For more faith debates listen to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/unbelievable For updates & bonus content sign up: www.premier.org.uk/Homepage-Assets/newsletters/Unbelievable-Newsletter
I was impressed by the respectful nature of this conversation. I’m a complimentarian, yet I have a lot of sympathy with what Natalie was saying as well.
Of course. These are two believers who love Jesus, not those who carry the Christian label and simply use parts of the Bible to support their own social justice ideas. That said, I’d like to have heard more from Natalie on how she reads the Bible, because it ‘does’ start there, and from there we apply them. I lean more towards egalitarianism but I’m absolute with Phil that Scripture is the answer, not the problem.
@@keelyatlover739 I’m a complimentarian because it’s my genuine conviction after studying the scriptures. For me personally it’s not about power, as I’m not even interested in power. I have no desire to be a church leader and (as a single man at the moment) the idea of having the responsibilities of a husband terrifies me, although I ultimately want to get married. Of course, ultimately the important thing is what is true. It’s good to question things.
I also deeply appreciated the respectful tone of this conversation on both sides. Thank you Phil for presenting the complementarian position in a winsome way that showed deep concern for the problems of male domination that Natalie was pointing.
I absolutely agree. It is so refreshing to see a debate conducted in such a respectful way. It is also great to see way that Justin facilitates the debate without trying to "catch the speakers out" in the way most modern journalists do.
They both have part of the solution. If ever we have the hope for a solution for how to right the wrongs, the hurts and the injustice it is when two such passionate people work together, far from insignificantly that one is a woman and one a man. Natalie is so close to the hurting, and that's where man's ability to distance himself helps..I know it's not as simple as that, but..
Pay close attention.. actually you don't need to because it's quite obvious. We have here two professing Christians, one side is constantly drawing on scripture to support their argument, the other side is drawing on the current culture to support their argument. Romans 12:2 (ESV) Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
I tried here to give the lady room to argue proper feminism in good treatment of women, but she does try and feminise men, to be a half man half woman is wrong. One day this lady will need a man to support like a man, not another woman friend, then she will know. It is isolating for us men as women choose when we should be manly and when not, so we have to get used to their moods. Something no one is going to bring up in any open debate.
Maybe Gd Is Love - and you're who need a real encounter with Him, without death and grievance and pain. I know your struggle, I didn't come from believing family (or from hypocrite religious nest)
That is kind of dumb argument. There were plenty of times when the "culture" corrected Christianity like when the church claimed that the earth was the center of the universe...or that the earth was flat...or that the earth is only a several thausand years old. The problem that Christianity/religion gets into is always caused by us thinking we know more than we do. This idea that we should not listen to the world is like saying we should have an echo chamber where no one outside of our community can call us out for doing wrong. What a dangerous system to set up for ourselves. That passage is taken out of context. It had a specific historical context and to use it as a blanket to say anything that the culture says is wrong is really misrepresenting scripture. God continues to speak today via culture, art, music, literature, science, etc...
This gentleman presented himself, the Bible and the Gospel very well. The young woman, I think, has been influenced by her own unfortunate experience, which made my heart melt for her. That being said, she has fallen prey to the culture. She seems to make light of Scripture. I feel very bad for her and the millions who have elevated feminism above Scripture. Personally speaking, I am getting more and more disturbed over terms like patriarchy and toxic masculinity to describe certain noble things I do as a man.
Agreed Steve. It was a horrible thing to have happened to her. However, the evil done to her, without her realising it, has been the underlying motive for her theology, not scripture.
My guess is you are a man? I bet you love that your god gives you authority and headship over the women in your life. Please keep living a life of scripture, but don’t be surprised that those that accept modern ideas instead of Stone Age ones will always hate you. That would anger most people, but for Christians like you this persecution is like a fetish and you strive for it. When your life is at an end, and you realize your beliefs were just the result of evolutionary and social defense mechanisms, that there is no savior, that there is no magic… imagine all the people you rattled off nonsense Bible verses to, all the sexual minorities your faith condemns, the misogyny you casually and winsomely endorse, all of it was just you being toxic for nothing? The friends and family that would still be in your life if you could’ve just admitted your lunacy? How about you reject Pascal’s wager and recognize your cognitive dissonance. It’s all nonsense and there is a part of you that knows this. Free your mind.
I have just finished reading Mary and Early Christian Women: Hidden Leadership. The fundamental message that God allows women to be religious leaders who preach and give direction to men is true and deeply needed now in the Catholic/Christian faith. I wrote this review from the idea of writing a letter to the author. The best part of this book comes when the author’s (Ally Kateusz) hard work and courage reveal the long “hidden” stories of Christianity’s early female apostles (Romans 16:7) and deacons (Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11). However, I would warn the author (and the readers) to have more faith in the actual Bible and to be more careful to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” (Matthew 13:24-32 and Luke 3:17) in terms of the extra-biblical sources. Spoiler alert! This book does not prove that women have ever received what the Catholic Church terms the “ministerial priesthood”. In my opinion, she does prove that the Catholic Church’s current conventional narrative (CCC 1577) about how the apostles only chose men as their ordained collaborators and only had men for liturgical service is false. She proves this in the chapter on women preachers and baptizers. However there is a conspicuous lack of narrative evidence that the women apostles Nino Thecla, and Irene ever conferred the sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8: 14-17 and Acts 19:1-7) or Order (Acts 6:-1-7, Acts 13: 1-3) To be fair there are some excellent novels and histories (2nd century) based on earlier oral traditions that were written down by early Christians. Unfortunately, later church authorities downgraded women's leadership and these true stories that were handed down from generation to generation were censored or destroyed. Kateusz tries to undo that damage. One of the gems of this book comes when Kateusz proves that honoring Mary as the mother of God (Theotokos) was universal among Christians before the Council of Ephesus. Let the reader be warned! There is a lot of “chaff” in this book where the author completely brakes with the actual Bible and the Catholic faith. Here is the case in point, Kateusz claims that Mary offers herself along with Christ at the Last Supper. Obviously, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could not have forgotten that. If what Kateusz puts forward is true, then all she has done is call the reliability of the canonical Gospels into doubt. So, at that point she is basically adding whatever she likes to the Catholic religion. Second, she wants to throw 1 Timothy out of the Bible because she claims that it can't be reconciled with her thesis. The third instance of chaff in her book comes when she unfortunately sites doctrinally unreliable texts like the Acts of Phillip alongside good doctrinally sound texts like the Life of Thecla. Here is some of the good “wheat” that is on display in Kateusz’s book. Kateusz argues persuasively that the Six Books written down in the 2nd century are based on older Apostolic oral traditions about Mary the Mother of God. The Six Books were read in Christian churches and are probably the most reliable extra biblical sources that the author analyzes. She looks for common events in Mary's life and ministry that are present in this source and the Dormition narratives of Mary’s death, as well as The Life of the Virgin associated with Maximus the Confessor, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of Bartholomew. The chapter on women preachers and baptizers proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the women deacons from Roman 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:11 were commissioned to preach, baptize, and oversee new Church communities in mission territory. It is believable that they could have been the religious leaders for these communities until male presbyters and apostles could arrive who would have been able to confirm the converts and set up local presbyters. It is notable that Kateusz cannot present a scrap of evidence that the female apostles were ordaining presbyters for their communities. Confirming and Ordaining are among the first things that Paul does when he arrives in a community. Here are some other highlights • The book confirms what Hans Urs Von Balthasar theorized about Mary being the greatest theologian. Kateusz shows that early Christian oral tradition describes Mary sending out a group of (male and female) missionaries from Jerusalem, supervising their preaching, and giving them further instruction. • Many early Christians believed that Mary's religious leadership was fully equivalent to the male apostle’s “high priesthood”. This is demonstrated by how the Protoevangelium of James has Mary twice entering the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple and by Romans 16:7. The Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James is always going to be a good witness to the Marian beliefs of Christians that lived in the first centuries however there are serious doubts about its historical reliability. • Early traditions have Mary offering her prayers along with liturgical incense in an action that was later restricted to Ministerial Priests. • The Life of the Virgin is part “wheat” and part “chaff”. It has some value in bringing out Mary's leadership in the early community. However, the author’s contention that Mary offered herself as priest and victim along with Christ at the Last Supper borders on blasphemy. Once again this isn't about being for or against patriarchal Catholicism this is just about being consistent in Catholicism’s understanding of the canonical Gospels. You simply cannot add Mary co- presiding at the Last Supper and still cite the canonical Bible as an infallible witness to Jesus’s life and ministry. • Kateusz relies on early Christian catechisms like the (Didascalia Apostolorum) and written collections of oral tradition to conclude that it was common in the early church to have two presiders at the Eucharist one male and one female (father and mother). She thinks that this demonstrates that women were ministerial priests. However, there is no reason to think that a female deacon couldn't co-preside. This is much more consistent with the canonical New Testament than believing that females transubstantiated the Eucharist. Remember other than consecrating the Eucharist deacons (in the 1st century) basically could do everything presbyters did in the early Church. That is why St. John Chrysostom expressed confusion about whether he was in fact reading about the deacons (and not presbyters) in Acts chapter 6. They seemed to him to be demonstrating the managerial, pastoral, and other non-sacramental responsibilities that were only given to presbyters in St. John Chrysostom’s time. One of the highlights of this book is learning how early Christian writing and art proves how Jesus and Mary are inseparable. It proves that doctrinally orthodox Christians venerated and prayed to Mary in the 2nd and 3rd centuries without any doctrinal guidance from the Church. Another joy is learning about how central Mary’s leadership was in the founding of Christianity. I could see that the author probably has multiple PHD's in art history because she spent a lot of time analyzing the symbols inside historical church artworks. Her argument for women priests is basically this. Roman 16: 7 and reliable oral traditions from the 1st and 2nd century agree that women were given the extraordinary title “apostle”. Furthermore, the author's analysis of art history reveals that artwork inside Catholic churches and monasteries depicts women wearing a symbol of priestly ministry. Artwork is clearly very subjective even if you do have multiple degrees in art history. For me the decisive point is this, if author’s argument for women priests were correct her Life of Thecla would have Thecla performing the sacrament of Confirmation (laying on his hands) as well as baptizing. That along with the fact that Paul easily could have included a simple one sentence note about women priests in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 just as he did with women deacons a few sentences later are the two fundamental reasons that I don't believe the author's argument for women priests. That being said I still enjoyed the majority of her book.
Ask men whose message resonates more: Mark's or Natalie's. Are men struggling because they aren't being vulnerable and eschewing patriarchal models? Maybe - I can agree that there are real problems with the traditional masculine model but I don't see Mark contesting that. Are men struggling because they lack male role models and examples of male virtues and fathers that show them what to aim at? Absolutely.
That was such a breath of fresh air. I've been listening to Americans hash all of this out and for the most part, they are not very rational, they are not very respectful or kind, and they are not humble. The problems we face here in America won't be solved unless the conversation here starts to sound more like the conversation in this video. So thank you!
I’m not a feminist, but reading all the bashing comments against this woman is disheartening, like she’s 100% completely wrong although this is a debate ... hmmm 🤔 and I’ve encountered this type of response regularly whenever men and women debate on almost anything. . Almost like a ... silencing, because how dare a woman gave something to say. Instead of respecting both speakers, whether you agree or disagree, she is labelled and pretty much chastised in these comments. I also find it very interesting when another man in these comments, Paul Sandburg, called the male speaker out on a Bible verse there was only one comment made to that , and it was an excuse for the guy! Not seeing any excuses here for the woman 🤔 also comments such as most feminists have short hair are like 😳. Uh.... okay. I’ve dealt with a lot of people who identify as feminists (FYI a lot had long hair, really?) Also if we’re talking about biblical words like woman bring a ‘helper’ it might be very worthwhile to not just read the English translation of that word mildly, and do some digging into the original language the Bible was written in to ensure that the English meaning we give to the word ‘helper’ is accurate. That is if this really is about living as accurately to the Bible as possible...
The entirety of the Bible makes it very clear that God chose men to be the authority. Taking the word helper to mean anything God like or related is what the Devik tempted Eve with, being like God. Taking the authority from man was part of Eve's sin, and Adam's inability to exact his authority over his wife was part of Adam's sin. This devil often corrupts through women first because they are the weaker vessel.
HOT TOPICS. all things I've been wrestling with. glad to learn so much and have something to chew on. they both diagnose the problem in such vitally important, insightful, heartfelt ways. and acknowledge God is doing something greater than we can imagine. great conversation overall :)
I am egalitarian but her arguments were weak, unfortunately. I believe the case for egalitarianism is stronger but Phil Moore came across better. Cultural context is absolutely vital for dealing with scripture and neither went there, absolutely Bible interpretation 101. Anyone with any theological training knows that, regardless of which side of the argument you land on.
Theological trainings rarely point out that Gd is a Person with a character not domesticated by cultures. Cultures are influenced by Him. This is the huge problem with the theo papers. Biblically cultural context is about the translation of the apostolic semantics/mindset /heart /desire - not implementing the modern ideas.
Actually Amy, the key to biblical interpretation is paying close attention to the literary context. Cultural contexts vary and are often used to undermine the actual literary context. This is eisegesis, not exegesis. If you change the context, you can make Scripture say anything. I can do the same with anything you say as well. I find that those who are superficially familiar with hermeneutics tend to not understand that cultural contexts should only be brought in when the literary text is clearly referring to them.
Absolutely. Phil quotation of scripture was so out of context and very very bad but she just let it all slide. Phil is a nice guy I'm sure but when it comes to handling scripture he's worse than an idiot in his first day at seminary.
The irony is that Natalie obviously has the most amazing godly husband who is clearly loving her as Christ loved the church....which is exactly the point Phil Moore is trying to make....that if men behaved as they should women would feel totally fulfilled, respected, emboldened and free to follow their god given calling (inspite of early life traumas that have coloured her view of men). This is the christian gospel lived out.
I really appreciate this discussion. All three did an amazing job to communicate in a way that made it easy to listen to them and appreciate their positions and questions from their personal wrestlings with the subject matter. I would like to touch on an aspect of Jesus loving and leading the Church as head. Let's look at the whole picture here. While true that Jesus gave His life and washed their feet, He didn't do that every day. Jesus did what was best for His bride... even over her adamant objections. When Jesus was telling His disciples He was going to Jerusalem, Peter objected very strongly and Jesus made the final decision (breaking the impasse); doing what was best for His bride which was to go pay for her sins with His life. The Resurrected Jesus is still head of His bride and tells her what to do and makes the final decision. We can appeal to our husband and head, and many times He gives us what we want even if it is harmful to us, but there are other times when our head-Jesus says, "No, you aren't going to do that, or that's not going to happen, or we will do this... this way... or there will be consequences. Our head, Jesus, holds us accountable; administers discipline.... all the while being patient, loving, kind, merciful, and gracious.... showering us with blessings... many of which we are oblivious to. Justice and discipline is a function of love, so even though love is usually seen through the lens of giving someone what they want, we must look at the entire picture and see the massive and heavy burden men carry to steward and care for their wife. And as Adam failed to protect and care for his wife while not having a sin nature, our failures as men are compounded and magnified by our propensity to walk in the flesh. Many feminists wish to throw the baby out with the bath water, but men actually need to be taught the Gospel and how to love as Christ does.... stewarding well the stewardship that each man has been given.... which includes his wife and his children... both being the stewardship of the "head" of the family.
Just because you cite the scripture doesn't automatically make you right, because scripture needs to be interpreted. That's like...the most important part of theology
@@leonardu6094 i agree with most of the things the guy said! IMO he’s actually a more nuanced feminist than Natalie (even though he doesn’t identify as one). My problem with your comment is the implication that quoting scripture automatically means you’re more correct (which makes no theological sense).
@@hannijazz3276 But that's not what i stated is it? That's what YOU typed. My comment was simply highlighting the fact that in a conversation between two supposed Christians, about biblical issues, only one actually refers to scripture at all. Take from that what you will.
Very impressed by both guests. Im 63 year old woman and I used to lean egalitarian but with sanctification I'm more trusting of scripture so I am complementarian. Injustice has played out against both sexes and blame is all around. The church has to adhere to biblical guidelines and standards or there will be no bride awaiting Christ's return.....just a bunch of confused asexual folks. Lean not on your own understanding.
49:56-50:12 - God was totally talking to Adam in the Garden of Eden... There is totally a distinction. Genesis 3:9-10 says: "But the Lord God called to the MAN and said to HIM, “Where are you?” And HE said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”" God goes onto have a different, brief dialogue with Eve, but after He spoke with Adam.
Egalitarian vs Complementarian - What is the Egalitarian argument for Women being Elders or Apostles? All other "ministries" appear to be open to all. Phils analogy of the river banks is great. No mention on theology for women "teaching" as in presenting a sermon - not just giving testimony, but interpreting Hebrew and Greek, and explaining verses. In informal context V planned explanation. Roles and responsibilities are defined differently for male and female
Natalie is often talking emotively from subjective experience while Phil is quoting scripture and talking from biblical knowledge. It is good to appreciate both, though I would not apply ones subjective experience to everybody else. However it is important to teach the Bible carefully and look at its application and ensure leaders are listening to the experiences of their congregations
The bit at 1:01:21 where she says that wherever we see men leading there is likely to be more violence is absolutely ridiculous. She completely misdiagnoses the problem and feeds directly into Mark's point. The problem is not men leading. The problem is men that aren't following Christ's model of masculine leadership. This is such a ridiculous point by Natalie. She is very bright but her perspective seems absolutely warped by negative personal experience and service to an ideology which conflicts with the fundamental messages in the Bible.
I cringe whenever name calling and fighting ensues, such as when it is from feminists, or towards feminists. I may not like how feminism is going but I am not happy with how many anti-feminists are willing to dehumanize.
Mt 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi', for you have one Teacher, and you all are brothers"; contradicts following verses: He 13:7, 17. Tit 3:1. Ac 15:22. Gal 6:6, 1 Pe 2:13. He 13:7 "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you.....". 17 "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority....". 24, "Greet all your leaders and all of God's people". Contradictions: 1, The Bible also speaks of necessity of unity, equality, and of no favoritism 2, Thus, no need for leaders, pastors, or elders. To God, according to the parts of his word, don't need to be lead or taught by anyone else, save God/or his word. But as we can see, some scribes did no like what Mt wrote. Nor do they like that Paul said not to go beyond what God, self, wrote. Regarding He 13:7, i cannot fathom why God cannot do whatever he wants to; all by lonesome, sad, mad self. His word and him not enough? "And you all are brothers [?and sisters]". But all equal? Alas, the answer is still on the road to hell or heaven. However, 1 Co has a lot to more to say about inequality than equality [or unity of mind]. 1 Co 11:3 "... and the head of a woman is man [means: go ahead, rape her], etc. 7 "A man should not cover his head, since he's is the image of the glory of God....". But the Paul gets foolish and says; "we all are of one body". Is that mean that all believers will be bald or have long hair, blue eyes, and with a head the size of a chimp, pygmy, elephant, crocodile? Sorry, fella! I am not sure if you are saying that i don't know pastor Anderson's or your truth? True, i don't know your truth---i'd rather, if you don't mind, cling to my own. How about God's truth. Do you have it? Is it in his word? If it is in God's word, then, please read only his word; for only it teaches it [Mt 23:8]. So the best church you could find and visit, would be God's word. Alas--and as far as i know--pastors, preachers, priests, and evangelists are preventing you from visiting any church other than theirs, let alone that of God. May i offer you an advice: If you believe in the NT God [a desirable event], never ever read the Bible nor any book about the Bible nor listen to any preacher. For you have one and best ever Teacher. And all clergy fear you listening to God which, according to the scribes, lives in you and never wants to leave you. Alas, for all or most Christians, God is just never good enough. The heck with God when one has Pope, Anderson, Hagee...
I find it disturbing how often I hear Christians talk about feminism with so much disdain. It's entirely possible to embrace Christianity and be a feminist. To lump all feminists together as man-hating and anti-feminine is entirely unfair, just as painting Christians as bigoted or judgmental is a gross and inaccurate generalization.
I can't believe the shallowness of Natalie Collins arguments. It is unfortunate that men don't birth children? And they all laughed after that comment as if it's funny?
@Marianne Havisham Inequality isn't just about injustice. Women give birth, men don't. That is also a form of inequality. What I see feminists do is they go so far with their ideology of inequality = bad, that they start to equate normal everyday inequalities (like biological differences between men and women) as being bad too.
Excellent discussion. Well done. The church fails if it is primarily following the secular world, but the church needs sometimes to listen to the secular prophets and live up to a higher calling.
It cannot be down to a 'patriarchy' if, A) feminisation of British churches is a modern phenomena and B) the patriarchy is a historically ingrained power system. If the patriarchy hypothesis is true then the church should also be historically female dominant, and this isn't the case.
Good discussion, although I don't feel as though Phil represents true complementarianism in the way the person who coined the phrase, Wayne Grudem, has defined it. For instance, women preaching on a Sunday morning is counter to complementarianism, yet Phil said he wouldn't restrict women from preaching on a Sunday morning at his church.
@Marianne Havisham It's been months since i watched that debate, But i found it interesting how not once did she quote the bible in reference. Compare that to her counterpart who only made biblically based arguments.
It's vital for those in the church to influence culture through scripture not culture influencing the church. His defense of the defined roles of men and women in the church was spot on to what God's word says. "Feminism is ultimately as much a dead end as Chauvinism." Well said. God plays no favorites.
This conversation can only take place in a modern context where technology picks up the lack for women. Otherwise, women need men to take upon a protective role for them.
As a Christian feminist I gotta admit honestly that Phil is actually a much more nuanced feminist (and Christian too) than Natalie. Not that I judge Natalie's position though but it just seems to me that she's basing her thoughts on a knee jerk reaction to sexism.
Although pleasant to watch it is unfortunate that the discussion begins with the a lot of generalizations and a focus on popular secular issues. There is a lot of evidence for egalitarianism that is based on biblical truth but unfortunately it was not discussed and aired here. For her argument, it would have been super beneficial to start with the first word of the two words used to describe the first woman. Ezer, followed by Kenegdo which means “opposite to” (like iron sharpens iron) is the first representation of the woman. Usually sorely mistranslated in English as “help-meet” the Hebrew gives us a different view of femininity. In Hebrew, Ezer translates as “saviour” and is mentioned in the Old Testament twenty-one times. In two cases, it refers to the first woman. Three, it refers to the powerful nations the Israelites called on for and help. And sixteen times it refers to God helping Israel. I could go on and on but my husband just finished making supper and I’m hungry! ♥️
"These are not problematic passages, these are just passages that cause us problems..." If I were to invent an adjective for passages that cause me problems, I might come up with... problematic.
But that sounds as if the passage itself is the problem. I think he's saying instead, its the readers difficulty in grasping it's meaning or inability to reconcile themselves to its teaching that's the issue, due to perhaps their cultural norms, or lack of knowledge of the context in which the passage is set. "Problematic" would be seen by many as faulting the passage, rather than our own weaknesses.
@@littleboots9800 "It's not me, it's you." That may well be true for some passages. Maybe it's me. But when it's Numbers 31:17-18, it's not me. It's Numbers 31:17-18.
@@PBRimmerMy point was not with a particular passage, simply pointing out the difference between something being itself "problematic" and simply causing the reader problems. As for Numbers 31 17:18, it's not a passage that I wrestle with particularly. I can think of several justifications for the commands. I can think of other passages that ppl might find more difficult to be honest.
@@littleboots9800 I get it, and I agree with you. It's a good way to make sense of what was said and to draw the distinction and ably answers my first comment. I was just pushing back that I think there are then some passages where the problem is me, and other passages where the problem really is the passage. I cannot imagine any possible justification for the command contained in Numbers 31:17-18. I'd be interested in what you imagine could be a justification for that command, and also what you think is a more difficult passage.
Thanks for showing us why the bible is patriarchal. The lady practically is a feminist thinking she understands anything about the bible, the "man" on the other hand more anxious to be politically correct than truthful to scriptures
I'm sorry to be the one who leaves the negative comment, but I really feel like she botched the interpretation of Numbers 5. The woman is absolutely not at fault no matter what, I would really encourage her to relook at that passage.
Her answer is to weaken men. His answer to be a strong responsible man. We should all stand up to advantage taking. Hard cases like hers make bad laws, having a 'chip on your shoulder' driving your policy is a shame. I feel sorry for her, and he ex deserves a beating, but I as a good man do not and the Holy Bible gives me strength I would not have else.
I love Phil Moore's point about- why do we think God created two different genders? Read CS Lewis' space trilogy for a spectacular picture of the genders.
I think it's fair to say that the lady here is not guided by Scripture, but by her own experience and by her passion for her own cause. It's a shame, because there are far more lucid and thoughtful accounts of egalitarianism.
Seems to me that Natalie is fighting against incorrect ideas that are not being proposed or behaviour that is on the outskirts of normal church. Not that it doesn't exist but is probably not as prevalent.
Dude uses 1 Peter 3 as his apologetic for how women and men SHOULD relate, which answers everything. P1 Peter is an apologetic to Christian’s in how to operate within persecution by nonbelievers. 1 Peter 3 is addressed to wives married to nonchristian men how they can be a witness to them NOT a picture of the ideal for marriage.
What I never hear from a complementarian is why God chose Deborah to be the undisputed leader of Israel in Judges 4 &5: She was Judge (interpreter & applier of God's law), Prophet and Commander-In-Chief of Israel's military. Barak sassed her and she pronounced from the Holy Spirit that a woman would take his victory away from him (Jael). She was the most blessed of God, as she was the only Judge who (after winning a battle with minimal loss of life through faith and the power of God), presided over 40 years of peace in Israel. I've heard excuses made, or her achievements being minimalized, but no real reasoning as to why Deborah was so anointed and blessed of God. I don't see any clear Scriptural mandate for elders to all be men. Don't quote Timothy: Paul was talking about gentile women who were converted from prostitution in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Junia was an Apostle. Phoebe was a Deacon. Priscilla (along with her husband Aquila, who is mentioned after her most of the time in the Greek, indicating her higher status) discipled Apollos and Paul. Timothy was discipled by his mother and grandmother. Also, what of us women who are not married at all, and have no children? Get us to the nunnery? God can maintain our sexual purity without marriage or nunhood. I maintain a high level position in business while following my Lord. Women are blessed that we have always been last. The last will be first, and many who are first, shall be last. Men should remember this...Barak learned it the hard way.
I find it very difficult to follow the egalitarian church on some scriptures that say more complimentarianism. For example, Ephesians chapter 5 verse 1 thru 33. Or the bible in Genesis where God made Adam man while taking the rib from Adam to make Eve a female. Or, the fact that a lot of genesis chapter says all the men after adam's descendants to noah were men were given to lead by God. The wives of Adam's descendants were the mothers after eve, they were complementary to their husbands. Most of the scriptures can be egalitarian and you can follow it that you can see fit to improve your life. That would make sense. I guess I align to neither of the people in this video, because they lean towards egalitarian than complementary. And, I am very conservative christian so this doesn't apply other than learning about people's faith views.
Wow...I see Christianity is still doing a great job of keeping women (and men) "in their place." 🙄 Natalie remains so gracious during this conversation. I have no idea how she does it. He is talking as if men OWN women! And these comments explain a lot about the world. This is the culture that grooms girls for abuse. Absolutely shameful!
The biblical model for men is Jesus and the biblical model for women is the church. We both obey Jesus, but the model of what that looks like is the picture of the church in the NT.
@@vilicus77 The scriptures and the church does not conform to the culture, the culture conforms to the word of God. Natalie Collins needs to remember that.
@@leonardu6094 Of course that is not true unless you are a religious fundamentalist. Every reading of a text requires interpretation; that interpretation occurs in a cultural context. There is no way around that. Even conservative theological traditions have changed their stances on race, the environment, and science. Recall that the SBC one supported racist ideology for 'biblical' reasons.
@@vilicus77 The bible doesn't support racist ideology so your point is ridiculous. Let's even pretend it does say that (it doesn't) but all you'll have proven is that christian leaders have *chosen* to reinterpret bible as they see fit, not that it is what they *ought* to or supposed do. Let me ask you a question, are you a christian?
The Bible ultimately teaches the so-called complimentarian doctrine and all the anetdotes, poor practise, poor teaching, historical and present abuse of it does nothing to change it. However, Phil failed at one point in the argument. The question /objection raised, “if men take their lead around how to be a man from Jesus, then what about women?” Phil’s answer was Jesus - but the biblical references he cited were about Father /Son, parent/child relationships which would conflate the relationship between men and women with adult and child. That’s not right. This is where the biggest problem lay for the complimentarian. I believe the answer is, Jesus shows us all how to be human, not male or female. But Paul shows us how to relate as husband and wife, elder and member. Those relationships are echoes of Christ and the Church
In this video Phil really shows the heretical nature of Natalie. I really get a sense that Natalie is working from a place of unforgiveness and resentment. I believe it’s impossible to be led by the Holy Spirit and come to her conclusions..... for very long anyway. And by that I mean that God will allow us to suffer in our perversion of truth for a time to feel the pain that will lead us to Him. She talks now as if her new misconceptions are an answer to a previous misconceptions. The difference between these two are that Natalie lays the world over the Bible where Phil lays the Bible over the world..... God bless ya!!!
She clearly does not believe the Bible is the Word of God but rather the words of men about God. Hence, some things are accepted when they accord with her views and others rejected when they do not. The problem with that is that if you do not have a completely reliable Bible you don't have any standard at all that is objectively known.
I’m willing to bet that both of them believe that smoking, drugs, rock and roll, drinking, cussing, etc. are sin. Nothing could be further from the truth! These are merely manifestations of something much more powerful......condemnation in self. People who fear, dread, are anxious, worry, whatever, are subject to pick up just about anything in order to offset the power and influence of condemnation. Again, those are not the sin. The sin is what makes these things important.....even necessary....in our minds. Feminism is simply one of the manifestations of condemnation.
This is the whole problem with "traditional" understanding of scripture, and the evangelical view. I don't buy it when Phil says we should "grapple honestly", because he expects everyone to reach the same conclusion as him, and he doesn't accept us actually finding honest and valid problems with scripture. Scripture can indeed be a solution, but some passages of scripture are problems in themselves, but he has such a narrow view of scripture. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he is just very very low in knowledge, experience, and overall caliber as a theologian.
Isn't the Church a feminine entity? She is the Bride of Christ, so I'm afraid men must simply accept that they are going to be in a feminine role in relation to Christ. C.S. Lewis wrote about how men have some problems with this, and joining the Church may be less attractive to them as a result. Remember, that in the Resurrection, there will be no more gender. Jesus said there would be no marrying or giving in marriage, and we will all be like the angels in heaven. (Matt. 22:15-22) All of this controversy is really quite temporary, isn't it?
Sorry, Phil Moore, but 1 Peter 3:7 does NOT admonish men about cursing or treating women violently (see his remark at 25.40 minutes). Phil just made that up!
You can get there by a reasonable inference. "7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. " I think it reasonable that beating or cursing one's wife is incompatible with "living with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman." Therefore the natural implication is that if a man does such things, then his "prayers will be hindered." Phil expanded on the logic internal to the verse. He didn't "just [make] that up."
“Feminism is waking up and realizing it’s easier for a man to do certain things than a woman.” Cool, you want to come die of a heart attack with us or die in a war? God cursed men and women equally in Genesis, yet differently. We’re equal in status, different in practice.
Her answer is to weaken men. His answer to be a strong responsible man. We should all stand up to advantage taking. Hard cases like hers make bad laws, having a 'chip on your shoulder' driving your policy is a shame. I feel sorry for her, and he ex deserves a beating, but I as a good man do not and the Holy Bible gives me strength I would not have else. A feminine world is of no interest to my wife nor most others. Yuk! Time for men to assert their manliness against these bad men.
This is the problem: so many people think that encouraging men to embrace their emotions, admit vulnerability, and treat women better and stop being as aggressive is somehow seen as "weakening" them. Also, it seems as though some men feel "weakened" if women are elevated to a position equal to them.
For more faith debates listen to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/unbelievable
For updates & bonus content sign up: www.premier.org.uk/Homepage-Assets/newsletters/Unbelievable-Newsletter
I was impressed by the respectful nature of this conversation.
I’m a complimentarian, yet I have a lot of sympathy with what Natalie was saying as well.
Of course. These are two believers who love Jesus, not those who carry the Christian label and simply use parts of the Bible to support their own social justice ideas. That said, I’d like to have heard more from Natalie on how she reads the Bible, because it ‘does’ start there, and from there we apply them. I lean more towards egalitarianism but I’m absolute with Phil that Scripture is the answer, not the problem.
It’s easy to be a complimentarian as a man. It gives you power. But is it actually correct, and could it be hurtful to women?
@@keelyatlover739 I’m a complimentarian because it’s my genuine conviction after studying the scriptures. For me personally it’s not about power, as I’m not even interested in power. I have no desire to be a church leader and (as a single man at the moment) the idea of having the responsibilities of a husband terrifies me, although I ultimately want to get married.
Of course, ultimately the important thing is what is true. It’s good to question things.
I also deeply appreciated the respectful tone of this conversation on both sides. Thank you Phil for presenting the complementarian position in a winsome way that showed deep concern for the problems of male domination that Natalie was pointing.
I absolutely agree. It is so refreshing to see a debate conducted in such a respectful way. It is also great to see way that Justin facilitates the debate without trying to "catch the speakers out" in the way most modern journalists do.
It was fantastic. I admire Phil as a theologian and I admire Natielle for her anti-violence activism.
Phil Moore, thank you for your use of scriptures, your eloquent communication skills in the face of ideology which has sadly infiltrated the church.
They both have part of the solution. If ever we have the hope for a solution for how to right the wrongs, the hurts and the injustice it is when two such passionate people work together, far from insignificantly that one is a woman and one a man. Natalie is so close to the hurting, and that's where man's ability to distance himself helps..I know it's not as simple as that, but..
I have nothing but respect for the both of them. Love the way they eloquently shared their points and heard each other.
Pay close attention.. actually you don't need to because it's quite obvious. We have here two professing Christians, one side is constantly drawing on scripture to support their argument, the other side is drawing on the current culture to support their argument.
Romans 12:2 (ESV)
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
I tried here to give the lady room to argue proper feminism in good treatment of women, but she does try and feminise men, to be a half man half woman is wrong. One day this lady will need a man to support like a man, not another woman friend, then she will know. It is isolating for us men as women choose when we should be manly and when not, so we have to get used to their moods. Something no one is going to bring up in any open debate.
Because that is a murder, oh Man of Peace and Mercy! :-)
Maybe Gd Is Love - and you're who need a real encounter with Him, without death and grievance and pain. I know your struggle, I didn't come from believing family (or from hypocrite religious nest)
That is kind of dumb argument. There were plenty of times when the "culture" corrected Christianity like when the church claimed that the earth was the center of the universe...or that the earth was flat...or that the earth is only a several thausand years old. The problem that Christianity/religion gets into is always caused by us thinking we know more than we do. This idea that we should not listen to the world is like saying we should have an echo chamber where no one outside of our community can call us out for doing wrong. What a dangerous system to set up for ourselves. That passage is taken out of context. It had a specific historical context and to use it as a blanket to say anything that the culture says is wrong is really misrepresenting scripture. God continues to speak today via culture, art, music, literature, science, etc...
@@DanLee8884 you mean to say ROMAN CATHOLICISM..
Not Christianity ..
This gentleman presented himself, the Bible and the Gospel very well. The young woman, I think, has been influenced by her own unfortunate experience, which made my heart melt for her. That being said, she has fallen prey to the culture. She seems to make light of Scripture. I feel very bad for her and the millions who have elevated feminism above Scripture. Personally speaking, I am getting more and more disturbed over terms like patriarchy and toxic masculinity to describe certain noble things I do as a man.
Steve Woods well said.
Agreed Steve. It was a horrible thing to have happened to her. However, the evil done to her, without her realising it, has been the underlying motive for her theology, not scripture.
My guess is you are a man? I bet you love that your god gives you authority and headship over the women in your life. Please keep living a life of scripture, but don’t be surprised that those that accept modern ideas instead of Stone Age ones will always hate you. That would anger most people, but for Christians like you this persecution is like a fetish and you strive for it.
When your life is at an end, and you realize your beliefs were just the result of evolutionary and social defense mechanisms, that there is no savior, that there is no magic… imagine all the people you rattled off nonsense Bible verses to, all the sexual minorities your faith condemns, the misogyny you casually and winsomely endorse, all of it was just you being toxic for nothing? The friends and family that would still be in your life if you could’ve just admitted your lunacy?
How about you reject Pascal’s wager and recognize your cognitive dissonance. It’s all nonsense and there is a part of you that knows this. Free your mind.
I have just finished reading Mary and Early Christian Women: Hidden Leadership. The fundamental message that God allows women to be religious leaders who preach and give direction to men is true and deeply needed now in the Catholic/Christian faith. I wrote this review from the idea of writing a letter to the author. The best part of this book comes when the author’s (Ally Kateusz) hard work and courage reveal the long “hidden” stories of Christianity’s early female apostles (Romans 16:7) and deacons (Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11). However, I would warn the author (and the readers) to have more faith in the actual Bible and to be more careful to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff” (Matthew 13:24-32 and Luke 3:17) in terms of the extra-biblical sources.
Spoiler alert! This book does not prove that women have ever received what the Catholic Church terms the “ministerial priesthood”. In my opinion, she does prove that the Catholic Church’s current conventional narrative (CCC 1577) about how the apostles only chose men as their ordained collaborators and only had men for liturgical service is false. She proves this in the chapter on women preachers and baptizers. However there is a conspicuous lack of narrative evidence that the women apostles Nino Thecla, and Irene ever conferred the sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8: 14-17 and Acts 19:1-7) or Order (Acts 6:-1-7, Acts 13: 1-3)
To be fair there are some excellent novels and histories (2nd century) based on earlier oral traditions that were written down by early Christians. Unfortunately, later church authorities downgraded women's leadership and these true stories that were handed down from generation to generation were censored or destroyed. Kateusz tries to undo that damage. One of the gems of this book comes when Kateusz proves that honoring Mary as the mother of God (Theotokos) was universal among Christians before the Council of Ephesus.
Let the reader be warned! There is a lot of “chaff” in this book where the author completely brakes with the actual Bible and the Catholic faith.
Here is the case in point, Kateusz claims that Mary offers herself along with Christ at the Last Supper. Obviously, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could not have forgotten that. If what Kateusz puts forward is true, then all she has done is call the reliability of the canonical Gospels into doubt. So, at that point she is basically adding whatever she likes to the Catholic religion. Second, she wants to throw 1 Timothy out of the Bible because she claims that it can't be reconciled with her thesis. The third instance of chaff in her book comes when she unfortunately sites doctrinally unreliable texts like the Acts of Phillip alongside good doctrinally sound texts like the Life of Thecla.
Here is some of the good “wheat” that is on display in Kateusz’s book. Kateusz argues persuasively that the Six Books written down in the 2nd century are based on older Apostolic oral traditions about Mary the Mother of God. The Six Books were read in Christian churches and are probably the most reliable extra biblical sources that the author analyzes. She looks for common events in Mary's life and ministry that are present in this source and the Dormition narratives of Mary’s death, as well as The Life of the Virgin associated with Maximus the Confessor, the Protoevangelium of James, and the Gospel of Bartholomew.
The chapter on women preachers and baptizers proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the women deacons from Roman 16:1 and 1 Timothy 3:11 were commissioned to preach, baptize, and oversee new Church communities in mission territory. It is believable that they could have been the religious leaders for these communities until male presbyters and apostles could arrive who would have been able to confirm the converts and set up local presbyters. It is notable that Kateusz cannot present a scrap of evidence that the female apostles were ordaining presbyters for their communities. Confirming and Ordaining are among the first things that Paul does when he arrives in a community.
Here are some other highlights
• The book confirms what Hans Urs Von Balthasar theorized about Mary being the greatest theologian. Kateusz shows that early Christian oral tradition describes Mary sending out a group of (male and female) missionaries from Jerusalem, supervising their preaching, and giving them further instruction.
• Many early Christians believed that Mary's religious leadership was fully equivalent to the male apostle’s “high priesthood”. This is demonstrated by how the Protoevangelium of James has Mary twice entering the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple and by Romans 16:7. The Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James is always going to be a good witness to the Marian beliefs of Christians that lived in the first centuries however there are serious doubts about its historical reliability.
• Early traditions have Mary offering her prayers along with liturgical incense in an action that was later restricted to Ministerial Priests.
• The Life of the Virgin is part “wheat” and part “chaff”. It has some value in bringing out Mary's leadership in the early community. However, the author’s contention that Mary offered herself as priest and victim along with Christ at the Last Supper borders on blasphemy. Once again this isn't about being for or against patriarchal Catholicism this is just about being consistent in Catholicism’s understanding of the canonical Gospels. You simply cannot add Mary co- presiding at the Last Supper and still cite the canonical Bible as an infallible witness to Jesus’s life and ministry.
• Kateusz relies on early Christian catechisms like the (Didascalia Apostolorum) and written collections of oral tradition to conclude that it was common in the early church to have two presiders at the Eucharist one male and one female (father and mother). She thinks that this demonstrates that women were ministerial priests. However, there is no reason to think that a female deacon couldn't co-preside. This is much more consistent with the canonical New Testament than believing that females transubstantiated the Eucharist. Remember other than consecrating the Eucharist deacons (in the 1st century) basically could do everything presbyters did in the early Church. That is why St. John Chrysostom expressed confusion about whether he was in fact reading about the deacons (and not presbyters) in Acts chapter 6. They seemed to him to be demonstrating the managerial, pastoral, and other non-sacramental responsibilities that were only given to presbyters in St. John Chrysostom’s time.
One of the highlights of this book is learning how early Christian writing and art proves how Jesus and Mary are inseparable. It proves that doctrinally orthodox Christians venerated and prayed to Mary in the 2nd and 3rd centuries without any doctrinal guidance from the Church. Another joy is learning about how central Mary’s leadership was in the founding of Christianity.
I could see that the author probably has multiple PHD's in art history because she spent a lot of time analyzing the symbols inside historical church artworks. Her argument for women priests is basically this. Roman 16: 7 and reliable oral traditions from the 1st and 2nd century agree that women were given the extraordinary title “apostle”. Furthermore, the author's analysis of art history reveals that artwork inside Catholic churches and monasteries depicts women wearing a symbol of priestly ministry.
Artwork is clearly very subjective even if you do have multiple degrees in art history. For me the decisive point is this, if author’s argument for women priests were correct her Life of Thecla would have Thecla performing the sacrament of Confirmation (laying on his hands) as well as baptizing. That along with the fact that Paul easily could have included a simple one sentence note about women priests in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 just as he did with women deacons a few sentences later are the two fundamental reasons that I don't believe the author's argument for women priests. That being said I still enjoyed the majority of her book.
What she is essentially arguing is that God made us different for absolutely no reason at all.
Ask men whose message resonates more: Mark's or Natalie's. Are men struggling because they aren't being vulnerable and eschewing patriarchal models? Maybe - I can agree that there are real problems with the traditional masculine model but I don't see Mark contesting that. Are men struggling because they lack male role models and examples of male virtues and fathers that show them what to aim at? Absolutely.
That was such a breath of fresh air. I've been listening to Americans hash all of this out and for the most part, they are not very rational, they are not very respectful or kind, and they are not humble. The problems we face here in America won't be solved unless the conversation here starts to sound more like the conversation in this video. So thank you!
I’m not a feminist, but reading all the bashing comments against this woman is disheartening, like she’s 100% completely wrong although this is a debate ... hmmm 🤔 and I’ve encountered this type of response regularly whenever men and women debate on almost anything. . Almost like a ... silencing, because how dare a woman gave something to say. Instead of respecting both speakers, whether you agree or disagree, she is labelled and pretty much chastised in these comments. I also find it very interesting when another man in these comments, Paul Sandburg, called the male speaker out on a Bible verse there was only one comment made to that , and it was an excuse for the guy! Not seeing any excuses here for the woman 🤔 also comments such as most feminists have short hair are like 😳. Uh.... okay. I’ve dealt with a lot of people who identify as feminists (FYI a lot had long hair, really?)
Also if we’re talking about biblical words like woman bring a ‘helper’ it might be very worthwhile to not just read the English translation of that word mildly, and do some digging into the original language the Bible was written in to ensure that the English meaning we give to the word ‘helper’ is accurate. That is if this really is about living as accurately to the Bible as possible...
The entirety of the Bible makes it very clear that God chose men to be the authority. Taking the word helper to mean anything God like or related is what the Devik tempted Eve with, being like God. Taking the authority from man was part of Eve's sin, and Adam's inability to exact his authority over his wife was part of Adam's sin. This devil often corrupts through women first because they are the weaker vessel.
Phil Moore preaching on here! Great conversation, majorly enjoyed.
Really would have liked some more digging into Eph 5:22 & surrounding verses. They barely touched it.
Good discussion on important questions in church culture!
HOT TOPICS. all things I've been wrestling with. glad to learn so much and have something to chew on. they both diagnose the problem in such vitally important, insightful, heartfelt ways. and acknowledge God is doing something greater than we can imagine. great conversation overall :)
As a womanThank you Phil moor you did fantastic always refering to scripture and Jesus love very clear and consice
I am egalitarian but her arguments were weak, unfortunately. I believe the case for egalitarianism is stronger but Phil Moore came across better. Cultural context is absolutely vital for dealing with scripture and neither went there, absolutely Bible interpretation 101. Anyone with any theological training knows that, regardless of which side of the argument you land on.
Theological trainings rarely point out that Gd is a Person with a character not domesticated by cultures.
Cultures are influenced by Him.
This is the huge problem with the theo papers.
Biblically cultural context is about the translation of the apostolic semantics/mindset /heart /desire - not implementing the modern ideas.
Actually Amy, the key to biblical interpretation is paying close attention to the literary context. Cultural contexts vary and are often used to undermine the actual literary context. This is eisegesis, not exegesis. If you change the context, you can make Scripture say anything. I can do the same with anything you say as well. I find that those who are superficially familiar with hermeneutics tend to not understand that cultural contexts should only be brought in when the literary text is clearly referring to them.
Amy Farrer I would like to hear a good argument for the egalitarian viewpoint. Do you know of a good resource I could look at?
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou the Junia Project is an excellent source as well as Marge Maszcow's (not sure on spelling) blog.
Absolutely. Phil quotation of scripture was so out of context and very very bad but she just let it all slide. Phil is a nice guy I'm sure but when it comes to handling scripture he's worse than an idiot in his first day at seminary.
The irony is that Natalie obviously has the most amazing godly husband who is clearly loving her as Christ loved the church....which is exactly the point Phil Moore is trying to make....that if men behaved as they should women would feel totally fulfilled, respected, emboldened and free to follow their god given calling (inspite of early life traumas that have coloured her view of men). This is the christian gospel lived out.
Minute 18:19 is the foundation of this debate. I caught it before he summarized it. Great catch Phil!
I really appreciate this discussion. All three did an amazing job to communicate in a way that made it easy to listen to them and appreciate their positions and questions from their personal wrestlings with the subject matter.
I would like to touch on an aspect of Jesus loving and leading the Church as head. Let's look at the whole picture here. While true that Jesus gave His life and washed their feet, He didn't do that every day. Jesus did what was best for His bride... even over her adamant objections. When Jesus was telling His disciples He was going to Jerusalem, Peter objected very strongly and Jesus made the final decision (breaking the impasse); doing what was best for His bride which was to go pay for her sins with His life. The Resurrected Jesus is still head of His bride and tells her what to do and makes the final decision. We can appeal to our husband and head, and many times He gives us what we want even if it is harmful to us, but there are other times when our head-Jesus says, "No, you aren't going to do that, or that's not going to happen, or we will do this... this way... or there will be consequences. Our head, Jesus, holds us accountable; administers discipline.... all the while being patient, loving, kind, merciful, and gracious.... showering us with blessings... many of which we are oblivious to. Justice and discipline is a function of love, so even though love is usually seen through the lens of giving someone what they want, we must look at the entire picture and see the massive and heavy burden men carry to steward and care for their wife. And as Adam failed to protect and care for his wife while not having a sin nature, our failures as men are compounded and magnified by our propensity to walk in the flesh. Many feminists wish to throw the baby out with the bath water, but men actually need to be taught the Gospel and how to love as Christ does.... stewarding well the stewardship that each man has been given.... which includes his wife and his children... both being the stewardship of the "head" of the family.
Men can and should put our strength to the service of all, women and other men.
Isn't it odd that in this discussion between "Christians" only one actually cited scripture numerous times, while the other not even once?
Just because you cite the scripture doesn't automatically make you right, because scripture needs to be interpreted. That's like...the most important part of theology
@@hannijazz3276 Wow, what a groundbreaking point that i totally wasn't aware of! Pls cite the scripture you think he interpreted wrongly?
@@leonardu6094 i agree with most of the things the guy said! IMO he’s actually a more nuanced feminist than Natalie (even though he doesn’t identify as one). My problem with your comment is the implication that quoting scripture automatically means you’re more correct (which makes no theological sense).
@@hannijazz3276 But that's not what i stated is it? That's what YOU typed. My comment was simply highlighting the fact that in a conversation between two supposed Christians, about biblical issues, only one actually refers to scripture at all. Take from that what you will.
Did she really just quote scripture and then say, "but that's not how it works"?🤦♂️
Yes, she did.
And the bigger part of the church goers do the same thing...
Exactly.
Very impressed by both guests. Im 63 year old woman and I used to lean egalitarian but with sanctification I'm more trusting of scripture so I am complementarian. Injustice has played out against both sexes and blame is all around. The church has to adhere to biblical guidelines and standards or there will be no bride awaiting Christ's return.....just a bunch of confused asexual folks. Lean not on your own understanding.
49:56-50:12 - God was totally talking to Adam in the Garden of Eden... There is totally a distinction. Genesis 3:9-10 says: "But the Lord God called to the MAN and said to HIM, “Where are you?” And HE said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”" God goes onto have a different, brief dialogue with Eve, but after He spoke with Adam.
Egalitarian vs Complementarian - What is the Egalitarian argument for Women being Elders or Apostles? All other "ministries" appear to be open to all. Phils analogy of the river banks is great. No mention on theology for women "teaching" as in presenting a sermon - not just giving testimony, but interpreting Hebrew and Greek, and explaining verses. In informal context V planned explanation. Roles and responsibilities are defined differently for male and female
I feel like in conservations like this, so often do we have a "scripture says this" one on side, and a "my feelings say this" on the other...
Natalie is often talking emotively from subjective experience while Phil is quoting scripture and talking from biblical knowledge. It is good to appreciate both, though I would not apply ones subjective experience to everybody else. However it is important to teach the Bible carefully and look at its application and ensure leaders are listening to the experiences of their congregations
The bit at 1:01:21 where she says that wherever we see men leading there is likely to be more violence is absolutely ridiculous. She completely misdiagnoses the problem and feeds directly into Mark's point. The problem is not men leading. The problem is men that aren't following Christ's model of masculine leadership. This is such a ridiculous point by Natalie. She is very bright but her perspective seems absolutely warped by negative personal experience and service to an ideology which conflicts with the fundamental messages in the Bible.
If you don't like what the Bible clearly says, don't call yourself a Christian.
I cringe every time I hear the words 'feminist', as well as any of the other buzz words out there, and Christian together.
I cringe whenever name calling and fighting ensues, such as when it is from feminists, or towards feminists. I may not like how feminism is going but I am not happy with how many anti-feminists are willing to dehumanize.
I cringe at Christian. I don't see how it is any better than feminist.
Mt 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi', for you have one Teacher, and you all are brothers"; contradicts following verses: He 13:7, 17. Tit 3:1. Ac 15:22. Gal 6:6, 1 Pe 2:13. He 13:7 "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you.....". 17 "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority....". 24, "Greet all your leaders and all of God's people".
Contradictions: 1, The Bible also speaks of necessity of unity, equality, and of no favoritism 2, Thus, no need for leaders, pastors, or elders. To God, according to the parts of his word, don't need to be lead or taught by anyone else, save God/or his word. But as we can see, some scribes did no like what Mt wrote. Nor do they like that Paul said not to go beyond what God, self, wrote. Regarding He 13:7, i cannot fathom why God cannot do whatever he wants to; all by lonesome, sad, mad self. His word and him not enough? "And you all are brothers [?and sisters]". But all equal? Alas, the answer is still on the road to hell or heaven.
However, 1 Co has a lot to more to say about inequality than equality [or unity of mind]. 1 Co 11:3 "... and the head of a woman is man [means: go ahead, rape her], etc. 7 "A man should not cover his head, since he's is the image of the glory of God....". But the Paul gets foolish and says; "we all are of one body". Is that mean that all believers will be bald or have long hair, blue eyes, and with a head the size of a chimp, pygmy, elephant, crocodile? Sorry, fella! I am not sure if you are saying that i don't know pastor Anderson's or your truth? True, i don't know your truth---i'd rather, if you don't mind, cling to my own. How about God's truth. Do you have it? Is it in his word? If it is in God's word, then, please read only his word; for only it teaches it [Mt 23:8].
So the best church you could find and visit, would be God's word. Alas--and as far as i know--pastors, preachers, priests, and evangelists are preventing you from visiting any church other than theirs, let alone that of God. May i offer you an advice: If you believe in the NT God [a desirable event], never ever read the Bible nor any book about the Bible nor listen to any preacher. For you have one and best ever Teacher. And all clergy fear you listening to God which, according to the scribes, lives in you and never wants to leave you. Alas, for all or most Christians, God is just never good enough. The heck with God when one has Pope, Anderson, Hagee...
I find it disturbing how often I hear Christians talk about feminism with so much disdain. It's entirely possible to embrace Christianity and be a feminist. To lump all feminists together as man-hating and anti-feminine is entirely unfair, just as painting Christians as bigoted or judgmental is a gross and inaccurate generalization.
Justin was not a good moderator, he is clearly in one side and couldn’t handle it
49:30 1st century Palestine, even the men couldn't vote. Goodness.
Listen to the scriptures or the culture, obay God or mankind, I will divide the sheep and the goats. Remember, nobody can get everyone to be the same?
I can't believe the shallowness of Natalie Collins arguments. It is unfortunate that men don't birth children? And they all laughed after that comment as if it's funny?
You get the feeling that if she could force men to share in the birthing of children she wouldn't hesitate for a second.
@Marianne Havisham Maybe. But a lot of feminists come off as despising any sort of inequality, so it's hard to distinguish.
@Marianne Havisham Inequality isn't just about injustice. Women give birth, men don't. That is also a form of inequality. What I see feminists do is they go so far with their ideology of inequality = bad, that they start to equate normal everyday inequalities (like biological differences between men and women) as being bad too.
I really did enjoy this debate
Excellent... Thank you guys
Excellent discussion. Well done. The church fails if it is primarily following the secular world, but the church needs sometimes to listen to the secular prophets and live up to a higher calling.
It cannot be down to a 'patriarchy' if, A) feminisation of British churches is a modern phenomena and B) the patriarchy is a historically ingrained power system. If the patriarchy hypothesis is true then the church should also be historically female dominant, and this isn't the case.
Good discussion, although I don't feel as though Phil represents true complementarianism in the way the person who coined the phrase, Wayne Grudem, has defined it. For instance, women preaching on a Sunday morning is counter to complementarianism, yet Phil said he wouldn't restrict women from preaching on a Sunday morning at his church.
I deeply say "Thank you" to Natile Collins for all the work your doing. I really like your phrase "gender justice".
She's living in self denial.
@Marianne Havisham It's been months since i watched that debate, But i found it interesting how not once did she quote the bible in reference. Compare that to her counterpart who only made biblically based arguments.
It's vital for those in the church to influence culture through scripture not culture influencing the church. His defense of the defined roles of men and women in the church was spot on to what God's word says. "Feminism is ultimately as much a dead end as Chauvinism." Well said. God plays no favorites.
(6:45) Church needs to be more than an echo of the world....
This conversation can only take place in a modern context where technology picks up the lack for women. Otherwise, women need men to take upon a protective role for them.
It's a very low standard when wives should be thankful that their husbands don't beat them...I mean, come on.
Great dialogue!
On Kavanaugh. No one on the conservative side said we should not investigate. After several FBI checks and an investigation they said enough already.
As a Christian feminist I gotta admit honestly that Phil is actually a much more nuanced feminist (and Christian too) than Natalie. Not that I judge Natalie's position though but it just seems to me that she's basing her thoughts on a knee jerk reaction to sexism.
Although pleasant to watch it is unfortunate that the discussion begins with the a lot of generalizations and a focus on popular secular issues. There is a lot of evidence for egalitarianism that is based on biblical truth but unfortunately it was not discussed and aired here. For her argument, it would have been super beneficial to start with the first word of the two words used to describe the first woman. Ezer, followed by Kenegdo which means “opposite to” (like iron sharpens iron) is the first representation of the woman. Usually sorely mistranslated in English as “help-meet” the Hebrew gives us a different view of femininity. In Hebrew, Ezer translates as “saviour” and is mentioned in the Old Testament twenty-one times. In two cases, it refers to the first woman. Three, it refers to the powerful nations the Israelites called on for and help. And sixteen times it refers to God helping Israel. I could go on and on but my husband just finished making supper and I’m hungry! ♥️
"These are not problematic passages, these are just passages that cause us problems..." If I were to invent an adjective for passages that cause me problems, I might come up with... problematic.
But that sounds as if the passage itself is the problem. I think he's saying instead, its the readers difficulty in grasping it's meaning or inability to reconcile themselves to its teaching that's the issue, due to perhaps their cultural norms, or lack of knowledge of the context in which the passage is set. "Problematic" would be seen by many as faulting the passage, rather than our own weaknesses.
@@littleboots9800 "It's not me, it's you." That may well be true for some passages. Maybe it's me. But when it's Numbers 31:17-18, it's not me. It's Numbers 31:17-18.
@@PBRimmerMy point was not with a particular passage, simply pointing out the difference between something being itself "problematic" and simply causing the reader problems. As for Numbers 31 17:18, it's not a passage that I wrestle with particularly. I can think of several justifications for the commands. I can think of other passages that ppl might find more difficult to be honest.
@@littleboots9800 I get it, and I agree with you. It's a good way to make sense of what was said and to draw the distinction and ably answers my first comment.
I was just pushing back that I think there are then some passages where the problem is me, and other passages where the problem really is the passage.
I cannot imagine any possible justification for the command contained in Numbers 31:17-18. I'd be interested in what you imagine could be a justification for that command, and also what you think is a more difficult passage.
Thanks for showing us why the bible is patriarchal. The lady practically is a feminist thinking she understands anything about the bible, the "man" on the other hand more anxious to be politically correct than truthful to scriptures
What is egalitarian mean???
I'm sorry to be the one who leaves the negative comment, but I really feel like she botched the interpretation of Numbers 5. The woman is absolutely not at fault no matter what, I would really encourage her to relook at that passage.
Do I understand this correctly? Egalitarianism is applying feminist principles to theology. Complementarianism is applying chivalry to theology.
Her answer is to weaken men. His answer to be a strong responsible man. We should all stand up to advantage taking. Hard cases like hers make bad laws, having a 'chip on your shoulder' driving your policy is a shame. I feel sorry for her, and he ex deserves a beating, but I as a good man do not and the Holy Bible gives me strength I would not have else.
I love Phil Moore's point about- why do we think God created two different genders? Read CS Lewis' space trilogy for a spectacular picture of the genders.
Gender justice specialist? Oy vey...🙄
Carry on the juvenile attitude. Someday you'll figure out
@@hannijazz3276 You are loved; God bless you Hanni.
That guy looks younger version of Toby from The Office
I think it's fair to say that the lady here is not guided by Scripture, but by her own experience and by her passion for her own cause. It's a shame, because there are far more lucid and thoughtful accounts of egalitarianism.
Seems to me that Natalie is fighting against incorrect ideas that are not being proposed or behaviour that is on the outskirts of normal church. Not that it doesn't exist but is probably not as prevalent.
Dude uses 1 Peter 3 as his apologetic for how women and men SHOULD relate, which answers everything. P1 Peter is an apologetic to Christian’s in how to operate within persecution by nonbelievers. 1 Peter 3 is addressed to wives married to nonchristian men how they can be a witness to them NOT a picture of the ideal for marriage.
What I never hear from a complementarian is why God chose Deborah to be the undisputed leader of Israel in Judges 4 &5: She was Judge (interpreter & applier of God's law), Prophet and Commander-In-Chief of Israel's military. Barak sassed her and she pronounced from the Holy Spirit that a woman would take his victory away from him (Jael). She was the most blessed of God, as she was the only Judge who (after winning a battle with minimal loss of life through faith and the power of God), presided over 40 years of peace in Israel. I've heard excuses made, or her achievements being minimalized, but no real reasoning as to why Deborah was so anointed and blessed of God. I don't see any clear Scriptural mandate for elders to all be men. Don't quote Timothy: Paul was talking about gentile women who were converted from prostitution in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Junia was an Apostle. Phoebe was a Deacon. Priscilla (along with her husband Aquila, who is mentioned after her most of the time in the Greek, indicating her higher status) discipled Apollos and Paul. Timothy was discipled by his mother and grandmother. Also, what of us women who are not married at all, and have no children? Get us to the nunnery? God can maintain our sexual purity without marriage or nunhood. I maintain a high level position in business while following my Lord. Women are blessed that we have always been last. The last will be first, and many who are first, shall be last. Men should remember this...Barak learned it the hard way.
I find it very difficult to follow the egalitarian church on some scriptures that say more complimentarianism. For example, Ephesians chapter 5 verse 1 thru 33. Or the bible in Genesis where God made Adam man while taking the rib from Adam to make Eve a female. Or, the fact that a lot of genesis chapter says all the men after adam's descendants to noah were men were given to lead by God. The wives of Adam's descendants were the mothers after eve, they were complementary to their husbands. Most of the scriptures can be egalitarian and you can follow it that you can see fit to improve your life. That would make sense. I guess I align to neither of the people in this video, because they lean towards egalitarian than complementary. And, I am very conservative christian so this doesn't apply other than learning about people's faith views.
Wow...I see Christianity is still doing a great job of keeping women (and men) "in their place." 🙄 Natalie remains so gracious during this conversation. I have no idea how she does it. He is talking as if men OWN women! And these comments explain a lot about the world. This is the culture that grooms girls for abuse. Absolutely shameful!
The biblical model for men is Jesus and the biblical model for women is the church. We both obey Jesus, but the model of what that looks like is the picture of the church in the NT.
Instead of trying to change the church you should work on changing yourself.
Isn't it odd that in this discussion between "Christians" only one actually cited scripture numerous times, while the other not even once?
No, both can change--especially the church.
@@vilicus77 The scriptures and the church does not conform to the culture, the culture conforms to the word of God. Natalie Collins needs to remember that.
@@leonardu6094 Of course that is not true unless you are a religious fundamentalist. Every reading of a text requires interpretation; that interpretation occurs in a cultural context. There is no way around that. Even conservative theological traditions have changed their stances on race, the environment, and science. Recall that the SBC one supported racist ideology for 'biblical' reasons.
@@vilicus77 The bible doesn't support racist ideology so your point is ridiculous. Let's even pretend it does say that (it doesn't) but all you'll have proven is that christian leaders have *chosen* to reinterpret bible as they see fit, not that it is what they *ought* to or supposed do.
Let me ask you a question, are you a christian?
Does she even believe that the scriptures are inspired, Sad.
The Bible ultimately teaches the so-called complimentarian doctrine and all the anetdotes, poor practise, poor teaching, historical and present abuse of it does nothing to change it. However, Phil failed at one point in the argument. The question /objection raised, “if men take their lead around how to be a man from Jesus, then what about women?” Phil’s answer was Jesus - but the biblical references he cited were about Father /Son, parent/child relationships which would conflate the relationship between men and women with adult and child. That’s not right. This is where the biggest problem lay for the complimentarian. I believe the answer is, Jesus shows us all how to be human, not male or female. But Paul shows us how to relate as husband and wife, elder and member. Those relationships are echoes of Christ and the Church
In this video Phil really shows the heretical nature of Natalie. I really get a sense that Natalie is working from a place of unforgiveness and resentment. I believe it’s impossible to be led by the Holy Spirit and come to her conclusions..... for very long anyway. And by that I mean that God will allow us to suffer in our perversion of truth for a time to feel the pain that will lead us to Him. She talks now as if her new misconceptions are an answer to a previous misconceptions. The difference between these two are that Natalie lays the world over the Bible where Phil lays the Bible over the world..... God bless ya!!!
Oh wow... are the two guests related?
i can imagine it's pretty hard being a man in a way that it's not hard being a woman, too...
She clearly does not believe the Bible is the Word of God but rather the words of men about God. Hence, some things are accepted when they accord with her views and others rejected when they do not. The problem with that is that if you do not have a completely reliable Bible you don't have any standard at all that is objectively known.
I’m willing to bet that both of them believe that smoking, drugs, rock and roll, drinking, cussing, etc. are sin. Nothing could be further from the truth! These are merely manifestations of something much more powerful......condemnation in self. People who fear, dread, are anxious, worry, whatever, are subject to pick up just about anything in order to offset the power and influence of condemnation. Again, those are not the sin. The sin is what makes these things important.....even necessary....in our minds.
Feminism is simply one of the manifestations of condemnation.
This is the whole problem with "traditional" understanding of scripture, and the evangelical view. I don't buy it when Phil says we should "grapple honestly", because he expects everyone to reach the same conclusion as him, and he doesn't accept us actually finding honest and valid problems with scripture. Scripture can indeed be a solution, but some passages of scripture are problems in themselves, but he has such a narrow view of scripture. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he is just very very low in knowledge, experience, and overall caliber as a theologian.
Please stop calling feminists as egalitarians, they are different things
Isn't the Church a feminine entity? She is the Bride of Christ, so I'm afraid men must simply accept that they are going to be in a feminine role in relation to Christ. C.S. Lewis wrote about how men have some problems with this, and joining the Church may be less attractive to them as a result. Remember, that in the Resurrection, there will be no more gender. Jesus said there would be no marrying or giving in marriage, and we will all be like the angels in heaven. (Matt. 22:15-22) All of this controversy is really quite temporary, isn't it?
Sorry, Phil Moore, but 1 Peter 3:7 does NOT admonish men about cursing or treating women violently (see his remark at 25.40 minutes). Phil just made that up!
You can get there by a reasonable inference.
"7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
"
I think it reasonable that beating or cursing one's wife is incompatible with "living with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman." Therefore the natural implication is that if a man does such things, then his "prayers will be hindered."
Phil expanded on the logic internal to the verse. He didn't "just [make] that up."
“Feminism is waking up and realizing it’s easier for a man to do certain things than a woman.” Cool, you want to come die of a heart attack with us or die in a war? God cursed men and women equally in Genesis, yet differently. We’re equal in status, different in practice.
The liberal Unbelievable
Her answer is to weaken men. His answer to be a strong responsible man. We should all stand up to advantage taking. Hard cases like hers make bad laws, having a 'chip on your shoulder' driving your policy is a shame. I feel sorry for her, and he ex deserves a beating, but I as a good man do not and the Holy Bible gives me strength I would not have else. A feminine world is of no interest to my wife nor most others. Yuk! Time for men to assert their manliness against these bad men.
This is the problem: so many people think that encouraging men to embrace their emotions, admit vulnerability, and treat women better and stop being as aggressive is somehow seen as "weakening" them. Also, it seems as though some men feel "weakened" if women are elevated to a position equal to them.
The Holy Spirit is not a thing!!!!!
It was once. Also did I hear her say when I go to heaven! Mmm.
Boring.. both speakers are religious zealots.. an intellectual embarrassment.