?
• Doesn’t the prominence of women among the followers of Jesus and in the Pauline Epistles suggest something significantly more than women leading and teaching children and other women?

• How is it that in the church the benefits of Galatians 3:26-28 apply equally and in very tangible ways to men, Jews, Gentiles, slaves, and those who are free, but not to women?
• If a woman is to obey her husband, is she not responsible directly to God for her actions? Is he in effect a priest, an intermediary between her and God? Is she to submit and obey even when his instructions are morally wrong or contrary to her understanding of God’s desire for her?
• Aren’t husbands and wives to mutually submit to one another as all believers are to submit to one another, and how does this qualify the presumptive one-sided submission and obedience of wives to husbands?
• Are all women to submit to all men?
• Is the husband to be the leader of the home even if the wife has better leadership skills, or the husband is disabled, or the wife has greater spiritual insight and sensitivity?
• Just when does a boy become too old for a woman to legitimately continue to teach him, and if women really are not to teach men, isn’t it odd that women are allowed to teach them in their most formative years?
• Does it make sense that God would endow women with gifts but disallow women the privilege and responsibility of using those gifts to their fullest, or for that matter disallow men from the benefits of those gifts?
• In fact, doesn’t the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers give the lie to the view that women are to submit to and obey men? And of all Christians, shouldn’t Baptists and others in the believer’s church and congregational traditions who claim to most consistently live out that doctrine, as well as the doctrine of soul liberty, extend those doctrines to women, acknowledging women as equals in all respects?
• And isn’t it more than a bit inconsistent for women to have an equal vote in congregational decisions, especially in the selection and/or discipline of male church leaders, if in fact they are to submit to men?

[beachmom]

116. Thanks. Well, most organized religion is sexist. The few liberal

churches that allow women to be ministers are the exception, not the rule. I used to go to a Unity Church which had a female minister. But that is not normal among Catholics and Evangelicals and most churches.

I guess, to me this is an argument to not allow the majority of churches to participate in the Inauguration. As to gay equality as well. And, that is sad, and probably why I do not go to Church anymore (I like Unity, but even there, I have issues with them).

[bluedawg12]

118. Hi beachmom! I agree, it is sad that women are marginalized in many denominations.

I agree, about to "not allow the majority of churches to participate in the Inauguration." They have become so divisive and so political, maybe a Buddhist or some faith that is purely focused on spirituality would have been less divisive. Oh wait, LOL, that would have caused a sh*t storm.

Someone mentioned yesterday that "sufi's" are like that, very spiritual.

I don't know much about sufi's...just saying, the cultural wars have been fanned by the right wing religions for so long now that most of us are truly sick of it and there is no end in sight. It is all they have left, their neocon loving, corporatist, free market, **** doctrine spewing ideology is dead, so they fight these cultural wars some more.

The Catholic model is totally a patriarchy. The male role of "priest of God" is matched by the unequal role of women as nuns and servants to God and priests often times. True, the good Sisters are entrusted with teaching kids, so they have major influence directly on the young, but what they teach is defined by the male Church leadership.

The funny thing is that most of the conservative churches that hold these ideas about women, seem to always down play the actual sexism and play it off as "just" following the divinely ordained role of male as leader and female as follower.

Personally, I feel a lot of spiritual moments, I really hope there is a loving God, but I feel more connected to that "feeling" or yearning when I see a family of bluejays nesting in my back yard, or the eternal return of life with each spring, than I do listening to some canned ham homily in Church by a man who has been committed to living his life in (claimed) celibacy and does not understand the day to day give and take of a long term human relationship and the work that entails.

Oh, I just found this, it is not from any one particular church denomination as far a I can tell, but it does seem to give us a thumb nail sketch of the scriptural basis for these arguments supporting male dominion.

Hold on to your hat--it might blow your ears off.

peace-

bd12
....
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-role-should-women-play-at-church.html

What role should women play at church?
Should women keep quiet during church services? Print Page
Smaller Text | Larger Text

Some believe that women should not speak at all during services. Others feel that women should be able to ask questions but should not be allowed to make statements or comments. They view this type of active participation by women as "teaching men."

Is it permissible for women to publicly pray or discuss the Scriptures? Is it permissible for women to "teach men"? What does Scripture tell us?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 A Most Difficult Scripture

Perhaps the most important verses used to argue against the active participation of women in spiritual fellowship are found in 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
This passage is usually interpreted and applied in the following manner: During church services, women are to remain silent in the presence of men, thus showing their complete spiritual subjection to God the Father and Jesus Christ. Women, therefore, are not to teach during Sabbath school, nor are they to teach in any manner during the preaching service, for to do so would be usurping authority over the men that are present, and this would be against the will of God the Father and Jesus Christ.

The "usurpation of authority over men" clause is also invoked to prohibit women from having any authority over men in any and all activities, whether during Sabbath services or otherwise. Thus prayer or speech of any fashion in the presence of men is said to be prohibited by Scripture. Teaching men through the medium of writing is prohibited. Actively participating in the planning, organizing, staffing and directing of activities over men is also prohibited, the reasoning goes.


These prohibitions are based on four major assumptions:

That the singular "woman" in these verses means "all women," whether married or not.

That the singular "man" in these verses means "all men, "whether married or not.

That the term "silence" means "absolutely mute."

That the command specifically applies to Sabbath services and church activities of any kind.

Is this understanding of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 consistent with the meaning of other Scriptures? Is it possible that we are applying cultural customs and bias to the Scriptures? Can we prove what is the true meaning of these verses? What is the setting of 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Is it Sabbath fellowship only, or is it family fellowship as well? Is the command here applicable to all women and all men? What does the term "teach" mean? What does it mean for a woman to "usurp authority over the man" ? What does it mean to be silent "with all subjection" ? To whom is the woman to be in subjection, to her husband, or to all men? What is the real topic under discussion here?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 in Context

Paul was writing to the young evangelist Timothy, who was serving the brethren at Ephesus at the time. The year was circa 66 A.D. The Jewish Wars with Rome had just begun. The subject under discussion in 1 Timothy 2 is the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles (1Timothy 2:7). Paul therefore reminds Timothy that all Christians (men and women) should pray for kings and all that are in authority, to the end that the gospel might be preached in a setting of peace and tranquility, for God would

"have all men saved, and ... come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1Timothy 2:1-4).
The particular gospel to be preached was that:

"there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1Timothy 2:5-6).
This was the reason for Paul's ordination as a preacher, an apostle and teacher of the Gentiles (1Timothy 2:7).

Timothy was therefore to teach that Christian men should

"pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting."
Praying, in other words, that this gospel would go to the Gentiles, in due time, in a proper atmosphere of peace and tranquility (1Timothy 2:8).

Timothy was to teach Christian women to pray the same thing. Only instead of admonishing the women to pray without "wrath and doubting," the women were to pray thus:

"In like manner... in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1Timothy 2:9-10).
The word translated modest is the Greek kosmios and in this context carries the meaning of a Christian woman who is quiet and tranquil in her worship of God; a woman who fulfills the Christian duties which are incumbent upon her; a woman who is sensible, self-controlled and who voluntarily places limitations on her Christian freedom.

<snip>

Is it Wrong for a Woman to Teach a Man?

The question still remains, what did Paul mean when he commanded,

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence " (1Timothy 2:12)

<snip>

Spiritual knowledge is granted by God to Christian women as well as to Christian men. The revelations and insight that God gives through His Spirit are meant to be shared by all His begotten children so that all may be edified. Christian wives are not excluded from this mutual edification. It is not ungodly for a Christian wife to "teach men," including her own husband, by sharing the spiritual insight and understanding that God has imparted to her, whether in public or in private. Paul simply states that for her to assume a dominant role in teaching the gospel would be ungodly and would undermine the God-given order of things.

[slackmaster]

75. You mean he doesn't discriminate against homosexuals exclusively?

Color me SHOCKED.

[Phx_Dem]

94. If true, it would put him right in line with the Catholic Church.

[bluedawg12]

104. That's true, Catholics and fundys share many same social views

and theological ones as well.

The difference is that selecting one of the most prominent anti-gay activists from either church would suck big time.

Warren or the ArchBishop of SF or the head of the Mor*on Church would just be very counter productive at this particular time in history after their poltical activism in California.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

117. No, They Have To be.....

be under male oversight.

[bluedawg12]

120. This is an interesting article about pastor rick from the WSJ.

His shtick is to speak softly and carry a big stick. (I know, bad punning).

He has praised Fallwell, don't make me hunt for that old quote puhleez.

He has however, in the WSJ admitted to being like Dobson, only he soft sells the same message.

The thing is, this guy didn't get to where he is by being a fool. He is manipulative as all get out and evades pointed questions about his right wing social radicalism allthough he has said there are five basics that are non-negotiable.

Check it out in wiki. Also, please note that he not only makes $$$$ selling books but he has also "franchised" his church building business model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Warren

This goes beyond gay rights. this is a man who would have our kids taught Creationism and who is against stem cell research. His POV crosses over into all of our lives.

...........

http://s.wsj.net/public/article_print/SB121944811327665223.html



>>But there is a misunderstanding by the media, says Mr. Warren. "A lot of people hear and they think, 'Oh, evangelicals are giving up on believing that life begins at conception,'" he explains. "They're not giving up on that at all. Not at all."

Democrats might want to keep this in mind next week as their convention tries to welcome this "new breed" of religious folks. And as for the notion that younger evangelicals are ready for rebellion against their parents' ideals, Mr. Warren cites polls showing that the younger evangelical generation is even more concerned about abortion than the older one. After the Sunday morning service at Saddleback last weekend, I interviewed 15 random attendees. Only two were Obama supporters, one of whom was a British guy on holiday. Almost all of the remaining congregants mentioned abortion as the most significant issue affecting their vote in November.

So why is most of the press under the impression that Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist, is so different from, say, Focus on the Family president James Dobson? "It's a matter of tone," says an amused Mr. Warren, who seems unable to name any particular theological issues on which he and Mr. Dobson disagree.<<

[Starry Messenger]

126. A matter of tone.

Wow, thank you for posting that. That is an excellent find.