PDA

View Full Version : women in the clergy



Steve509
Jul 20th 2008, 07:54 PM
you may have seen the news story about 3 catholic women that are being ordained in some ceremony not approved by the catholic church. the church has publicly stated they will be excommunicated if they participate.

i've always heard women are not to have roles in the clergy. apparently there are some who disagree. i've never really researched it. i just know at my church there are no deacons, elders or clergy that are women. there are teachers though.

what do you think? should a women pastor be allowed? how about a deacon? surely a woman could lead a Bible study group.

Rullion Green
Jul 20th 2008, 08:13 PM
you may have seen the news story about 3 catholic women that are being ordained in some ceremony not approved by the catholic church. the church has publicly stated they will be excommunicated if they participate.

i've always heard women are not to have roles in the clergy. apparently there are some who disagree. i've never really researched it. i just know at my church there are no deacons, elders or clergy that are women. there are teachers though.

what do you think? should a women pastor be allowed? how about a deacon? surely a woman could lead a Bible study group.

I just keep it simple and take what is written in the bible for direction.
If you want to be biblical do what is laid out in the bible, if you dont want to do that then accept women as clergy. But once the line is crossed there are no more boundries and the door is open for all, like gay clergy and others that are not suitable on biblical grounds.

So it's a can of worms and i would not personally go to a church that has strayed from the biblical format. No matter how out of date or un P.C it may seem. :)

:2cents:

theleast
Jul 20th 2008, 08:21 PM
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

That pretty much sums it up.

Athanasius
Jul 21st 2008, 12:56 AM
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

You must have missed the word learn. I'd most certainly want women, or men, or children to learn in silence and with subjection. Otherwise it's chaos. This verse, because I know someone is going to say it, does not exclude women from teaching, it only addresses proper learning.



12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

That pretty much sums it up.

The second word in verse 12, I "suffer not a woman..." This is Paul's commandment. Paul also wishes that we don't get married, would all speak in tongues and be like him. Lots of cultural reasons for this, and that's where it stays--ancient culture.

Verse 13 is interesting, why would Paul command such a thing knowing that creation has been corrupted? Such a command is inviting abuse on the part of men (look through history, you'll see it). It's also interesting to note that while the woman was deceived, Adam willfully disobeyed.

So I respectfully disagree, the above 'sums' up nothing. Especially when you start getting into women leaders mentioned in the Bible (Phoebe, anyone?)

As for the original question, I don't see why not.

amazzin
Jul 21st 2008, 12:57 AM
Absolutely women can be pastors or deacons or elders.


you may have seen the news story about 3 catholic women that are being ordained in some ceremony not approved by the catholic church. the church has publicly stated they will be excommunicated if they participate.

i've always heard women are not to have roles in the clergy. apparently there are some who disagree. i've never really researched it. i just know at my church there are no deacons, elders or clergy that are women. there are teachers though.

what do you think? should a women pastor be allowed? how about a deacon? surely a woman could lead a Bible study group.

servant of Lord
Jul 21st 2008, 02:30 AM
You must have missed the word learn. I'd most certainly want women, or men, or children to learn in silence and with subjection. Otherwise it's chaos. This verse, because I know someone is going to say it, does not exclude women from teaching, it only addresses proper learning.



The second word in verse 12, I "suffer not a woman..." This is Paul's commandment. Paul also wishes that we don't get married, would all speak in tongues and be like him. Lots of cultural reasons for this, and that's where it stays--ancient culture.

Verse 13 is interesting, why would Paul command such a thing knowing that creation has been corrupted? Such a command is inviting abuse on the part of men (look through history, you'll see it). It's also interesting to note that while the woman was deceived, Adam willfully disobeyed.

So I respectfully disagree, the above 'sums' up nothing. Especially when you start getting into women leaders mentioned in the Bible (Phoebe, anyone?)

As for the original question, I don't see why not.



wow, I have never noticed that before..amazing how we overlook these things ...the Bible is so amazing. It is alive and yet the same word (cause it never changes) but is new everyday..cause you learn something everyday from it ..from verses that i have studied before over and over and never saw that.

I agree with wome being called. Many women were used in the bible. there were women prophets. We are told in later days that women would be used.
But, I think that some are not called..they are filled with the spirit of Jezebel..and only wanting some kind of women rights ..feminists..
I am a women by the way.

But, yes women are called. God speaks through them too. But many may disagree. But they have that right.

Jerome1
Jul 21st 2008, 03:06 AM
Women can't become priests in the RCC, because the RCC teaches that a priest acts in the person of Christ( in persona christi) who was a man.

Christ himself chose twelve men as his disciples.

In my opinion there can never be women priests in the RCC.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 21st 2008, 04:05 AM
You must have missed the word learn. I'd most certainly want women, or men, or children to learn in silence and with subjection. Otherwise it's chaos. This verse, because I know someone is going to say it, does not exclude women from teaching, it only addresses proper learning.



The second word in verse 12, I "suffer not a woman..." This is Paul's commandment. Paul also wishes that we don't get married, would all speak in tongues and be like him. Lots of cultural reasons for this, and that's where it stays--ancient culture.

Verse 13 is interesting, why would Paul command such a thing knowing that creation has been corrupted? Such a command is inviting abuse on the part of men (look through history, you'll see it). It's also interesting to note that while the woman was deceived, Adam willfully disobeyed.

So I respectfully disagree, the above 'sums' up nothing. Especially when you start getting into women leaders mentioned in the Bible (Phoebe, anyone?)

As for the original question, I don't see why not.

This interpretation really doesn't work. In the verses prior Paul says that he wishes that the men pray and not lift up holy hands in anger. He also wishes that women be modest in their apparel. Are we to believe this too is just an opinion? Does Romans 7:18 mean nothing good dwells in all of us, or just Paul? Is all of Romans 8 an opinion since Paul says, "I consider the present sufferings not worth comparing..."? What about 2 Timothy 4:1 where Paul states that, "I charge you..."?

Just because Paul says, "I urge" does not mean it is an opinion. Only once do we see this occur in the Pauline epistles, and it prefaces it by saying it is an opinion (albeit a wise one) and not a command of God. This means Paul understood his writings were authoritative and inspired and had to specify when they were not. Likewise, there are other passages where Paul does not say "I urge," but address similar material. The fact is, Paul's manner of speech is different in the Pastoral epistles than from his other epistles (which is why many say he didn't write the pastoral epistles - there's that much of a difference). So Paul saying, "I urge" does not denote anything.

Instead, we simply aren't understanding what this verse means. Teach does not apply to all instances of "teaching." The Greek word here (didasko, cognate of didaskalia and didaskalos) is generally used to describe authoritative doctrinal teaching. The Bible makes it clear that though we all teach the Gospel, not all of us are called to be doctrinal teachers (1 Corinthians 12:28-30, Ephesians 4:11). Likewise, the Bible is not forbidding all teaching. It is only referring to matters of authoritative doctrine and even this is only done when dealing with men (andros).

There is a Biblical economy between the male/female relationship within marriage and within Church. It is best if we follow it.

Buzzword
Jul 21st 2008, 04:18 AM
This interpretation really doesn't work. In the verses prior Paul says that he wishes that the men pray and not lift up holy hands in anger. He also wishes that women be modest in their apparel. Are we to believe this too is just an opinion? Does Romans 7:18 mean nothing good dwells in all of us, or just Paul? Is all of Romans 8 an opinion since Paul says, "I consider the present sufferings not worth comparing..."? What about 2 Timothy 4:1 where Paul states that, "I charge you..."?

Just because Paul says, "I urge" does not mean it is an opinion. Only once do we see this occur in the Pauline epistles, and it prefaces it by saying it is an opinion (albeit a wise one) and not a command of God. This means Paul understood his writings were authoritative and inspired and had to specify when they were not. Likewise, there are other passages where Paul does not say "I urge," but address similar material. The fact is, Paul's manner of speech is different in the Pastoral epistles than from his other epistles (which is why many say he didn't write the pastoral epistles - there's that much of a difference). So Paul saying, "I urge" does not denote anything.

Instead, we simply aren't understanding what this verse means. Teach does not apply to all instances of "teaching." The Greek word here (didasko, cognate of didaskalia and didaskalos) is generally used to describe authoritative doctrinal teaching. The Bible makes it clear that though we all teach the Gospel, not all of us are called to be doctrinal teachers (1 Corinthians 12:28-30, Ephesians 4:11). Likewise, the Bible is not forbidding all teaching. It is only referring to matters of authoritative doctrine and even this is only done when dealing with men (andros).

There is a Biblical economy between the male/female relationship within marriage and within Church. It is best if we follow it.

If we took all of Paul's words as literal, several hundred thousand churches would shut down, because if women "keep silent" as you would have them do, then the infrastructure of the Body of Christ cannot maintain itself.

God will call whom He will call, to paperwork, musicianship, teaching, witnessing, and preaching FROM THE PULPIT...

apothanein kerdos
Jul 21st 2008, 04:30 AM
If we took all of Paul's words as literal, several hundred thousand churches would shut down, because if women "keep silent" as you would have them do, then the infrastructure of the Body of Christ cannot maintain itself.

God will call whom He will call, to paperwork, musicianship, teaching, witnessing, and preaching FROM THE PULPIT...

So the pragmatic consequences outweigh the Biblical Truth? That's certainly erroneous.

Paul was saying that women needed to learn in silence - it says nothing about them remaining silent all the time, merely in their learning. This means being peaceable and not questioning or challenging the authority.

And that's just bad taste to start calling people unnecessary names.

Buzzword
Jul 21st 2008, 04:47 AM
So the pragmatic consequences outweigh the Biblical Truth? That's certainly erroneous.

Paul was saying that women needed to learn in silence - it says nothing about them remaining silent all the time, merely in their learning. This means being peaceable and not questioning or challenging the authority.

And that's just bad taste to start calling people unnecessary names.

It's more erroneous to ignore cultural and historical context in favor of personal opinion on church policy.

The pragmatic consequences outweigh your personal choice to ignore Paul's target audience.

How is your version of "learning in silence" any different from the Muslim law of women not being allowed to speak unless first spoken to by a man?

Neither allow a woman to express herself and challenge what may be outdated social and religious practices.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 21st 2008, 04:55 AM
It's more erroneous to ignore cultural and historical context in favor of personal opinion on church policy.

Considering Paul's commands are found elsewhere and that all other commands in the pastoral epistles are universal, how in the world can you justify saying it's only a cultural command? Care to defend this claim?


The pragmatic consequences outweigh your personal choice to ignore Paul's target audience.

So now we're using consequentialism with pragmatism? Ever going to use Christian philosophy, or are we stuck using the philosophy of John Dewey and John Stuart Mill? :rolleyes:

If what Paul is saying is universal and transcends cultures, then nothing can outweigh it.


How is your version of "learning in silence" any different from the Muslim law of women not being allowed to speak unless first spoken to by a man?

They're vastly different. For one, the Muslim law is based on the view that women are ontologically lower than men. In the Christian view, women are viewed as ontological equals with men, but when it comes to authoritarian roles women are in the submissive role. Authority, of course, does not denote importance unless you're an egomaniacal dictator - are you one? Of course that question is rhetorical. My point is authority doesn't denote importance - just because men have been given more authority doesn't mean they're more important.

Secondly, women are most certainly allowed to speak up, just not in an authoritative manner on doctrinal issues. She can talk on doctrine, teach on doctrine, learn about doctrine, etc - she just can't teach in an authoritative position (i.e. as a pastor).


Neither allow a woman to express herself and challenge what may be outdated social and religious practices.

Boo hoo?

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 04:58 AM
You must have missed the word learn. I'd most certainly want women, or men, or children to learn in silence and with subjection. Otherwise it's chaos. This verse, because I know someone is going to say it, does not exclude women from teaching, it only addresses proper learning.



The second word in verse 12, I "suffer not a woman..." This is Paul's commandment. Paul also wishes that we don't get married, would all speak in tongues and be like him. Lots of cultural reasons for this, and that's where it stays--ancient culture.

Verse 13 is interesting, why would Paul command such a thing knowing that creation has been corrupted? Such a command is inviting abuse on the part of men (look through history, you'll see it). It's also interesting to note that while the woman was deceived, Adam willfully disobeyed.

So I respectfully disagree, the above 'sums' up nothing. Especially when you start getting into women leaders mentioned in the Bible (Phoebe, anyone?)

As for the original question, I don't see why not.

This post fell apart when you said that creation has been corrupted.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 04:59 AM
Absolutely women can be pastors or deacons or elders.

Of course they can be, the question is SHOULD THEY BE...

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 05:01 AM
wow, I have never noticed that before..amazing how we overlook these things ...the Bible is so amazing. It is alive and yet the same word (cause it never changes) but is new everyday..cause you learn something everyday from it ..from verses that i have studied before over and over and never saw that.

I agree with wome being called. Many women were used in the bible. there were women prophets. We are told in later days that women would be used.
But, I think that some are not called..they are filled with the spirit of Jezebel..and only wanting some kind of women rights ..feminists..
I am a women by the way.

But, yes women are called. God speaks through them too. But many may disagree. But they have that right.

Yes women can be called, and God speaks through women.

I don't think that is keeping with the OP however.

If women are supposed to teach...why did Christ pick twelve men?

Athanasius
Jul 21st 2008, 05:04 AM
This post fell apart when you said that creation has been corrupted.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Have you read up to Chapter 3 yet?

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 05:04 AM
If women are supposed to teach...why did Christ pick 12 men to be his apostles?

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 05:05 AM
Have you read up to Chapter 3 yet?

Um yeah...Chapter three is AFTER the creation, not during it.

Athanasius
Jul 21st 2008, 05:08 AM
Um yeah...Chapter three is AFTER the creation, not during it.

Right... Because of the entrance of sin creation has been corrupted. So Paul saying that Adam was created before Eve is a misunderstood point. In the original creation - uncorrupted - we could take his words at face value. But something else is at play.

Besides, I said that right at the end of my post, so why did you ignore everything else? Just going to ride off what Apothanein said? Which is fine with me, I'll have to look into it.

Buzzword
Jul 21st 2008, 05:10 AM
Yes women can be called, and God speaks through women.

I don't think that is keeping with the OP however.

If women are supposed to teach...why did Christ pick twelve men?

Same reason Paul taught against putting women in authoritative positions:
The culture dictated a male-dominated approach.

Let's face the facts.
The apostles were already preaching a revolutionary message by saying that not only was there only 1 God, not only did He come to earth in human form, but that He offers a transformation of life as we know it.

I think pragmatism was the approach Christ took in choosing His initial intimate circle.

Imagine if he'd chosen 11 men and 1 woman.
I can see it now....
Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. But what makes this woman think she can speak among men?"

:hmm:

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 05:20 AM
Right... Because of the entrance of sin creation has been corrupted. So Paul saying that Adam was created before Eve is a misunderstood point. In the original creation - uncorrupted - we could take his words at face value. But something else is at play.

Besides, I said that right at the end of my post, so why did you ignore everything else? Just going to ride off what Apothanein said? Which is fine with me, I'll have to look into it.

Creation was never corrupted.

What did apothanein say? I must have missed it.

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 05:21 AM
Same reason Paul taught against putting women in authoritative positions:
The culture dictated a male-dominated approach.

Let's face the facts.
The apostles were already preaching a revolutionary message by saying that not only was there only 1 God, not only did He come to earth in human form, but that He offers a transformation of life as we know it.

I think pragmatism was the approach Christ took in choosing His initial intimate circle.

Imagine if he'd chosen 11 men and 1 woman.
I can see it now....
Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. But what makes this woman think she can speak among men?"

:hmm:

What Paul wrote was influenced by the Holy Spirit and thus were not his words but the words of God.

God said he suffers not a woman to teach, but that being said he'll probably make one a teacher just to keep it real. LOL

Athanasius
Jul 21st 2008, 05:22 AM
Creation was never corrupted.

What did apothanein say? I must have missed it.

Creation was never corrupted? Not the sin that separates man from God. Not from man having to toil for sustenance. Not in death entering the world... You sure it was never corrupted by sin?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 21st 2008, 05:24 AM
Same reason Paul taught against putting women in authoritative positions:
The culture dictated a male-dominated approach.

Let's face the facts.
The apostles were already preaching a revolutionary message by saying that not only was there only 1 God, not only did He come to earth in human form, but that He offers a transformation of life as we know it.

I think pragmatism was the approach Christ took in choosing His initial intimate circle.

Imagine if he'd chosen 11 men and 1 woman.
I can see it now....
Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. But what makes this woman think she can speak among men?"

:hmm:


The only problem with this theory is that it's false. ;)

The view you're espousing actually comes from an Enlightenment/modernistic view of Biblical history. It assumes that biases were so engrained into the Biblical authors that God figured He couldn't overcome them. Yet, we have Jesus speaking to a Samaritan woman, having no problem being touched by a woman, and spending a bit of time with prostitutes. All of these actions were far more offensive than having a female in authority. In fact, due to the acts of a female judge in the past, the Jews would have been uncomfortable with female leadership, but certainly not more offended than what Jesus was already doing.

The point in all of this being the New Testament authors taught things more offensive than female headship (more offensive at that time), so if it was Christ's intention for women to teach and be leaders, He certainly would have said something. Likewise, if it was Paul's intention then He would have done the same thing.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 21st 2008, 05:25 AM
Just so everyone knows - I'm separating myself from the "creation wasn't corrupted" aspect of this debate. Romans 8 - as do many other passages - teaches that creation was corrupted in the Fall. In fact, this actually lends credit to my argument (as Paul states it was women who fell first, which is why God has placed them in a submissive position).

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 05:27 AM
Creation was never corrupted? Not the sin that separates man from God. Not from man having to toil for sustenance. Not in death entering the world... You sure it was never corrupted by sin?

All that corruption came AFTER the creation.

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 05:29 AM
The only problem with this theory is that it's false. ;)

The view you're espousing actually comes from an Enlightenment/modernistic view of Biblical history. It assumes that biases were so engrained into the Biblical authors that God figured He couldn't overcome them. Yet, we have Jesus speaking to a Samaritan woman, having no problem being touched by a woman, and spending a bit of time with prostitutes. All of these actions were far more offensive than having a female in authority. In fact, due to the acts of a female judge in the past, the Jews would have been uncomfortable with female leadership, but certainly not more offended than what Jesus was already doing.

The point in all of this being the New Testament authors taught things more offensive than female headship (more offensive at that time), so if it was Christ's intention for women to teach and be leaders, He certainly would have said something. Likewise, if it was Paul's intention then He would have done the same thing.

Proof that miracles can happen.

We agree on something!

Peace

Athanasius
Jul 21st 2008, 05:33 AM
All that corruption came AFTER the creation.

Yes... I know that. First was God's original creation (Gen 1:31), then that creation is corrupted by sin, we know that because of Genesis 3 and as Apo has also said, Romans 8.

Creation was well off for the first two chapters of the Bible, no one's disputing that. But creation does become corrupted, and still is corrupted.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 21st 2008, 05:45 AM
Here's something I want everyone to consider before continuing discussion. It's a good mental exercise that should get rid of presuppositions before we come to this debate.

Does God call people to specific roles or is it our duty to "make our destiny" in terms of what we will do in life? If we ascribe to the latter then we face quite a few problems (such as God's foreknowledge and if He designates who has what gift). If we ascribe to the former view, then we can get somewhere.

If we believe God calls us to certain positions within the Church, we must now wonder if there is a hierarchy of authority within the Church. Again, if we say there isn't one we must face anarchy within the Church and would have to dismiss the pastoral epistles (which spell out an authority hierarchy). if, however, we say there is a hierarchy of authority in the Church, we can continue.

In this hierarchy, some are called to be elders, some pastors, and some simple members. Here we are again, looking down two roads. The pastors and elders hold more authority than the laymen. Thus, does this mean that the pastors and elders are more important or ontologically higher than the laypeople of the church? If we say yes, then we have to go back and redefine our belief in church authority (which begets the other problems we then face). If, however, we say that authority doesn't cause someone to be more important or ontologically higher, we can move on.

Since we now know that having more authority doesn't make a person more important, let's look at some roles that have authority. A mother has authority over her children. A father likewise has authority over his children. Yet, both roles are different. A mother is a role held exclusively for females while being a father is held exclusively for males. A father, no matter how hard he tries, cannot be a mother. With this in mind, let's move on.

If God has given gender specific roles in other areas of life, is it outside the realm of possibility or even probability that God would impart certain roles to certain genders within the Church? If we answer yes to this question, we must now explain why God creates gender specific roles in some areas, but not when it comes to the church. If we answer no, then we can progress.

Since there can be gender specific roles in the Church (such as older women teaching younger women), if God commanded that only men who are called to hold authority (not just any man, but one that is called), does this mean that women are viewed as lower? Based upon all the previous propositions, no - God, for whatever reason, has seen it fit to allow men certain roles and women certain roles.

Even if you disagree with the above, it does a few things:

1) It shows that such a position is actually logical and not based upon 'chauvinism'

2) It shows that such a position is logically solid; I challenge anyone with an opposite view to try to show how it's illogical. You can show how it might be wrong, but it's certainly not illogical.

3) It shows that no one is devaluing women or their importance. We're simply saying that different roles have different elements of authority, but this has nothing to do with importance or ontological equality.

Revinius
Jul 21st 2008, 12:29 PM
I think feminism has alot to answer for in taking sufferage beyond the bounds of its purpose...

Buzzword
Jul 21st 2008, 12:42 PM
I think feminism has alot to answer for in taking sufferage beyond the bounds of its purpose...

Like what?


Femi-nazis have taken it too far occasionally, especially in the realm of wanting equal pay, but still wanting special treatment because it's "just good manners" to let them go first when the ship's going down, or for the man to pay for dates.

I miss the Harriet Beecher Stowe kind of feminists, who were willing to go to jail for protesting BECAUSE a man would get that penalty, even when the judge offered to let them go for being female.

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 01:31 PM
I think feminism has alot to answer for in taking sufferage beyond the bounds of its purpose...

Isn't that the truth.

Personally I think this country started to spiral into a deep pit from whence it can't return when feminism got out of control.

Examples?

1. Feminism brings about abortion, which is legalized murder.
2. Feminism brings about the de-masculinization of men, and a weaker culture.
3. Feminism brings "tolerance" to a wide range of issues that men never would have supported before, including gay marraige.

Theres a few examples. No offense ladies but I think the world was a better place when you were in your proper place, as God intended. I am also aware that I will be labeled as a chauvenistic pig for even daring to utter such things in our liberated age. LOL

No worries ladies, I can't change anything. :P

apothanein kerdos
Jul 21st 2008, 01:48 PM
We need to realize there are two types of feminism - Biblical feminism and secular feminism.

Biblical feminism argues for proper treatment of women within the economy of God as equal beings. The Judeo-Christian view of women is certainly unique in worldviews (or at least was one of the first) to elevate women in the way it does. Genesis 1 clearly states that both men and women are made in the image of God and though they have differing roles are equal. It even states that Eve is a helper, not a servant, not an addition, but a helper taken from the rib of Adam.

In the New Testament we see that the resurrection of Christ was first revealed to women (this is consistent throughout all the Gospel accounts of the resurrection). What makes this unique is that a woman's testimony general wasn't valid in the ancient world, so that Jesus would reveal His resurrection to women first shows that (1) He was turning society upside down and (2) He didn't devalue women as human beings.

Likewise, Paul allows for women to minister to other women, to partake in church, to be deacons (so long as the deacons hold no authority), to be active in serving the church, etc. Though he recognizes the economy of God and that the two genders compliment each other, his view of women is considerably higher than it should have been considering the times.

Secular feminism, however, simply wants to do everything a man does. It wasn't so much an issue when men worked from the home, worked in the field, or didn't travel to go to work. It used to be, generally speaking, that the entire family was involved in earning a living for the family. Then the Industrial Revolution came along and messed it all up.

Radical secular feminism takes it even further and attempts to elevate women above men. I think the funniest example is when they call "history" "hystory" or "herstory." The reason it's so funny is they object to the word "his" being in it because they see it at being male centered...nevermind the fact that "history" comes from the Greek word historia, which is a feminine ending. :rolleyes:

We should all be feminists in the Biblical sense, that is, in calling that women do earn equal treatment when they're in the work place, that they are treated with respect, and that motherhood is valued as an honorable occupation. It's sad that a woman would rather be a CEO than a mother when being a mother, in my opinion, is one of the most honorable things a woman can do. Then again, it is equally sad that a father would forgo his calling as a father and spend 10-12 hours a day at his job...he too is giving up a noble calling.

theleast
Jul 21st 2008, 01:56 PM
We need to realize there are two types of feminism - Biblical feminism and secular feminism.

Biblical feminism argues for proper treatment of women within the economy of God as equal beings. The Judeo-Christian view of women is certainly unique in worldviews (or at least was one of the first) to elevate women in the way it does. Genesis 1 clearly states that both men and women are made in the image of God and though they have differing roles are equal. It even states that Eve is a helper, not a servant, not an addition, but a helper taken from the rib of Adam.

In the New Testament we see that the resurrection of Christ was first revealed to women (this is consistent throughout all the Gospel accounts of the resurrection). What makes this unique is that a woman's testimony general wasn't valid in the ancient world, so that Jesus would reveal His resurrection to women first shows that (1) He was turning society upside down and (2) He didn't devalue women as human beings.

Likewise, Paul allows for women to minister to other women, to partake in church, to be deacons (so long as the deacons hold no authority), to be active in serving the church, etc. Though he recognizes the economy of God and that the two genders compliment each other, his view of women is considerably higher than it should have been considering the times.

Secular feminism, however, simply wants to do everything a man does. It wasn't so much an issue when men worked from the home, worked in the field, or didn't travel to go to work. It used to be, generally speaking, that the entire family was involved in earning a living for the family. Then the Industrial Revolution came along and messed it all up.

Radical secular feminism takes it even further and attempts to elevate women above men. I think the funniest example is when they call "history" "hystory" or "herstory." The reason it's so funny is they object to the word "his" being in it because they see it at being male centered...nevermind the fact that "history" comes from the Greek word historia, which is a feminine ending. :rolleyes:

We should all be feminists in the Biblical sense, that is, in calling that women do earn equal treatment when they're in the work place, that they are treated with respect, and that motherhood is valued as an honorable occupation. It's sad that a woman would rather be a CEO than a mother when being a mother, in my opinion, is one of the most honorable things a woman can do. Then again, it is equally sad that a father would forgo his calling as a father and spend 10-12 hours a day at his job...he too is giving up a noble calling.

I agree with you on this post. Women are equal but not the same. They are eligible for the same rewards from the father as we are, the ultimate equal pay day. :rofl:

Steve509
Jul 21st 2008, 05:01 PM
Likewise, Paul allows for women to minister to other women, to partake in church, to be deacons (so long as the deacons hold no authority), to be active in serving the church, etc. Though he recognizes the economy of God and that the two genders compliment each other, his view of women is considerably higher than it should have been considering the times.

but does his view reflect the times he was living in? and should we assume that his view regarding women in the church should be reflected in our churches today?

my church would say, "yes." others may not.

in paul's time women had no authority at all. they were little more than property.

in the catholic church, nuns have some authority. nuns teach in catholic schools. they just can't be priests.

does anyone know what verses are cited that those who say women can be pastors hold up as evidence for thier point of view?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 21st 2008, 06:50 PM
but does his view reflect the times he was living in? and should we assume that his view regarding women in the church should be reflected in our churches today?

my church would say, "yes." others may not.

in paul's time women had no authority at all. they were little more than property.

in the catholic church, nuns have some authority. nuns teach in catholic schools. they just can't be priests.

does anyone know what verses are cited that those who say women can be pastors hold up as evidence for thier point of view?

I'm a bit confused by the wording of your argument, but Paul was not reflecting the times he lived in. Women did have authority through various cults (which explains why this might have been a problem in Timothy's church because some of these cults were around his area). Paul was merely reminding Timothy's church (much like he reminded the Corinthian church) that women have a different authority role than men. That's reflecting God's economy, not the culture.

Steve509
Jul 21st 2008, 10:29 PM
I'm a bit confused by the wording of your argument, but Paul was not reflecting the times he lived in. Women did have authority through various cults (which explains why this might have been a problem in Timothy's church because some of these cults were around his area). Paul was merely reminding Timothy's church (much like he reminded the Corinthian church) that women have a different authority role than men. That's reflecting God's economy, not the culture.

that may be because i'm not making an arguement, i'm asking a question. i'm unclear if paul's teaching was for paul's time or if it applies to our time as well.

how is it that some churches do not allow women in a pos'n of authority, and others do?

theleast
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:16 AM
that may be because i'm not making an arguement, i'm asking a question. i'm unclear if paul's teaching was for paul's time or if it applies to our time as well.

how is it that some churches do not allow women in a pos'n of authority, and others do?

The bible was written for all ages. It is the Holy Spirit working through men that inspired them to write the words they write. It is God who wrote the bible.

Some churches allow it because they do not keep true to what the bible says to do.

Steve509
Jul 22nd 2008, 12:57 AM
The bible was written for all ages. It is the Holy Spirit working through men that inspired them to write the words they write. It is God who wrote the bible.

Some churches allow it because they do not keep true to what the bible says to do.

ok. so if i sell my daughter into slavery, how much should i ask for her?

down the street from me is an openly gay man. shall i stone him to death? just let the blood be on his own head.

clearly Lev was written for a certain group at a certain time period. not for all time.

Athanasius
Jul 22nd 2008, 01:25 AM
Sir, you are wearing clothes of two fabrics!
And don't eat shellfish. God hates shellfish.

Buzzword
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:31 AM
ok. so if i sell my daughter into slavery, how much should i ask for her?

down the street from me is an openly gay man. shall i stone him to death? just let the blood be on his own head.

clearly Lev was written for a certain group at a certain time period. not for all time.


Sir, you are wearing clothes of two fabrics!
And don't eat shellfish. God hates shellfish.

One-two pwnage! :D

mcgyver
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:34 AM
Ohhhh Boy :P

Let me first of all state that I believe that men and women are of equal value and equal worth in the eyes of God.

Having said that however, I also believe that we have been appointed to different roles...From Genesis to Revelation the man has been given the role of leadership within the church and the family, and IMO will be held accountable for that leadership role.

That Jesus elevated the role and worth of women to unprecedented levels is without question. Before Jesus, women were viewed culturally (throughout the world BTW) as little more than property or the means to produce offspring.

That women were a vital part of the ministry of Jesus is without question.

Obviously, in the OT God set up a patriarchal system, and the question is: Did that system change in the NT?

Did God change the role of leadership within the church and the home?

I don't believe that He did, based on several things that we find scripturally.

Obviously, anyone who has read Timothy and Titus is familiar with language used which definitely assigns the roles of Pastor (Bishop/Overseer/etc.) and Deacon to men exclusively.

But is this simply something that was simply cultural and therefore no longer relevant today?

Certainly there are some cultural aspects to be found: In Paul's various instructions to the churches in reference to the way a Christian women should dress and deport herself (as examples) are in diametric opposition to the practices of the pagan temples. IOWs, Paul did not want a Christian woman to be confused with a pagan...and he was seeking to set these churches in order.

So how can we tell if reserving the leadership role to men was likewise simply cultural?

I think that we can solve that question from other passages of NT Scripture that model the marital relationship between a man and a woman (even as the Church is called the Bride of Christ):

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." Eph 5:22-23

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Col 3:18

"Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives" 1 Peter 3:1

Here is something to think about...

A man and a woman are married...both are Christian and the wife, being a Godly woman is in Biblical submission to her husband. They get up on a Sunday morning, get the kids together and go off to Church.

When they get there, the wife kisses the husband as he goes to find their pew...the woman puts on her clerical garb and climbs up behind the pulpit...

Who now is in submission to whom?

Has God now placed His instructions in abeyance?

Is He now the author of confusion?

Just something to think about :hmm:

theleast
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:48 AM
ok. so if i sell my daughter into slavery, how much should i ask for her?

down the street from me is an openly gay man. shall i stone him to death? just let the blood be on his own head.

clearly Lev was written for a certain group at a certain time period. not for all time.

Actually if you read the WHOLE bible you will see that we are under a new covenent in Christ.

The law has vanished away.

Nice try though. :P

theleast
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:49 AM
One-two pwnage! :D

Um...not really.

Again nice try but you will have to get up earlier in the morning than that to convince me that the bible is...outdated.

:cool:

Revinius
Jul 22nd 2008, 07:39 AM
I have no moral problem if the judiciary decided homosexuality deserved the death penalty, or even adultery also.

JesusPhreak27
Jul 22nd 2008, 09:06 AM
Ohhhh Boy :P

Let me first of all state that I believe that men and women are of equal value and equal worth in the eyes of God.

Having said that however, I also believe that we have been appointed to different roles...From Genesis to Revelation the man has been given the role of leadership within the church and the family, and IMO will be held accountable for that leadership role.

That Jesus elevated the role and worth of women to unprecedented levels is without question. Before Jesus, women were viewed culturally (throughout the world BTW) as little more than property or the means to produce offspring.

That women were a vital part of the ministry of Jesus is without question.

Obviously, in the OT God set up a patriarchal system, and the question is: Did that system change in the NT?

Did God change the role of leadership within the church and the home?

I don't believe that He did, based on several things that we find scripturally.

Obviously, anyone who has read Timothy and Titus is familiar with language used which definitely assigns the roles of Pastor (Bishop/Overseer/etc.) and Deacon to men exclusively.

But is this simply something that was simply cultural and therefore no longer relevant today?

Certainly there are some cultural aspects to be found: In Paul's various instructions to the churches in reference to the way a Christian women should dress and deport herself (as examples) are in diametric opposition to the practices of the pagan temples. IOWs, Paul did not want a Christian woman to be confused with a pagan...and he was seeking to set these churches in order.

So how can we tell if reserving the leadership role to men was likewise simply cultural?

I think that we can solve that question from other passages of NT Scripture that model the marital relationship between a man and a woman (even as the Church is called the Bride of Christ):

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." Eph 5:22-23

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Col 3:18

"Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives" 1 Peter 3:1

Here is something to think about...

A man and a woman are married...both are Christian and the wife, being a Godly woman is in Biblical submission to her husband. They get up on a Sunday morning, get the kids together and go off to Church.

When they get there, the wife kisses the husband as he goes to find their pew...the woman puts on her clerical garb and climbs up behind the pulpit...

Who now is in submission to whom?

Has God now placed His instructions in abeyance?

Is He now the author of confusion?

Just something to think about :hmm:

I used the hilighted text in a sermon I gave not too long ago about worship...... the question I have for everyone (and thank you for bringing this up) is this.....

In that passage Paul says that husbands are to love their wives the way Christ loves the church..... now if I remember correctly from reading the Gospels.....Christ came to serve and give all for the church correct?

If Im right on that then that means we as husbands are to do the same.....

My wife belongs to the New Apostolic Church and they teach the "help mate" concept -- which until I had a chance to talk to her father about I disagreed with...now I agree with it whole heartedly....

It simply states that we (husbands and wives) are to support one another wholey......

This being said..... why can't women serve as leaders? Look at Deborah....she served as a Judge and brought through her God once again saved Israel....... This was during the OT even.......

apothanein kerdos
Jul 22nd 2008, 02:20 PM
that may be because i'm not making an arguement, i'm asking a question. i'm unclear if paul's teaching was for paul's time or if it applies to our time as well.

how is it that some churches do not allow women in a pos'n of authority, and others do?

Because not all churches realize they've fallen into an Enlightenment mindset. Think of how arrogant their attitudes are. They are saying that they are far more enlightened and equal than Paul - a man that was chosen by God to write most of the New Testament. Likewise, they're even saying they know more about equality than Jesus since His 12 authoritative disciples were all men (women were part of His disciples, just not part of the 12). Likewise, it's saying that our view of authority within the Church is superior to the 1st Century view of authority in the Church.

Those are some pretty bold claims to make.



ok. so if i sell my daughter into slavery, how much should i ask for her?

down the street from me is an openly gay man. shall i stone him to death? just let the blood be on his own head.

clearly Lev was written for a certain group at a certain time period. not for all time.

Aside from the fact that this is taken from a letter to Dr. Laura that is also in support of homosexuality by invalidating the Bible...

Leviticus wasn't for a certain time period. It was for a certain group of people and transcended time. The time from the Exodus up to Christ was full of different cultural changes, different viewpoints among the Jews, and so on. Yet, Leviticus remained applicable in word and spirit until Christ fulfilled it (it is still applicable in spirit). This means the Law of God transcended culture and time.

Buzzword

No "pwnage" there at all. (LAWLZ - r3v3r53 p0wn!!!!1!1!11111!!!!one) <-- see, no need for childish antics. :)


In that passage Paul says that husbands are to love their wives the way Christ loves the church..... now if I remember correctly from reading the Gospels.....Christ came to serve and give all for the church correct?

If Im right on that then that means we as husbands are to do the same.....

My wife belongs to the New Apostolic Church and they teach the "help mate" concept -- which until I had a chance to talk to her father about I disagreed with...now I agree with it whole heartedly....

It simply states that we (husbands and wives) are to support one another wholey......

Does this mean we're the helpmate to Christ, or does it mean He has authority over us?

When Paul compares husbands to be the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the Church, it means two things:

1) The husband is the authority in the relationship - not in a parent/child way of authority, but in a way of making the final choice on the family decisions

2) The husband is commanded to put his wife's needs before his own and sacrificially love her. Instead of going out and buying that big screen TV, he should do things with that money that will benefit the wife or family - by being the head, the husband willingly puts himself on the bottom of the totem pole if it is best for the family.


This being said..... why can't women serve as leaders? Look at Deborah....she served as a Judge and brought through her God once again saved Israel....... This was during the OT even.......

Two things:

1) Paul said women can't serve as leaders. We simply can't throw this aside. If we say, "Well that was cultural" I can just as easily say the Deborah story was just as much culture.

2) The Deborah story doesn't apply to this conversation because the role of a judge was far different from that of a pastor. Between the time Joshua took the land of Canaan to the time Saul was king, Israel lived in anarchy. There was no legislative body, no king, "all men did what was right in their own eyes." Thus, God sent judges to act as judicial guides in a sort of theocracy. Though the judges would use prophecy and offer spiritual truths, it was to a judicial end. Likewise, the time of the judges was one where the judges were corrupt and it is a narrative, not a prescription, whereas 1 Timothy is purely prescription.

What the above means, then, is it's harder to draw literal lessons from historical narratives than it is from prescription passages. What we do know is that the time of judges passed quite some time ago and that the pastor is in no way, shape, or form an equivocation of what a judge was. Thus, it is nigh impossible to use Deborah as an example of a female pastor in the Bible.

Steve509
Jul 22nd 2008, 05:16 PM
Paul said women can't serve as leaders.

if a senior pastor is the leader of a church, why couldn't a woman be a deacon or deliver a message to the church body? i don't see leadership here. i don't even see authority. they would be following the direction of the sr pastor.

am i missing something? i must be because my church does not have women deacons or women preaching to the church body. and i have no doubt there are women quailfied to do so.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 22nd 2008, 06:37 PM
if a senior pastor is the leader of a church, why couldn't a woman be a deacon or deliver a message to the church body? i don't see leadership here. i don't even see authority. they would be following the direction of the sr pastor.

am i missing something? i must be because my church does not have women deacons or women preaching to the church body. and i have no doubt there are women quailfied to do so.


It's refering to authority in general, not supreme authority (which a pastor, Biblically, doesn't have - he shares his authority with the elders). Likewise, it only deals with direct authority over men - it says nothing about having authority over children or other women.

My church does have female deacons, but the deacons role in the church is as a servant and sometimes as teachers (these women teach women's bible studies, children's school, youth, council the younger women, etc - they are VERY well versed in the Bible). The elders and pastors, however, do hold authority in the church - the church's doctrine, the direction it's going, etc - therefore Paul would object to women being in this position.

As for teaching, I think I pointed out (I'm not sure) that Paul is merely referring to authoritative doctrinal teaching - not teaching in general. If she wants to share the Gospel or something that is on her heart, let her ask her husband (or church authority) and by all means, get up and share it. If, however, she wishes to instruct me on proper doctrine that would be a bit iffy according to Paul.

Steve509
Jul 22nd 2008, 10:03 PM
It's refering to authority in general, not supreme authority (which a pastor, Biblically, doesn't have - he shares his authority with the elders). Likewise, it only deals with direct authority over men - it says nothing about having authority over children or other women.

My church does have female deacons, but the deacons role in the church is as a servant and sometimes as teachers (these women teach women's bible studies, children's school, youth, council the younger women, etc - they are VERY well versed in the Bible). The elders and pastors, however, do hold authority in the church - the church's doctrine, the direction it's going, etc - therefore Paul would object to women being in this position.

As for teaching, I think I pointed out (I'm not sure) that Paul is merely referring to authoritative doctrinal teaching - not teaching in general. If she wants to share the Gospel or something that is on her heart, let her ask her husband (or church authority) and by all means, get up and share it. If, however, she wishes to instruct me on proper doctrine that would be a bit iffy according to Paul.

there are many, many women much more knowledgeable about scripture than i will ever be. would it be unproper for a woman to point out an error in my interpretation of scripture? would she have to have her husband do it?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 22nd 2008, 11:28 PM
there are many, many women much more knowledgeable about scripture than i will ever be. would it be unproper for a woman to point out an error in my interpretation of scripture? would she have to have her husband do it?

According to Scripture, yes, it would be improper

quiet dove
Jul 22nd 2008, 11:48 PM
there are many, many women much more knowledgeable about scripture than i will ever be. would it be unproper for a woman to point out an error in my interpretation of scripture? would she have to have her husband do it?

Which would you prefer, the woman let you continue in error, or to try and show you where you were in error. Would that woman be held accountable by God for not correcting you, especially if you are willing to accept that correction and the correction may help you stay on a clearer path for God?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 12:59 AM
Which would you prefer, the woman let you continue in error, or to try and show you where you were in error. Would that woman be held accountable by God for not correcting you, especially if you are willing to accept that correction and the correction may help you stay on a clearer path for God?

If the correction it out of place, yes. It's one thing to say, "I think you should look at it this way..." as opposed to, "Here's where you're wrong" and speaking from a position of authority.

quiet dove
Jul 23rd 2008, 01:23 AM
If the correction it out of place, yes. It's one thing to say, "I think you should look at it this way..." as opposed to, "Here's where you're wrong" and speaking from a position of authority.

Well, right is right and wrong is wrong, so if the correction was right, or in truth, you would ignore it. How can correction be any thing but basically authorative? Especially if the correction is right and truth?

I mean I don't care personally about being 'clergy' so the argument is not really important to me.( That is not to say it is not an important issue - I'm just personally not getting all worked up about it - Biblcally solid messages are priority whether brought to us by a man or a woman - right?) But I do care about being in God's will, walking in the Spirit, and if He says, go tell this guy he is making a mistake, or wrong, thats what I would do. And would be doing with authority, God's authority.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 01:32 AM
Well, right is right and wrong is wrong, so if the correction was right, or in truth, you would ignore it. How can correction be any thing but basically authorative? Especially if the correction is right and truth?

I mean I don't care personally about being 'clergy' so the argument is not really important to me.( That is not to say it is not an important issue - I'm just personally not getting all worked up about it - Biblcally solid messages are priority whether brought to us by a man or a woman - right?) But I do care about being in God's will, walking in the Spirit, and if He says, go tell this guy he is making a mistake, or wrong, thats what I would do. And would be doing with authority, God's authority.

If only it were so simple as "either A or B." Truth is truth, but how that truth is presented also matters. If someone wants to share the Gospel and open people's minds to it, this person would speak truth. However, assume the person passes out brownies laced with marijuana in order to relax people (and this has been done before).

Thus, the truth is presented, but it is done in the wrong way.

Likewise, though a woman can certainly teach the truth, the Bible is clear that she is not to do so in an authoritative manner. I would say you'd have to deal with Paul before you came out and said, "Yeah, but..."

Athanasius
Jul 23rd 2008, 01:55 AM
This interpretation really doesn't work. In the verses prior Paul says that he wishes that the men pray and not lift up holy hands in anger. He also wishes that women be modest in their apparel. Are we to believe this too is just an opinion? Does Romans 7:18 mean nothing good dwells in all of us, or just Paul? Is all of Romans 8 an opinion since Paul says, "I consider the present sufferings not worth comparing..."? What about 2 Timothy 4:1 where Paul states that, "I charge you..."?

Just because Paul says, "I urge" does not mean it is an opinion. Only once do we see this occur in the Pauline epistles, and it prefaces it by saying it is an opinion (albeit a wise one) and not a command of God. This means Paul understood his writings were authoritative and inspired and had to specify when they were not. Likewise, there are other passages where Paul does not say "I urge," but address similar material. The fact is, Paul's manner of speech is different in the Pastoral epistles than from his other epistles (which is why many say he didn't write the pastoral epistles - there's that much of a difference). So Paul saying, "I urge" does not denote anything.

Instead, we simply aren't understanding what this verse means. Teach does not apply to all instances of "teaching." The Greek word here (didasko, cognate of didaskalia and didaskalos) is generally used to describe authoritative doctrinal teaching. The Bible makes it clear that though we all teach the Gospel, not all of us are called to be doctrinal teachers (1 Corinthians 12:28-30, Ephesians 4:11). Likewise, the Bible is not forbidding all teaching. It is only referring to matters of authoritative doctrine and even this is only done when dealing with men (andros).

There is a Biblical economy between the male/female relationship within marriage and within Church. It is best if we follow it.

Well, it all sounds good...


According to Scripture, yes, it would be improper

And then I read this. I mean, I'm not out to believe what I want to believe, and as hard as it is to accept things against how you want things to be, it must be done. So... I'll have to do some studying for sure, because while I find the first reply to be sensible, the second... Not so much.

quiet dove
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:07 AM
If only it were so simple as "either A or B." Truth is truth, but how that truth is presented also matters. If someone wants to share the Gospel and open people's minds to it, this person would speak truth. However, assume the person passes out brownies laced with marijuana in order to relax people (and this has been done before).

Thus, the truth is presented, but it is done in the wrong way.

Likewise, though a woman can certainly teach the truth, the Bible is clear that she is not to do so in an authoritative manner. I would say you'd have to deal with Paul before you came out and said, "Yeah, but..."

Well, anyone who would lace brownies marijuana would already be showing fruit that did not come from the Spirit, regardless of their message. I'm not talking about unscrupulous people, that is another issue all together. Comparing and honest, god fearing woman, who has been given a message of truth from God and is expected by God to proclaim that message hardly compares to an unscrupulous, sneaky, obviously not walking in the Spirit individual, be they man or woman.

And as far as say church services go, a man disrupting is just as disrupting as a woman disrupting. And really, I could care less about leading a church, and if God said women shouldn't do it, then so be it. Obedience is the important thing and I think women being submissive takes us all the way back to the Garden and the apple, but thats just my opinion.

But say the leadership of a particular church appoints a woman obviously because they believe it is what God told them to do, maybe to teach classes, or even give a sermon. We know from scripture it is not unheard of for God to use women in mighty ways, and not just having babies that grow up to be Isaiah, Jeremiah or John the Baptist. Is it beyond what we know in scripture that God would tell a women, be trained, lead this church, proclaim my Truth?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:09 AM
Well, it all sounds good...



And then I read this. I mean, I'm not out to believe what I want to believe, and as hard as it is to accept things against how you want things to be, it must be done. So... I'll have to do some studying for sure, because while I find the first reply to be sensible, the second... Not so much.

Well let me explain what I mean by the second one.

When I say a woman cannot correct someone in doctrine from an authoritative position, I mean as an actual teacher or pastor. In other words, she can't sit there and go, "This is our belief, you can't believe this or else there will be consequences (imposed by the church)."

She can, however, say, "That's not right, let me suggest..."

I did a horrible job explaining it originally and what I meant.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:16 AM
Well, anyone who would lace brownies marijuana would already be showing fruit that did not come from the Spirit, regardless of their message. I'm not talking about unscrupulous people, that is another issue all together. Comparing and honest, god fearing woman, who has been given a message of truth from God and is expected by God to proclaim that message hardly compares to an unscrupulous, sneaky, obviously not walking in the Spirit individual, be they man or woman.

If the Bible forbids women to teach from an authoritative position [over men], then it is not God that tells her to preach a message. Therefore, she has the same spirit as the person lacing brownies.


But say the leadership of a particular church appoints a woman obviously because they believe it is what God told them to do, maybe to teach classes, or even give a sermon. We know from scripture it is not unheard of for God to use women in mighty ways, and not just having babies that grow up to be Isaiah, Jeremiah or John the Baptist. Is it beyond what we know in scripture that God would tell a women, be trained, lead this church, proclaim my Truth?

The problem with the argument is it assumes too much. It assumes that God would lead a church to go contrary to His Word. Before we can say, "God is leading me to x" we must show how x either lines up with Scripture or, minimally, doesn't contradict Scripture (that is, Scripture doesn't really deal with the issue).

Would God lead a woman to give a message to people or to a person? Absolutely as this is done in the Bible. Would He lead a church to appoint one as a minister, elder, or any position of spiritual doctrinal authority over a male or men? No, He wouldn't - this "leading" would merely be the people's own desire.

Before going on, let me explain that I'm all for women being teachers. I have been a vocal opponent of a certain seminary that fired a female professor because of the seminary's interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. She was teaching Hebrew - teaching Hebrew is not doctrinal, is not spiritually authoritative, and hardly qualifies as being in a position of a church leader. She should have been allowed to teach Hebrew.

I'm also a huge fan of Nancy Pearcey. She corrects vast swaths of people with her book Total Truth, yet she does not assume an authoritative role in doing so (e.g. as a pastor writing a book).

Does this explain what I've thus far failed to explain?

quiet dove
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:26 AM
What exactly defines "a position of authority" in your understanding? I am just asking to avoid confusion.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:41 AM
What exactly defines "a position of authority" in your understanding? I am just asking to avoid confusion.
That's a fair question - I think that's where the problem in the conversation has been. We both had different definitions, but applied our own definition to the other person's question/answer. :)


When I say "position of authority" I do mean that in somewhat of a subjective or vague sense. In American society it would be a professor of theology or a pastor (more properly a pastor), or a church leader (such as an elder or ministerial staff member).

Likewise - for better or for worse - we view the pulpit as a position of authority, thus in our culture it would be best not to have a woman speak from that pulpit.

A woman on the street, a member of the congregation, etc is not holding a position of authority. A woman who writes books is not holding a position of authority. Her say has no direct influence on where the church goes, what policies it implements, etc.


Does that explain it, or does it bring up other questions (I ask because I know it's vague)?

quiet dove
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:46 AM
So basically in a position that leads the direction of a church? I mean it is not really teaching so much as a position of leadership. Like running a business, and the church is the business, for lack of a better way of putting it.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:50 AM
So basically in a position that leads the direction of a church? I mean it is not really teaching so much as a position of leadership. Like running a business, and the church is the business, for lack of a better way of putting it.

That is one way of putting it. I would also add sitting in a seat of authority, or putting on a robe of authority...i.e. preaching from the pulpit.

This is not to say women cannot teach doctrinal things period, just not in authority over men.

This, of course, is getting too close to the letter of the law for my own tastes, so I tend to shy away from trying to set bounds on what would and wouldn't be "authoritative teaching." Thus, if a person can teach from the pulpit without looking like an authority at a certain church, a woman can teach from there. If not, it is best to maybe have her teach somewhere else.

The spirit of the law would tend to teach that women just shouldn't be in a position of authority over a male or teach in an authoritative manner (e.g. this is the doctrine of the church, adhere to it or else).

quiet dove
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:55 AM
Well, really, there is a difference in teaching what is, not only Biblically sound, but approved, using that word carefully, but you know what I mean. As opposed to being in a position of determining what is 'approved', again, using that word just within the context here of our conversation.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:00 AM
Well, really, there is a difference in teaching what is, not only Biblically sound, but approved, using that word carefully, but you know what I mean. As opposed to being in a position of determining what is 'approved', again, using that word just within the context here of our conversation.

Right, and I'd say there's a difference between proclaiming what is 'approved' and declaring what is 'approved.' A pastor often declares (hopefully after weeks of study before presenting his message), meaning God - for whatever reason - does not want a woman in this position.

Athanasius
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:09 AM
That's a fair question - I think that's where the problem in the conversation has been. We both had different definitions, but applied our own definition to the other person's question/answer. :)

When I say "position of authority" I do mean that in somewhat of a subjective or vague sense. In American society it would be a professor of theology or a pastor (more properly a pastor), or a church leader (such as an elder or ministerial staff member).

Likewise - for better or for worse - we view the pulpit as a position of authority, thus in our culture it would be best not to have a woman speak from that pulpit.

A woman on the street, a member of the congregation, etc is not holding a position of authority. A woman who writes books is not holding a position of authority. Her say has no direct influence on where the church goes, what policies it implements, etc.

Does that explain it, or does it bring up other questions (I ask because I know it's vague)?


What you're getting at, then, is that women shouldn't hold authoritative positions when it comes to theological, ethical and spiritual matters? I'm assuming something along the lines of a reversal of the creation order?

quiet dove
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:17 AM
Right, and I'd say there's a difference between proclaiming what is 'approved' and declaring what is 'approved.' A pastor often declares (hopefully after weeks of study before presenting his message), meaning God - for whatever reason - does not want a woman in this position.

I understand that women can be the causer of much trouble, but of course so can men. So that aside and understood. There have been a bunch of times in individual lives, like marriages, and then on a more public scale, churches and so on, that had the men in charge heeded the voice of some of the women, some problems and distressing situations could have been avoided.

The way I look at personally. I feel no calling or leading to be head of a church. But on the other hand, the only agreement I have made to be submissive is when I got married. (Of course that was before I really understood the concept of submissive:rofl:) But at any rate, as far as other men go, if I don't like their authority, I'm getting in my car and driving home, next Sunday to begin the search for another church. So the man's authority thing is not a controlling thing in my life. I ain't sweating it.:lol: My husband is the only man with the authority/leadership card for me.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:53 AM
What you're getting at, then, is that women shouldn't hold authoritative positions when it comes to theological, ethical and spiritual matters? I'm assuming something along the lines of a reversal of the creation order?

I think that is too broad. I was referring solely to establishing doctrinal issues. Obviously she can teach on ethics, theology, and spiritual matters. When it comes to saying, "This is what it should mean" or "this is why we need to establish x," she has gone outside her Biblical role.

To be fair, anyone that is not called to be a teacher and does not have that gift would likewise be outside their limits as well - male or female.


I understand that women can be the causer of much trouble, but of course so can men. So that aside and understood. There have been a bunch of times in individual lives, like marriages, and then on a more public scale, churches and so on, that had the men in charge heeded the voice of some of the women, some problems and distressing situations could have been avoided.

Agreed. In my own life it was Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth that made my life do a 180. At the same time, was she writing from an authoritative position?

It is difficult for us - myself included - to understand what this authoritative position means. We generally have the view that all people can interpret doctrine for themselves. This has been the evangelical view for a while. Though I am not advocating Catholic dogma where you let the educated people deal with the matters while the flock doesn't concern itself, I do think there is something to be said for having a doctrinal board that people pay attention to. Though the people can question it, challenge it, or attempt to change it, there should be - in every church - educated men who establish the doctrine of that specific church.

With the above in mind, women would not be allowed into such a group. Not because they're inferior or because they're not as smart - but because in God's economy it is not the role of a woman to do this


The way I look at personally. I feel no calling or leading to be head of a church. But on the other hand, the only agreement I have made to be submissive is when I got married. (Of course that was before I really understood the concept of submissive) But at any rate, as far as other men go, if I don't like their authority, I'm getting in my car and driving home, next Sunday to begin the search for another church. So the man's authority thing is not a controlling thing in my life. I ain't sweating it. My husband is the only man with the authority/leadership card for me.

And I'm not arguing any different. We should never equivocate a pastor's authority over a congregation to a husband's authority over his wife. The two are completely separate. A pastor's authority is different from a husband's authority (and for good reason!).

JesusPhreak27
Jul 23rd 2008, 07:57 AM
That's a fair question - I think that's where the problem in the conversation has been. We both had different definitions, but applied our own definition to the other person's question/answer. :)


When I say "position of authority" I do mean that in somewhat of a subjective or vague sense. In American society it would be a professor of theology or a pastor (more properly a pastor), or a church leader (such as an elder or ministerial staff member).

Likewise - for better or for worse - we view the pulpit as a position of authority, thus in our culture it would be best not to have a woman speak from that pulpit.

A woman on the street, a member of the congregation, etc is not holding a position of authority. A woman who writes books is not holding a position of authority. Her say has no direct influence on where the church goes, what policies it implements, etc.


Does that explain it, or does it bring up other questions (I ask because I know it's vague)?

My church has women that serve as elders AND as Deacons........does this make us "unbiblical"?

Because is it not the Lord who chooses who He leads into leadership positions?

The problem I have with your posts, my friend, is that your stance tends to sound an awful lot like the muslim stance on women, that they should be seen and not heard.

Christ died so that ALL could receive salvation and serve in His Kingdom, be it free man, slave, woman whatever.

If God drew up Deborah to be a Judge then He can draw up ANYONE to be a leader in the church.

Now do you also believe that Joyce Myers' ministry is unbiblical because she is a woman (obviously) ministering to thousands of people? Does this also apply to Paula White's ministry?

The point Im trying to make is that YHWH will use whoever He decides to bring the Gospel to His chosen people and for us to limit who can do what is (in a way) us trying to limit Him isnt it?

JesusPhreak27
Jul 23rd 2008, 08:07 AM
It is difficult for us - myself included - to understand what this authoritative position means. We generally have the view that all people can interpret doctrine for themselves. This has been the evangelical view for a while. Though I am not advocating Catholic dogma where you let the educated people deal with the matters while the flock doesn't concern itself, I do think there is something to be said for having a doctrinal board that people pay attention to. Though the people can question it, challenge it, or attempt to change it, there should be - in every church - educated men who establish the doctrine of that specific church.

Does the Bible not say "Seek your own salvation with fear and trembling"? Does this not mean that we are to decide what "doctrines" we choose to follow?

God created us in His image correct? He created us with brains and the ability to think on our own and make our own decisions right?

Doesnt this mean that we are allowed to choose which doctrines we follow and which ones we dont?

For example I am a member of a Presbyterian church (which by the way we have women elders, deacons and women that give sermons) some of the things we do I do not agree with and do not do. We recite the Nicene Creed and the word "catholic" is used.....well I substitute the word Christian for it.


With the above in mind, women would not be allowed into such a group. Not because they're inferior or because they're not as smart - but because in God's economy it is not the role of a woman to do this



And I'm not arguing any different. We should never equivocate a pastor's authority over a congregation to a husband's authority over his wife. The two are completely separate. A pastor's authority is different from a husband's authority (and for good reason!).

Paul states that we are to LOVE OUR WIVES THE WAY CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH. This does not mean that we have the final say over everything.....

We are to support our wives and take every care and worry that they have the same way Christ does for us.......

theleast
Jul 23rd 2008, 01:41 PM
There is a very good lesson for women to learn from these verses.

38Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

39And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
40But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: 42But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Sitting where Mary sat in Christs opinion is that good part and needfull thing.

Why would you want anything else if that's all you needed?

I wish as a man I could get away with that but unfortunatly for men it's not so easy.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 02:35 PM
My church has women that serve as elders AND as Deacons........does this make us "unbiblical"?

Yes.


Because is it not the Lord who chooses who He leads into leadership positions?

Since when did God contradict His own Word?


The problem I have with your posts, my friend, is that your stance tends to sound an awful lot like the muslim stance on women, that they should be seen and not heard.

I already responded to this strawman argument. Try again.

Here is the reply:

They're vastly different. For one, the Muslim law is based on the view that women are ontologically lower than men. In the Christian view, women are viewed as ontological equals with men, but when it comes to authoritarian roles women are in the submissive role. Authority, of course, does not denote importance unless you're an egomaniacal dictator - are you one? Of course that question is rhetorical. My point is authority doesn't denote importance - just because men have been given more authority doesn't mean they're more important.

Secondly, women are most certainly allowed to speak up, just not in an authoritative manner on doctrinal issues. She can talk on doctrine, teach on doctrine, learn about doctrine, etc - she just can't teach in an authoritative position (i.e. as a pastor).


Likewise, this is the fallacy of reduction - you assume that by equivocating my belief to another group, that will in and of itself prove my belief is wrong. You would first, however, have to show why that group's belief is wrong. Even if the Muslims treat their women that way, we cannot assume it's wrong because Muslims do it, or because we don't like it. We'd have to show why it's wrong first.


Christ died so that ALL could receive salvation and serve in His Kingdom, be it free man, slave, woman whatever.

Where did I say women couldn't be saved or couldn't serve in the Kingdom of God?


If God drew up Deborah to be a Judge then He can draw up ANYONE to be a leader in the church.

Already responded to this - false comparison.

Here's the reply:

2) The Deborah story doesn't apply to this conversation because the role of a judge was far different from that of a pastor. Between the time Joshua took the land of Canaan to the time Saul was king, Israel lived in anarchy. There was no legislative body, no king, "all men did what was right in their own eyes." Thus, God sent judges to act as judicial guides in a sort of theocracy. Though the judges would use prophecy and offer spiritual truths, it was to a judicial end. Likewise, the time of the judges was one where the judges were corrupt and it is a narrative, not a prescription, whereas 1 Timothy is purely prescription.

What the above means, then, is it's harder to draw literal lessons from historical narratives than it is from prescription passages. What we do know is that the time of judges passed quite some time ago and that the pastor is in no way, shape, or form an equivocation of what a judge was. Thus, it is nigh impossible to use Deborah as an example of a female pastor in the Bible.

One other thing I would add is that the OT is a progression of morality and God's economy - it deals with the way things are, not how they ought to be. This makes Deborah completely irrelevant to the discussion at this point.


Now do you also believe that Joyce Myers' ministry is unbiblical because she is a woman (obviously) ministering to thousands of people? Does this also apply to Paula White's ministry?

Yes and yes.


The point Im trying to make is that YHWH will use whoever He decides to bring the Gospel to His chosen people and for us to limit who can do what is (in a way) us trying to limit Him isnt it?

How is it limiting Him when I believe He'll follow His own Word?


Does the Bible not say "Seek your own salvation with fear and trembling"? Does this not mean that we are to decide what "doctrines" we choose to follow?

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means to be sanctified in our actions.


God created us in His image correct? He created us with brains and the ability to think on our own and make our own decisions right?

Doesnt this mean that we are allowed to choose which doctrines we follow and which ones we dont?

He didn't create us with autonomous reasoning. No human being can think for themselves. This is the error of Enlightenment thinking - it assumes we can think autonomously. Truth be told, if you study epistemology - specifically Reformed Epistemology - you quickly learn that our minds function best when (1) we are given information by people more knowledgeable and (2) when we gain knowledge from community interaction.


Paul states that we are to LOVE OUR WIVES THE WAY CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH. This does not mean that we have the final say over everything.....

So he was bluffing when he told women to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ?


We are to support our wives and take every care and worry that they have the same way Christ does for us.......

And they are to submit to our authority just as the Church submits to the authority of Christ.


Sorry for the brief responses, but I've already dealt with most of what you've said. It would be better if you would go back and actually deal with the stuff I dealt with already instead of regurgitating the same arguments.

JesusPhreak27
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:00 PM
Yes.



Since when did God contradict His own Word?



I already responded to this strawman argument. Try again.



Where did I say women couldn't be saved or couldn't serve in the Kingdom of God?



Already responded to this - false comparison.



Yes and yes.



How is it limiting Him when I believe He'll follow His own Word?



No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means to be sanctified in our actions.



He didn't create us with autonomous reasoning. No human being can think for themselves. This is the error of Enlightenment thinking - it assumes we can think autonomously. Truth be told, if you study epistemology - specifically Reformed Epistemology - you quickly learn that our minds function best when (1) we are given information by people more knowledgeable and (2) when we gain knowledge from community interaction.



So he was bluffing when he told women to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ?



And they are to submit to our authority just as the Church submits to the authority of Christ.


Sorry for the brief responses, but I've already dealt with most of what you've said. It would be better if you would go back and actually deal with the stuff I dealt with already instead of regurgitating the same arguments.

You know what?

Im not going to get baited into your 1950's women need to serve their husbands and be seen and not heard line of thinking......

You believe what you want to and I will do the same......

Our Father has used Joyce Meyer and Paula White's ministries to bring thousands to the cross.

But if you feel led to live in a world where women are to be subservient and not allowed the same rights as men that is your perogative.....

Jesus did not die for us to sit here and say that certain members of His family can not preach His word....... Otherwise He would have said "MEN go out and make disciples of the world......"

YHWH will use ALL His children to advance His Kingdom.......

I offer you God's blessings

JesusPhreak27
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:06 PM
Likewise, this is the fallacy of reduction - you assume that by equivocating my belief to another group, that will in and of itself prove my belief is wrong. You would first, however, have to show why that group's belief is wrong. Even if the Muslims treat their women that way, we cannot assume it's wrong because Muslims do it, or because we don't like it. We'd have to show why it's wrong first.

Well.... you asked me to prove that Muslims are wrong...... where should I start????

Hmmmmmm........

God told Moses when He gave him the 10 Commandments.......

"You shall serve NO OTHER God but me for I am the Lord"

That right there proves your theory wrong my friend. They serve another God then the one true God Yahweh......... so everything they believe is wrong.....

Now I must ask you this.....do you believe that the Muslim way of treating women is correct? Should women be subservient to men?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:10 PM
You know what?

Im not going to get baited into your 1950's women need to serve their husbands and be seen and not heard line of thinking......You mean the Biblical way of thinking? It's pretty rude to sit here and accuse me of these things when you haven't taken one second to actually respond to anything I've said - historical analysis, exegesis of the Scriptures, or even the logic I posted.


Our Father has used Joyce Meyer and Paula White's ministries to bring thousands to the cross. I came to Christ after smoking one of the best bowls of weed I had ever had - does this mean it's okay for people to smoke weed before hearing about Christ?

Of course not - God can work in spite of us, but it doesn't mean we are then permitted to use any method we want.


But if you feel led to live in a world where women are to be subservient and not allowed the same rights as men that is your perogative.....
Preaching doctrinal issues isn't a right, it's a calling.


Jesus did not die for us to sit here and say that certain members of His family can not preach His word....... Otherwise He would have said "MEN go out and make disciples of the world......" Yes He did. There are many that are not called to preach doctrinal issues. All are called to share the Gospel - this does not equate to teaching from a pulpit.

If you choose to respond again, instead of throwing a tantrum and using strawman arguments and pre-canned responses, can you actually deal with what I'm saying?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:13 PM
God told Moses when He gave him the 10 Commandments.......

"You shall serve NO OTHER God but me for I am the Lord"

That right there proves your theory wrong my friend. They serve another God then the one true God Yahweh......... so everything they believe is wrong.....

Now I must ask you this.....do you believe that the Muslim way of treating women is correct? Should women be subservient to men?

Of course I think they're wrong in how they treat women. But the fact is you can't come out and go, "Muslims believe x, your belief looks like x, therefore your belief is wrong." You would first have to prove how x is wrong in and of itself and how my belief equivocates to x.

As I have clearly shown, what I'm teaching is nothing like the Islamic belief on women.

Revinius
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:26 PM
To show support for a man bombarded by flak, i am with apothanein kerdos on this issue. The feminazi (yes thats right, i used the 'f' word) view of woman has so infected many Christians' view of women that many seem blinded to anything of the contrary. The notion that a woman could be a 'helper' (for some reason they assume 'helper' is a negative trait) is abhorent and they come up with strange theological notions for re-explaining scripture.

I am not saying you guys are the above Christian, but its something to think about. Apothanein kerdos touched on it earlier when commenting on how incredibly 'enlightened' we all are. We assume that because the west has globally triumphed in many areas of society that our views on liberty etc are for all intensive purposes, infallible. We cant help but reach such assumptions, but the real thing we need to address is: Are these views Biblical? Forget for a moment the urge of our liberal relativistic desires and instead focus simply and only on what God thinks... not what WE think he says, but on what He has revealed in His Word. I think you will find, as i have, that what He thinks can quite often conflict with our own desire. Could it be that this is one of those instances?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 23rd 2008, 03:33 PM
To show support for a man bombarded by flak, i am with apothanein kerdos on this issue. The feminazi (yes thats right, i used the 'f' word) view of woman has so infected many Christians' view of women that many seem blinded to anything of the contrary. The notion that a woman could be a 'helper' (for some reason they assume 'helper' is a negative trait) is abhorent and they come up with strange theological notions for re-explaining scripture.

I am not saying you guys are the above Christian, but its something to think about. Apothanein kerdos touched on it earlier when commenting on how incredibly 'enlightened' we all are. We assume that because the west has globally triumphed in many areas of society that our views on liberty etc are for all intensive purposes, infallible. We cant help but reach such assumptions, but the real thing we need to address is: Are these views Biblical? Forget for a moment the urge of our liberal relativistic desires and instead focus simply and only on what God thinks... not what WE think he says, but on what He has revealed in His Word. I think you will find, as i have, that what He thinks can quite often conflict with our own desire. Could it be that this is one of those instances?

Exactly. Too often we look at something and judge it from our own 21st century perspective, never thinking that maybe our 21st century perspective is wrong.

One thing to point out is that ever since women's extreme liberation has taken place, we have watched the disintegration of the family. Though we may like the idea of 'equal rights,' maybe there is something to be said for God's economy of marriage.

Revinius
Jul 23rd 2008, 04:12 PM
Exactly. Too often we look at something and judge it from our own 21st century perspective, never thinking that maybe our 21st century perspective is wrong.

One thing to point out is that ever since women's extreme liberation has taken place, we have watched the disintegration of the family. Though we may like the idea of 'equal rights,' maybe there is something to be said for God's economy of marriage.

Totally. Many people seem to think that because there is a functional heirachy as male and female (we have different roles) that that somehow infers an ontological hierachy, which is a little intellectually dishonest.

theleast
Jul 23rd 2008, 05:17 PM
You know what?

Im not going to get baited into your 1950's women need to serve their husbands and be seen and not heard line of thinking......

You believe what you want to and I will do the same......

Our Father has used Joyce Meyer and Paula White's ministries to bring thousands to the cross. To say that they are unbiblical is asinine......

But if you feel led to live in a world where women are to be subservient and not allowed the same rights as men that is your perogative.....

Jesus did not die for us to sit here and say that certain members of His family can not preach His word....... Otherwise He would have said "MEN go out and make disciples of the world......"

YHWH will use ALL His children to advance His Kingdom.......

I offer you God's blessings

You are taking it completely out of context here I think.

Women ARE to be subordinate to their husbands, but husbands are to LOVE their wives. This means that a husband who loves his wife is not going to take the "shut up woman and cook my dinner" approach. That is not how you love your wife. A woman is a helper to the man, not the other way around. That is perfectly biblical going all the way back to Genesis.

Christ chose 12 men to be his apostles for a reason. Women have the better role in the church anyway. They are there to provide comfort and encouragement for the men that are going out and getting hung on crosses.

Where would you rather be?

And woman are just as entitled to the rewards of heaven as men are.

All of this is perfectly lines up with the Word.

Athanasius
Jul 24th 2008, 02:39 AM
Christ choose 12 men to be his Apostles because of the culture :P

apothanein kerdos
Jul 24th 2008, 03:19 AM
Christ choose 12 men to be his Apostles because of the culture :P

Yes, and He only died because the culture back then would have understood the sacrificial nature of what He was doing. His death was meant only for His culture, not for ours. ;)

I know you were kidding around, but I had to take it to an extreme.

JesusPhreak27
Jul 24th 2008, 03:51 AM
Guys Im sorry to have gotten a little hot about this topic but I just find it hard to believe that our Father would put one gender "below" another in that women can not preach the Word of God just like men.

I have listened to many female pastors and they have brought a better message then many of their male counterparts.

I would like to also appologize for using the term "asinine" it was totally inappropriate of me.

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 04:27 AM
Christ choose 12 men to be his Apostles because of the culture :P

Oh really?

I thought he chose his apostles because that's who he wanted, not because he was worried about cultures and fashions of the times.

Revinius
Jul 24th 2008, 04:28 AM
Guys Im sorry to have gotten a little hot about this topic but I just find it hard to believe that our Father would put one gender "below" another in that women can not preach the Word of God just like men.

I have listened to many female pastors and they have brought a better message then many of their male counterparts.

I would like to also appologize for using the term "asinine" it was totally inappropriate of me.

That's ok mate. Female preachers might appear to do a very good job in unpacking the Word, but whether they are doing it in an unrepentant state of sin or not is the question. :pray:

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 04:29 AM
Guys Im sorry to have gotten a little hot about this topic but I just find it hard to believe that our Father would put one gender "below" another in that women can not preach the Word of God just like men.

I have listened to many female pastors and they have brought a better message then many of their male counterparts.

I would like to also appologize for using the term "asinine" it was totally inappropriate of me.

God did not put one gender "below" another.

He gave them different functions.

He doesn't love men more or women less, he loves us all the same.

quiet dove
Jul 24th 2008, 04:32 AM
The way I look at it, and this is not to say women should or shouldn't be pastors and church leaders.

But it is not a matter of women being "below" men. It is a matter of obedience. So say women are not supposed to be the leaders of churches, why then, because God said so. Just like our parents used to tell us, and of course we always wanted to know why, which I guess, thus, the debate here.

But I do not look at being submissive to my husband, or him being the head of the household because I am not capable or I am "below" him. I just look at it like that is how God said it should be and if I am to strive to be obedient and walk in the Spirit, then submissive to my husband, him being the head of the household is what I will do. That is not to say husbands should mistreat or otherwise demean their wives, just the opposite. A husband is responsible for his wifes well being, not only material, but spiritually. That is a lot of responsibility.

Look at families, when either parent is out of whack, the whole family is out of whack. The best way to have a stable family and raise children solid in the Word, with Faith, is to do it the way God said. If you think about it, a husband who is truly obedient and seeking to walk in the Spirit, his wife is his partner, not his property, he respects her, depends on her, ask her opinion and so on.

Now apply that to the church assemblies. Doesn't mean women are to stupid to have good ideas and be good teachers, or hear God's commands. And just like the husband will be held accountable for the family, so will the pastor be held accountable for the church assembly.

I am not saying women shouldn't, just putting out another perspective. It could be we live in an time when God is calling women to the pulpit, just like in times before when He has chosen to use women in mighty ways. And if God is calling all available and willing, that just may include women

quiet dove
Jul 24th 2008, 04:38 AM
Like I said before, it could go back to the Garden, and rebellion, wanting to be our own boss as opposed to trusting, serving and being obedient to our creator. And if part of trusting, serving, and being obedient means as a woman I am to take a back seat, so to speak, and let men run the church or the marriage, than so be it, because as women in Christ, obedience is our priority, walking in the Spirit.

I mean if men run the churches, does not mean that women have no place there, and an important place. For example what could be more important than teaching the children?

Athanasius
Jul 24th 2008, 04:51 AM
Yes, and He only died because the culture back then would have understood the sacrificial nature of what He was doing. His death was meant only for His culture, not for ours. ;)

I know you were kidding around, but I had to take it to an extreme.

I'm glad you got it.


Oh really?

I thought he chose his apostles because that's who he wanted, not because he was worried about cultures and fashions of the times.

But it looks like smiley faces are not enough!

Revinius
Jul 24th 2008, 06:31 AM
Like I said before, it could go back to the Garden, and rebellion, wanting to be our own boss as opposed to trusting, serving and being obedient to our creator. And if part of trusting, serving, and being obedient means as a woman I am to take a back seat, so to speak, and let men run the church or the marriage, than so be it, because as women in Christ, obedience is our priority, walking in the Spirit.

I mean if men run the churches, does not mean that women have no place there, and an important place. For example what could be more important than teaching the children?

Women are only not permitted to have authority over men in the church, i think its incredibly important to have women minister in other areas such as to other women and most definately to children.

JesusPhreak27
Jul 24th 2008, 07:59 AM
Women are only not permitted to have authority over men in the church, i think its incredibly important to have women minister in other areas such as to other women and most definately to children.

So why (in your opinion) is it wrong for women to serve as Elders or Deacons? We have women serving as both in my church....and NO ONE says anything about it being "unbiblical"

Revinius
Jul 24th 2008, 12:55 PM
I have no opinion on this, just doing what the Word says. I know heaps of churches that dont do follow such passages as 1 Timothy 2 by either finding reason to disregard, or 'reinterpret' it, or even to not teach from the Bible at all.

We can find myriad reasons to not follow certain parts of scripture - to simply self-justify whatever we happen to feel or think, or to find some vague intellectual justification for reinforcing our view - but in the end i would rather be captive to what the Word says than risk myself wilfully sinning against the very reason for my being.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 24th 2008, 01:08 PM
So why (in your opinion) is it wrong for women to serve as Elders or Deacons? We have women serving as both in my church....and NO ONE says anything about it being "unbiblical"

Maybe because the people in your church haven't done an in depth study - or correct study - on this passage. You keep using your church as an example, but that really doesn't mean much for me because I'm going off Scripture, not what some church does.

The reason women can't be Elders (no one said anything about Deacons) is because Elders hold authority in the Church. In an ideal situation, the pastor shares authority with the elders - it's not a one man show. In light of this, the elders hold authority within the church and this would disqualify women.

Deacons, however, generally are just there to serve the needs of the church. In a traditional sense they have no authority. In light of this, women can most certainly be deacons (and were, in fact, deacons in the NT).

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 01:44 PM
The way I look at it, and this is not to say women should or shouldn't be pastors and church leaders.

But it is not a matter of women being "below" men. It is a matter of obedience. So say women are not supposed to be the leaders of churches, why then, because God said so. Just like our parents used to tell us, and of course we always wanted to know why, which I guess, thus, the debate here.

But I do not look at being submissive to my husband, or him being the head of the household because I am not capable or I am "below" him. I just look at it like that is how God said it should be and if I am to strive to be obedient and walk in the Spirit, then submissive to my husband, him being the head of the household is what I will do. That is not to say husbands should mistreat or otherwise demean their wives, just the opposite. A husband is responsible for his wifes well being, not only material, but spiritually. That is a lot of responsibility.

Look at families, when either parent is out of whack, the whole family is out of whack. The best way to have a stable family and raise children solid in the Word, with Faith, is to do it the way God said. If you think about it, a husband who is truly obedient and seeking to walk in the Spirit, his wife is his partner, not his property, he respects her, depends on her, ask her opinion and so on.

Now apply that to the church assemblies. Doesn't mean women are to stupid to have good ideas and be good teachers, or hear God's commands. And just like the husband will be held accountable for the family, so will the pastor be held accountable for the church assembly.

I am not saying women shouldn't, just putting out another perspective. It could be we live in an time when God is calling women to the pulpit, just like in times before when He has chosen to use women in mighty ways. And if God is calling all available and willing, that just may include women

Well said quiet dove.

When we do things the way God asks us to everything ends up turning out better. :D

theleast
Jul 24th 2008, 01:49 PM
Like I said before, it could go back to the Garden, and rebellion, wanting to be our own boss as opposed to trusting, serving and being obedient to our creator. And if part of trusting, serving, and being obedient means as a woman I am to take a back seat, so to speak, and let men run the church or the marriage, than so be it, because as women in Christ, obedience is our priority, walking in the Spirit.

I mean if men run the churches, does not mean that women have no place there, and an important place. For example what could be more important than teaching the children?

Again good post.

I think a lot of the problems in marraiges or partnerships arise when there are power struggles. But if one party is at the head and the other is the right arm, things go alot smoother.

In Genesis God gave Adam a helper, not a slave or a servent, but a close friend and a helper in all things. That is what God intended and it is reinforced elsewhere in scripture. I think it's always best to do as God asks.

mcgyver
Jul 24th 2008, 02:52 PM
Again good post.

I think a lot of the problems in marraiges or partnerships arise when there are power struggles. But if one party is at the head and the other is the right arm, things go alot smoother.

In Genesis God gave Adam a helper, not a slave or a servent, but a close friend and a helper in all things. That is what God intended and it is reinforced elsewhere in scripture. I think it's always best to do as God asks.

Very true!

Many problems that have arisen in both marriages and the church are a result of the "blurring of the lines" as it were in the matter of submission to God's economy in reference to the roles and "offices" to which each gender has been appointed.

Once again, in the matter of the Office of Pastor we must be discerning lest we in our 21st century "enlightened" state cross or blur the lines that God Himself has put into place.

The bottom line is: "Was the mandate reserving the office of Pastor to men simply cultural?"

Once again (as I wrote in post #42 back on page 3) we can look at other principles concerning the NT relationship between men and women; and use them as a pattern in trying to decide whether or not this is the case.

To a large degree the marital relationship paints a picture of the church, and the church paints a picture of the marital relationship as designed by God. The Church after all, is the "Bride of Christ".

Therefore, we can look at several NT passages concerning marriage and apply the principle of the relational roles (Husbands and Wives) to that of the office of Pastor in the Church:

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." Eph 5:22-23 (Emphasis mine...direct comparison between the marital relationship and the church).

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Col 3:18

"Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives" 1 Peter 3:1

I would point out that both Peter and Paul speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit clearly reinforce the role of the Husband as being the leader within the family.

Biblical submission does not equate with "doormat", yet in the final analysis the wife is to yield to the leadership of her husband.

Here is something to think about, and a question yet to be answered (brought forward in part from a previous post):

A man and a woman are married...both are Christian and the wife, being a Godly woman is in Biblical submission to her husband. They get up on a Sunday morning, get the kids together and go off to Church.

When they get there, the wife kisses the husband as he goes to find their pew...the woman puts on her clerical garb and climbs up behind the pulpit...

Who now is in submission to whom?

Has God now placed His instructions in abeyance?

Is He now the author of confusion?

For the proponents of women as pastors, how do you reconcile this?

quiet dove
Jul 24th 2008, 07:13 PM
Deacons, however, generally are just there to serve the needs of the church. In a traditional sense they have no authority. In light of this, women can most certainly be deacons (and were, in fact, deacons in the NT).

I think it is important to remember that no matter man or women, our first concern is to seek His purpose and will in our lives. A man may be led to pastor a mega church, or God may tell that man, go clean the bathrooms, that is what I want you to do.

We have to understand that important in our mind should only be, God's will. That is all that matters, that is all that is important. How the world(pardon the word there) views importance is irrelevant, in other words, the only opinion that matters is Gods and Him saying to us, "well done my good and faithful servant". What appears to be important from mans view point does not really matter. The only important mission we have is walking in the Spirit, obedient to His will, whether that is a seemingly "important" looking or not.

What pleases God is our obedience, whether glamorous or not in this life does not matter.

And as for women writing books, making music albums (CDs for you younger crowd) and having a ministry, that is an entirely different matter than running a church. If that woman has a ministry, and that is something God told her to do, then that has nothing to do with "leading a church". IMHO after giving this more thought anyway.

A peacfull, quiet, serving, helpful, supportive, encouraging, and PRAYERFUL heart of a Godly woman can go a long ways in getting the men folks to go in the right directions. I love em, but they can be hard headed. :lol: (Sorry, just had to throw that in :rolleyes:)

ServantofTruth
Jul 24th 2008, 07:28 PM
I don't know if i've posted my thoughts on this topic before - it's getting long! I have a bible with all the verses connected with poverty and need in orange.

Taking the same orange pen. If i gave each christian that pen, how many verses would they say no long count, because times have changed?

Next when we compare people's opinions/ those orange no longer counted verses and they are different for each person - how are we going to decide who's right? As the only evidence we usually use is the whole of scripture for full context.

So women clergy is no different, as posters have already stated, to homosexuality, the set up of the family etc. The bible revelation is sealed/ closed. God has stated all he wants us to know while in this body/ life and we have no right to look to change it. That is SIN.




A sad BIG SofTy :(

mcgyver
Jul 25th 2008, 02:02 PM
I haven't seen an answer to my question yet :P

Not trying to start a "fight"...I am honestly, intellectually, and theologically curious as to how this contradiction can be reconciled (if indeed it can be) by those who hold the view that a woman can be a Pastor/Bishop/Overseer (all speak of the same office). :)

Soooo.....

Biblically wives are to be in submission to their husband. Biblical submission does not equate with "doormat", yet in the final analysis the wife is (scripturally) to yield to the leadership and authority of her husband.

That is something that we can't really get around....


A man and a woman are married...both are Christian and the wife, being a Godly woman is in Biblical submission to her husband. They get up on a Sunday morning, get the kids together and go off to Church.

When they get there, the wife kisses the husband as he goes to find their pew...the woman puts on her clerical garb and climbs up behind the pulpit...

Who now is in submission to whom?

Has God now placed His instructions in abeyance?

Is He now the author of confusion?

So how do you explain this contradiction/shift in roles?

Athanasius
Jul 26th 2008, 02:47 PM
I haven't seen an answer to my question yet :P

Not trying to start a "fight"...I am honestly, intellectually, and theologically curious as to how this contradiction can be reconciled (if indeed it can be) by those who hold the view that a woman can be a Pastor/Bishop/Overseer (all speak of the same office). :)

Soooo.....

Biblically wives are to be in submission to their husband. Biblical submission does not equate with "doormat", yet in the final analysis the wife is (scripturally) to yield to the leadership and authority of her husband.

When did this become the final analysis? So far I've been extremely unsatisfied with the answers given in this and other threads as to what women can and cannot do inside the church.

If a man is sinning they can't point it out or correct him, that's 'usurping' authority. No wait, someone else says they can. Women can't be pastors, deacons or elders. Someone else says no wait.. They can be Childrens pastors, elders for the childrens department, etc.

Then Joe over in this corner goes, 'no no no'. I know women who've been called by God into ministry, obviously experience must coincide with the Bible, so either this woman is wrong (and I know she isn't), or some of you are misinterpreting scripture (which is what Joe believes).

Women can't hold authority on any issues. But they can preach, write books, give lessons etc, because that's some how not teaching. But wait a second, women can teach, just not on moral, spiritual and theological issues. What?

Oh and the best. Women shouldn't lead in primary roles, but they can still lead! GREAT.



That is something that we can't really get around....

So how do you explain this contradiction/shift in roles?

You know, that whole 'once upon a time in scripture women led the church', but that was once upon a time and even though scripture clearly teaches against this, we shouldn't hold the early church responsible, nor should we follow their lead. Let's take the example of Hosea, God telling him to marry a prostitute, and paint every woman leader in the Bible with the same brush. God did a 'one time' exception a bunch of times.

Sorry to quote you, it was just the latest post.
I'm not seeing anything really convincing from either side.

Oh, as for the explanation. What of Philippians 4:2-3, women evangelists? Have they shifted roles because of their preaching?

theleast
Jul 26th 2008, 03:31 PM
O.K. so for those who are saying that women can hold any position in the church or marraige, how do you justify that using scripture?

The scriptures say just the opposite. Why would scripture make a special point of telling a woman to be in submission to her husband, and not to hold positions of authority in a church if they didn't mean just that?

How a thread like this goes on for so many pages when the scriptures are so clear is beyond me.

Are people really so eager to go against the will of God? I guess so.

Athanasius
Jul 26th 2008, 05:34 PM
O.K. so for those who are saying that women can hold any position in the church or marraige, how do you justify that using scripture?

The scriptures say just the opposite. Why would scripture make a special point of telling a woman to be in submission to her husband, and not to hold positions of authority in a church if they didn't mean just that?

How a thread like this goes on for so many pages when the scriptures are so clear is beyond me.

Are people really so eager to go against the will of God? I guess so.

What of Philippians 4:2-3?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 26th 2008, 06:29 PM
What of Philippians 4:2-3?

What about it? I don't see how this negates anything that's been said.

mcgyver
Jul 26th 2008, 06:54 PM
When did this become the final analysis? So far I've been extremely unsatisfied with the answers given in this and other threads as to what women can and cannot do inside the church.

If a man is sinning they can't point it out or correct him, that's 'usurping' authority. No wait, someone else says they can. Women can't be pastors, deacons or elders. Someone else says no wait.. They can be Childrens pastors, elders for the childrens department, etc.

Then Joe over in this corner goes, 'no no no'. I know women who've been called by God into ministry, obviously experience must coincide with the Bible, so either this woman is wrong (and I know she isn't), or some of you are misinterpreting scripture (which is what Joe believes).

Women can't hold authority on any issues. But they can preach, write books, give lessons etc, because that's some how not teaching. But wait a second, women can teach, just not on moral, spiritual and theological issues. What?

Oh and the best. Women shouldn't lead in primary roles, but they can still lead! GREAT.

Hey X'el...I understand your frustration...the waters have gotten somewhat muddied...but I think you may have missed my point :lol:

First, I was ONLY addressing the Office of Pastor within Christ's Church...nothing else right now (Gotta eat the elephant one bite at a time:P).

The point that I was driving at is really quite simple: In the NT has God changed/placed in abeyance/or removed the role of leadership (and the accompanying accountability for that leadership) that He gave to men in the OT?

The most common way of explaining away 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 is to say that they are simply cultural and therefore no longer applicable in today's society.

If that is the case, then by the same token, the roles within a marriage (man as the head, woman in Biblical submission) must also have been merely cultural and are therefore no longer applicable in today's society either.

The illustration that I gave of a Husband being married to a female pastor served to illustrate that paradox. At home she is in submission to her husband...at church her husband is in submission to her as pastor, which of course flies in the face of the scripture that I previously posted.

I don't think we can have it both ways!

That is what I was driving at...:hmm:

Athanasius
Jul 27th 2008, 01:10 AM
What about it? I don't see how this negates anything that's been said.

Well I'm asking, what of the examples of women evangelists in the Bible?
And for Mac, I gotcha ;)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 27th 2008, 04:14 AM
Well I'm asking, what of the examples of women evangelists in the Bible?
And for Mac, I gotcha ;)

Where in the passage does it say they were evangelists?

Athanasius
Jul 27th 2008, 04:19 AM
Where in the passage does it say they were evangelists?

Verse 3 would seem to suggest that they are. But that's only one verse of quite a few. So, we could focus on that one.. Or we could discuss them all.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 27th 2008, 02:41 PM
Verse 3 would seem to suggest that they are. But that's only one verse of quite a few. So, we could focus on that one.. Or we could discuss them all.

All labored means is to strive with someone, or to help and assist. There's nothing in there that indicates they were evangelists like Paul, merely that they helped him in some manner.

Let's look at the other passages. :)

ServantofTruth
Jul 29th 2008, 10:55 PM
May i ask, the women mention in the bible as holding 'authority' - where does it say they are in authority over men?

This would be a contradiction.

Therefore the conclusion, i personally have to draw - otherwise the bible would contradict itself - is that in these particular 'house-churches?' there were only women who had come to faith and when the Evangelist concerned moved on - he had to appoint a leader until he returned or a man became a follower. This is obviously a possibility because we're talking of very small numbers of followers meeting together, in some cases.

With is why some christian organisations when spreading the Word, do exactly the same thing today. If no men are part of a new church, they appoint a woman but only until a man accepts the faith and can assume the role of leader.

I hope this helps move things on a little. God bless everyone.



BIG SofTy The Bible NEVER contradicts itself. :hug: