I am surprised...

[Cow Poke]

You put a request to me and I answered you.

By the way why do you not cite the teachings of Jesus rather than the writing of Paul?

I don't.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for sexual fluidity.

Besides the part about the Elder being required to be the husband of one wife.

[Cow Poke]

And now we've all gone down HA's rabbit hole. I'm sure she' chortling in glee.

I have managed to stay above the fray.

[NorrinRadd]

Have you reflected on the fact that some people are born hermaphrodites in such a way that their sex is both scientifically and observationally neither male nor female? We could say that constituted empirical proof that this passage of the bible is false.

But assuming you want to avoid that conclusion by employing a defense like, "well this passage just refers to how God created people in the beginning, it doesn't speak about all people throughout history" or "this passage is just a generalization, saying that most people are male or female and talking about the sexual differences we generally see in humanity, and isn't speaking about literally everyone"... then your claim that it "doesn't leave a lot of room for sexual fluidity" doesn't follow at all. If you endorse either of those interpretations in order to escape the passage being literally false and disproven, then you are introducing abundant room for sexual fluidity.

The fact that some people are born with defects of various sorts does not disprove the fact that "male and female" was the created norm, and was endorsed by Jesus.

[NorrinRadd]

Well, according to Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...hip_statistics), the largest denominations of groups in the US that identify as Christian are, in order, rounded to the nearest million:
1. Catholic Church (71 million)
2. Southern Baptist Convention (15 million)
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (7 million)
4. United Methodist Church (7 million)
5. Church of God in Christ (5 million)
6. National Baptist Convention, US (5 million)
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (3 million)
8. National Baptist Convention of America (3 million)
9. African Methodist Episcopal Church (3 million)
10. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (2 million)

I suppose someone might object to some of these (most obviously #3) as being counted Christian denominations, but again for this we are focusing on groups that identify themselves as Christians, in order to avoid theological squabbles as to what counts as a Christian.

It can get dicey for other reasons. Many churches do not have formal "membership." And many that do, have more "adherents" than formal "members." The Assemblies of God, e.g., as of 2018 had about 3.2 million "adherents," but only about 1.8 million "members." One of my long-time friends has been AG her whole life, even went to an AG college with plans of becoming a missionary, but has never been a formal "member."

By either measure, rounding to the nearest million as that list does, the AG should have qualified.

I don't know if I'd call the NALC (the group that split from them, the North American Lutheran Church) "conservative." Sure, they found the ELCA too liberal, but that makes them conservative relative to them. The NALC on their own website describes themselves with this: "The NALC embodies the theological center of Lutheranism in North America and stands firmly within the global Lutheran mainstream." The LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which is in the above list) would be what I would call conservative; the NALC falls somewhere between the ELCA and LCMS.

What about WELS?

[Cow Poke]

The fact that some people are born with defects of various sorts does not disprove the fact that "male and female" was the created norm, and was endorsed by Jesus.

And being born with a defect is quite a bit different than deforming one's own body because of a problem in the mind.

[NorrinRadd]

Besides the part about the Elder being required to be the husband of one wife.

Ok, but remember, you started this.

Here is what I posted about this on Facebook:

"Well, they got it right regarding female pastors, but then went off the rails. I suspect, despite their name, that even their reasoning on female pastors would not be typically 'Evangelical.'"

[Cow Poke]

Ok, but remember, you started this.

Here is what I posted about this on Facebook:

"Well, they got it right regarding female pastors, but then went off the rails. I suspect, despite their name, that even their reasoning on female pastors would not be typically 'Evangelical.'"

I specified "Elder", not pastor.

"The husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:6)

[Terraceth]

What about WELS?

The WELS are considered more conservative than the LCMS. The graph of "most liberal" to "most conservative" of the major Lutheran groups in the US is therefore ELCA->NALC->LCMS->WELS.

I don't really know too much about the specifics, but one difference is that apparently the WELS takes a more hardline view on the function of women in the church. The LCMS doesn't allow for female ordination, but lets women hold other offices in church authority and vote on church matters. The WELS, as I understand it, doesn't allow a female to take any church position that would give them authority over men, including ability to vote in church matters. (The ELCA and NALC both allow women's ordination, for the record)

[Cow Poke]

The WELS are considered more conservative than the LCMS. The graph of "most liberal" to "most conservative" of the major Lutheran groups in the US is therefore ELCA->NALC->LCMS->WELS.

I don't really know too much about the specifics, but one difference is that apparently the WELS takes a more hardline view on the function of women in the church. The LCMS doesn't allow for female ordination, but lets women hold other offices in church authority and vote on church matters. The WELS, as I understand it, doesn't allow a female to take any church position that would give them authority over men, including ability to vote in church matters. (The ELCA and NALC both allow women's ordination, for the record)

Interesting --- especially the part about not allowing women to vote in church matters.

Would this be because the vote is done by a board rather than a congregational vote?

[Terraceth]

Interesting --- especially the part about not allowing women to vote in church matters.

Would this be because the vote is done by a board rather than a congregational vote?

Not sure. I don't feel comfortable saying too much because like I said, I'm not really that familiar with the specifics. I just know that WELS is considered more conservative than LCMS.

[Gondwanaland]

Interesting --- especially the part about not allowing women to vote in church matters.

Would this be because the vote is done by a board rather than a congregational vote?

A congregational vote at a WELS church is a voting assembly. Men are the only ones able to vote in a voting assembly. Note, a voting assembly is different than the board(s) (which indeed is all men itself), as it includes all the men of the congregation (and depending on the church can include women giving input/opinions, but not voting). IIRC the only place women got any sort of vote/authority was within the Women's Circle, where they only affected themselves and had no authority over men (at WELS schools, they can be teachers, but the principal was always a male). In fact, my grandmother's old WELS church in Baraboo, Wisconsin made some national headlines over this issue, like 10 years ago.

Source: raised in a WELS church, went to a WELS high school, college, and seminary.

[Gondwanaland]

The WELS are considered more conservative than the LCMS. The graph of "most liberal" to "most conservative" of the major Lutheran groups in the US is therefore ELCA->NALC->LCMS->WELS.

I don't really know too much about the specifics, but one difference is that apparently the WELS takes a more hardline view on the function of women in the church. The LCMS doesn't allow for female ordination, but lets women hold other offices in church authority and vote on church matters. The WELS, as I understand it, doesn't allow a female to take any church position that would give them authority over men, including ability to vote in church matters. (The ELCA and NALC both allow women's ordination, for the record)

Exactly this. WELS split from LCMS a good while back, and considers them (especially on the issue of communion/fellowship) too liberal on a number of issues.

[NorrinRadd]

I specified "Elder", not pastor.

Mmm... ok. From the various relevant NT passages, I consider elder, shepherd, and overseer/bishop/supervisor/guardian to be so closely related that if they are not synonyms, they are basically conjoined triplets.

"The husband of one wife" (<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=1Tim.+3.2&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.1Tim.3.2" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">1 Tim. 3:2</a>, <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Titus+1.6&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Titus.1.6" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Titus 1:6</a>)

1Tim 3:1 This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing.
1Tim 3:2 So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching.
1Tim 3:3 They shouldn’t be addicted to alcohol or a bully. Instead they should be gentle, peaceable, and not greedy.
1Tim 3:4 They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect,
1Tim 3:5 because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church?
1Tim 3:6 They shouldn’t be new believers so that they won’t become proud and fall under the devil’s spell.
1Tim 3:7 They should also have a good reputation with those outside the church so that they won’t be embarrassed and fall into the devil’s trap.

Hmm. Doesn't seem to be there. Let's try Titus.

Titus 1:5 The reason I left you behind in Crete was to organize whatever needs to be done and to appoint elders in each city, as I told you.
Titus 1:6 Elders should be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, and have faithful children who can’t be accused of self-indulgence or rebelliousness.
Titus 1:7 This is because supervisors should be without fault as God’s managers: they shouldn’t be stubborn, irritable, addicted to alcohol, a bully, or greedy.
Titus 1:8 Instead, they should show hospitality, love what is good, and be reasonable, ethical, godly, and self-controlled.
Titus 1:9 They must pay attention to the reliable message as it has been taught to them so that they can encourage people with healthy instruction and refute those who speak against it.

Huh. Not there either. Maybe a different translation.

1Tim 3:1 It is true that anyone who desires to be a church official wants to be something worthwhile.
1Tim 3:2 That's why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. They must be self-controlled, sensible, well-behaved, friendly to strangers, and able to teach.
1Tim 3:3 They must not be heavy drinkers or troublemakers. Instead, they must be kind and gentle and not love money.
1Tim 3:4 Church officials must be in control of their own families, and they must see that their children are obedient and always respectful.
1Tim 3:5 If they don't know how to control their own families, how can they look after God's people?
1Tim 3:6 They must not be new followers of the Lord. If they are, they might become proud and be doomed along with the devil.
1Tim 3:7 Finally, they must be well-respected by people who are not followers. Then they won't be trapped and disgraced by the devil.

Titus 1:5 I left you in Crete to do what had been left undone and to appoint leaders for the churches in each town. As I told you,
Titus 1:6 they must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. Their children must be followers of the Lord and not have a reputation for being wild and disobedient.
Titus 1:7 Church officials are in charge of God's work, and so they must also have a good reputation. They must not be bossy, quick-tempered, heavy drinkers, bullies, or dishonest in business.
Titus 1:8 Instead, they must be friendly to strangers and enjoy doing good things. They must also be sensible, fair, pure, and self-controlled.
Titus 1:9 They must stick to the true message they were taught, so that their good teaching can help others and correct everyone who opposes it.

Nope. Oh well.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The fact that some people are born with defects of various sorts does not disprove the fact that "male and female" was the created norm, and was endorsed by Jesus.

It might be advisable to avoid discussions on chromosomal differences etc. I do not think anyone who has so far contributed [including myself] is fully competent to engage in a detailed exchange on such topics.

There is also some interesting reading here https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2...nder-identity/ if anyone is interested in learning more about the topic.