YOUR response was so spot on that I personally forgive you for your romantic indulgence. Many many decades ago nuns afforded me an introduction to what I would later learn was something called sadism. I really believe the tragedy is that we overestimate the capacity for empathy. The faith presupposes overgenerously. How can you be a Christian without the charism of empathy?
People watching this need to understand that Hart isn't an evangelical, nor a fundamentalist. This means that Scripture is not perfect and that is subject to negotiation. Paul is not perfect. He has a scholarly, historical, and open minded approach to many things--although highly opinionated. He also clarifies here that he could be wrong. You shouldn't watch or read Hart if you just want your boilerplate Western Christianity.
I'm an Evangelical, and although Pastors are not required to be married family men, that is what is generally expected in every congregation. For exactly the reasons Dr. Hart explains. But they would never accept a woman Pastor, the congregation would get up and leave.
the majority of christians and pastors they believe and they preach that the hell fire is endless torment or lake of fire second death is endless torment or eternity hell fire or everlasting punishment or eternal hell fire this is believe and preach by many christians and pastors and they also believe that we can forfiet and lose salvation and end in hell fire if we go on sinning and habitual sinning and keep sinning disobedience and sin they preach and believe that we can forfiet and lose salvation by that sinning live in sinning.
@@vince.sarigumba The majority is often wrong, the herd mentality. The bible doesn't teach that. Even the so-called "lake of fire" is merely "into the ages of the ages", in the original Greek text, it doesn't even say "through" that amount of time.
@@thetotalvictoryofchrist9838 Pastor , Many christians and pastors they preach that we can forfiet and lose salvation by our living in sinning, practice sinning, keep doing sinning, habitual sinning and disobedient that can end up in hell fire and lose salvation thats whay many people preach and Believe. Pray For Me To Stop sinning and To Get Rid of all my sins.
@@thetotalvictoryofchrist9838Brother, My problem is that verse of revelation 14:9-11 this verse talks about torment with fire and brimstone that there no rest day and night for ever and ever this verse said torment and no rest day and night this talks eternity torment in hell fire?
@@thetotalvictoryofchrist9838 my pastor ondo believe in endless torment or everlasting punishment in hell fire and many christians and pastors believe that that those whk judge in last judgment in eternal hell fire endless punishment in hell fire, many people and christians believe in endless torment or endless punishment in hell fire as people like to believe in that idea that it found in the bible in matthew 25:46 , revelation 14:9-11. My pastor and many christians believe in endless punishment hell fire
bad women priests are a thing.. Narcissistic and damaged women are drawn to the priesthood..Saying that, so are narcissistic and damaged men. But both hurt you and women have their own peculiar ways of doing that. Personally glad we have both but would be even more glad of a culture which enables and praises self examination and genuine humility, is wise to human corruption and ACTS, and rejects a power ladder
I like a lot of what DBH has to say, and I agree that bad priests can be extremely dangerous, but how he can make the step from his very tentative, "in general" statements (some of which also seem prejudiced, just in the other direction) to a willingness to undo hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition is very obscure to me.
It's simple: the intellectual pride of the man is enormous. He thinks he knows better than everybody. He either ignores (or more often childishly insults) the Church fathers he disagrees with and worships the one's he does agree with. His theology seems to be "salvation by PhD alone"
A female priest who believes in hell is just as bad as a male priest who believes in hell. "Now it's priests of both sexes I don't listen to." -Bill Hicks
The Logos must have been and was born in a specific cultural context. This cultural context discounted women as leaders. At one point the entire Church was JUST 3 women. The three women who find the Incarnate Logos' tomb empty. These women had to go tell the men what had happened and the men didn't believe at first!
@@chanting_germ. There is no head turning necessary. If a woman can birth the Incarnate Logos and if women were the first to experience the risen Christ I don't see how they can't be priests. Regardless there are women priests in the New Testament such as Phoebe, Junia, Prisca. Perhaps you don't find Scripture as important as I do.
@@chanting_germ. There is no necessary correspondence between the earthly gender of Christ and women not being priests. After all, there is neither male nor female in Christ. As said in Scripture. Perhaps your ideological convictions blind you to Saint Paul naming 3 women priests in his letters. You didn't even mention it in your reply. I have no interest in imposing my way on the Church. I would just prefer if the Church followed Scripture and not human tradition.
Oh, for goodness sake! He's finally gone off the deep end. He has become such an embarrassment to the Orthodox Church. As such, would our bishops please get rid of this man. Let him go back to Anglicanism, where his equally as noxious brothers still reside. Really, good grief. I mean, did he ever really, truly leave Anglicanism behind? He's simply become a church unto himself at this point, which is quite tragic when one considers how brilliant he has always been in his defense of traditional Christian belief. Time for him to either repent or be excommunicated. I would much rather see him humble himself (which he's always struggled with, admittedly) and remain in the Orthodox Church. And before anyone begins ranting at me, I actually know David. He was my professor at Providence College when I was doing graduate-level theology there, while at the same time we were both attending the same Orthodox parish in RI. In spite of his brilliance, he was always a very odd, socially awkward man. Also, in light of this video I think it may be appropriate to mention that he was commonly quite disrespectful to our priest, who was one of the kindest, gentlest, and saintliest priests I have ever known; he had more humility in his index finger than DBH will ever be able demonstrate, head-to-toe. Yet, he is here babbling on about what a good priest is, and is not? Don't encourage this man, but pray for his repentance. His is not the mind of the Church, therefore he is not of the mind of Christ. Avoid him!
He’s fine. He’s combative, often preciously pretentious in how he writes, and occasionally goes out of his way to shock, yes-but he’s got a good heart and a brilliant mind. He’s speculative, but not unorthodox-women’s ordination has simply never been considered in the Church (and whether it will eventually be accepted or not, I couldn’t say), but he seems to mainly be using it as a vehicle for polemic against clericalism and priests that fail to really be men (whether by being self-inflated, abusive, or by mincing about in robes through a cloud of incense while neglecting mercy and compassion).
I find the widespread racism, misogyny, antisemitism, conspiracy theorism, and fascist politics among some corners of American Orthodoxy a bit more of an "embarrassment" to the Church than a guy who thinks women can make good priests.
@@johndumancic7255 women’s ordination has simply never been considered in the Church"- Good Lord🤦♂You know who also apparently never considered it? Jesus Christ. Why were none of the twelve he chose women? When Judas was replaced by Mathias, why wasn't a woman chosen instead?
Thankyou. Your personal interactions with Hart affirm a lot of the things that I have noticed about him in his online exchanges. I encountered him originally as a Christian counter to the new atheists. His writing was obviously great on this front, but I have come to question him more and more over the years. I wonder if he's still harping on about 'vedantic Christianity' or whatever he calls it, whilst still pretending he is orthodox🙄
Wow he's so wise he's teaching heresy condemed during the time of the apostles. We should all listen to him instead of all those lame doctrines the saints built the church upon am I right guys
If women were generally better suited to be leaders, then most leaders would probably be women by now. If women[generally] made better leaders why hare we not living in a matriarchal utopia by now? Because they are as flawed as men and not better leaders. If a particular woman has a certain degree of stoicism, a fighting spirit, is not a slave to agreeableness, does not compromise the truth to placate people's feelings[which is worse for everybody], is comfortable with healthy conflict, then I would rather be led by that kind of woman than led a man lacking those virtues. But I am wary of being led by people in general, it is difficult enough to defer to wise and mature people in my life, I would rather not be led by power-hungry strangers, especially those who crave to be in positions of "leadership". If people just want to humbly serve people, who says that they need to be some sort of clergy to do that? I find it suspicious when a person wants to be in such positions, a person who desires such an influence over others should be scrutinized.
@@Danobot11 Of course not. But I’m scared of Christians thinking it’s not controversial to explicitly contradict Biblical teaching and 2000 years of church tradition.
@@telosbound I take it you're more taken back by his Universalism than his opinions on female leadership. Hart is controversial, I'll admit, but it really shouldn't be surprising. I'm astounded it has taken this long for someone to articulate well thought out internal critiques. What Hart (and related scholars) has demonstrated to me as an myth-sympathetic atheist, is that even if Universalism is the "less" Biblical or less exegetically accurate interpretation, it was very much a canonical part of Church tradition at one point in time in some geographic regions. It is unusual, but by no means in contradiction with a tradition that wasn't exactly monolithic. The extent at which even hopeful Universalism was cancelled and berated in the Rob Bell era (~2010) was really telling of some of the deep prejudices that garbed themselves in the rhetoric of institutionalized tradition. At a textual level- I'll admit, Universalism is not convincingly conclusive, but neither is annihilationism, and least of all infernalism. I just see competing narratives and I don't try to harmonize them anymore. But given that the exegetical case for Universalism was revealed to be way stronger than what the old guard would like to admit, I think it should be no surprise that its current advocates have resorted to unapologetic table-flipping. Any offer for a humble and diplomatic discussion on heterodox soteriology were discarded as satanic heresy last decade.
@@mariorizkallah5383 universalists are so heretical that a Church Father, called "pillar of orthodoxy", was one on them. And it's very sad for me that you seem more scandalized by his view on priesthood than the reasons that sustain those views. I don't know if you're Orthodox, but it's sad that though he hasn't been excommunicated by his church, you claim to be wiser than them.
I was so worried when I clicked on this video because I really like this guy. Such a relief to see that he's on the right side of this issue! It really is way past time that Christianity move beyond its (often misogynistic) authoritarianism and its advocation of cultural stasis. The creative God created us to be creative, not to try to take His place as judges of right and wrong, whether those judges be of the relativist kind or else the authoritarian static cultural kind. We are meant to creatively guess what is true, good and beautiful, and then let God show us which ones of those guesses work, at least for now, and in that way we make progess in our divinely-ordained mission to manifest His Holy Spirit, His character, in the universe.
What on earth are you talking about? By "relief to see that he's on the right side of this issue" do you mean "relief that he affirms with my preconceived view"? Such filthy pride you have! When Christ chose the twelve why didn't he choose any women? When Judas was replaced by Matthias as a member of the twelve why wasn't a woman chosen instead? God doesn't make mistakes. Females were not intended to be priests.
it's clearly stated in the bible - a female priest or pastor is forbidden. ...but yet some self righteous Christian with an intellect beard thinks that is wrong, GOD is wrong, GOD doesn't know what he is talking about....this is how things get corrupt. the arrogance of mankind. So many times in my personal life I thought so many bible principals or verses were silly, outdated, if not offensive, and later when you finally it solids you realize why GOD forbids certain things. There is an order to GODs kingdom, the creator that created all things, the majesty of the heavens, the GLORY of his love and mercy, and we still think we know better. We still think we can do it better. ..amazing.
@@williamoarlock8634 Do you know what that verse (taken out of context by you, obviously) means? No you don't. Does it in any way apply here? No it doesn't. Was there anything else, friend?
@@Joeonline26 I'm not your friend, and seeing how 'context' is whatever you Christians determine to personal preference I can throw your sycophant verses right back at you.
I'm actually inclined to disagree because the kind of assertiveness that leadership necessarily entails is not something that comes as instinctively to women. Higher agreeableness is a virtue in many ways, but it's a trait that can very easily make you fall into the dominate cultural zeitgeist if not tempered. A fundmental reason for why the major world faiths have always been patriarchal to some degree or another is because humans are an inherently patriarchal species. I think any attempt to discount that is the height of naïveté.
@@阳明子 lets not pretend matriarchal "societies" ever managed to produce a civilization of any greatness or importance. Yeah I mean if you want to live in mud huts you can have your female priests. Women just aren't fit for leadership purely on biological grounds, it's human nature. It literally just can't be helped. Women make great saints and nuns, through their good deeds they play a unique part in inspiring people and allowing the society to function but they aren't exactly builders of civilization, more like maintainers. And since Priests are supposed to be leaders I just don't see how it can work at a greater scale. I suppose these days since the church is divorced from state you can have whatever you want in your churches; it won't change much but if we were in holy roman empire times and they started appointing women as priests things would crumble real fast because no one would take the faith seriously. DBH is off mark here because while yes male priests can be horrible people, so can nuns because as humans they are both flawed, yet because of basic biological facts males just archetypically fit the leadership role better.
I don't like capitalism, but what i really like about it is how it showed, that women and men aren't that different at all and most things come down to socialisation. Especially in a world were physical strength becomes more and more irrelevant, this division does too.
@@derpfaddesweisen LOL! everything around you is built and maintained by men, even in first world countries. Women didn’t really enter the work force until air conditioning. Capitalism showed that men are way more inventive when they are free. Women, not so much.
Nonsense take - As much as he has some great takes, his theological perspectives is based on his worldly 'progressive' ideological view on reality - and you can see this quite clearly in his geo-political takes.
@@Joeonline26 we all have opinions of what wisdom is dear one. If someone said something that YOU considered wise , you too would comment that it was wise,. Why then mock me ?
@@sparrowsparrow4197 Indeed, we all have opinions, which is why I asked you whether you deemed this man to be wise simply because he affirmed an opinion you already held? Are you intellectually honest enough to admit this, or too filled with pride like Hart?
God's love does extend to queer people, but it doesn't affirm them in being queer. The very term 'queer' has a meaning of disorder - referring to something suspicious or "not quite right", or to a person with mild derangement or who exhibits socially inappropriate behaviour. God Bless.
@@determinedchristian The meaning of words changes over time. God's love does affirm monogamous loving gay relationships. Unless you want to take the stance that God's love doesn't affirm eating shellfish or the wearing of mixed fabrics which seems incoherent to me.
Humans change the meanings of words because they think they can do whatever they like, while maintaining a confidence that somehow God will forgive them. That kind of second-guessing is nothing but a bet in favor of oneself and against God. It is in itself a challenge and an affront to the ultimate Goodness. Humans are more ready to manifest hubris than endure humility. "God will forgive me whatever I do" is just another reason liberalism is such a blight on the world.
@@PetrusSolus It's not betting in favor of myself against God. It's a bet in favor of a clear reading of Scripture not influenced by prejudices humanity no longer holds. I do not believe Scripture says anything about monogamous gay relationships or anything about homosexuality. Scripture is speaking of a completely different context, not of two consensual loving partners living in union exclusively with each other.
You have a very elementary understanding of the scriptures by attempting to quote abolished Old Testament law as though I am picking and choosing from it to justify sin. @@阳明子
