PDA

View Full Version : Women in Ministry


KagomeShuko
4th July 2005, 12:10 AM
It now be safe to post this :P :) :) :) :P
--------------------------------------------

A Small Study

In Support of Women in Ministry and the Ordination of Women




[First, a bit of background. I am a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), firstly, because it best fits my beliefs. The ELCA uses the Historical-Critical Method (HCM) of interpreting the Bible. This allows me to agree with such things as there being “contradictions” in the Bible and yet saying that they're not really contradictions, but that things in the Bible were written to certain audiences and that the Bible was written in a time when people were highly prejudiced against women being leaders, even when there happened to be some great women leaders.]




*All emphases added are my own*




The mistake most people make is that those in support of women in ministry base this off of only one verse in the Bible: Galatians 3:28. This is not true.




A three-fold prejudice had kept women from being ordained in churches. First, women were considered inferior by nature and by law. This was Greek philosophy adopted by Christians. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 shows this prejudice.




Second, women were considered ritually unclean because of their menstrual cycles. However, any discharge at any time made males ritually unclean and this was ignored.




Third, women were held responsible and in a constant state of punishment for the first sin. This prejudice is even found in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 says, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”




While woman was deceived, so was man. Genesis 3:6 says, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.” Woman was not alone with the serpent. Man was with woman when she ate the “forbidden fruit.” Man did nothing to stop woman from eating, nor did he refuse to eat. When the man answers God in Genesis 3:12, he blames the woman, but also admits that he ate the fruit.




According to 1 Timothy 2:15, woman is not saved solely by Grace through faith, but by childbearing. This is certainly not the message of the Gospel. It would also open the questions to things such as “What about women who decide they don't want to have children?” and “What about women who can't have children?”




While it is true that God made woman from man, He did not make women lower than men. Many try to use 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 to argue against this point because it says, “For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.”




Yet, an often ignored passage is just a few verses down in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12. It says, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.” The most important part of this passage is that all things come through God.




Even in Genesis, it is stated that woman is the image of God and not the image of man. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them; male and female He created them.” Then Genesis 5:1-2 states, “This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind, He made them in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and named them 'Humankind' when they were created.” It does not matter if a person prefers a translation of the Bible that says “man” or “Adam” rather than “humankind” because the passages still say that God made males and females in His image.




Even in the Old Testament it says that God will pour out His spirit on women. Joel 2:28-29 states, “Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my spirit.”




This is repeated in the New Testament in Acts 2:18, “Even upon slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.”




If God did not want women to spread the Gospel, He would not have had women be the ones to let the discipled know that Jesus had risen.




In all four Gospels, women are the people who first spread the news of Jesus' resurrection. This can be found in the following passages: Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:8; and John 20:17-18. No matter exactly who was told to tell the disciples the good news, they were always women.




Hebrews 7:16 says, “one who has become a priest not through a legal requirement concerning physical decent, but through the power of an indestructible life.” Even with this, we must remember that Christ was and is not a priest according to the line of Aaron, but a priest according to the line of Melchizadek. We know very little about the lineage and the rules of the lineage of Melchizadek.




So, while the support of women in ministry goes beyond the single verse of Galatians 3:28, the verse is still very important when it comes to supporting this view.

“There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stein Auf!
Bridget

AngelusSax
4th July 2005, 12:23 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KagomeShuko again.

:amen:

JADVirginia
5th July 2005, 11:08 PM
Yeah ... well ... Eve didn't even know the Infield Fly Rule.:D



Wait .... did Adam?? :scratch:

Lutherrunner
5th July 2005, 11:30 PM
Bridget, I'm just glad you have a safe place to post things like this now.......and I'm glad I have a safe place to read it.....peace be with you....

Protoevangel
6th July 2005, 12:48 AM
Bridget, sweetheart, I want to start out by saying that I am not fully committed to either side in this debate. I do tend heavily to the traditional understanding, but I am open to listen to and consider good arguments for either position.

This, however, is far from a good argument. If you can’t make your point without despising Holy Scripture, then I must spurn your entire argument. I cannot take any argument that rejects the Word seriously. How can you with one hand revile the Holy Word of God, and with the other, try to make your case using that same Word? This is very dissapointing.


“First, women were considered inferior by nature and by law. This was Greek philosophy adopted by Christians. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 shows this prejudice.”

Third, women were held responsible and in a constant state of punishment for the first sin. This prejudice is even found in the Bible.

Protoevangel
6th July 2005, 01:06 AM
Don't worry Bridget, you are still safe. ;)

I still haven't figured out how to irradiate you through your monitor over the internet quite yet. But when I do, you had better watch it! :D


Internet irradiation, powerful magic! :liturgy:

Melethiel
6th July 2005, 09:30 AM
I agree with DanHead. Myself, I lean very heavily toward the traditional understanding. :D

AngelusSax
6th July 2005, 10:23 AM
I didn't see a despising of Holy Scripture at all in Bridget's post. To me, it merely appeared to be placing Scripture within the proper understanding based on when it was written, who it was written to, and who it was written by (the actual man writing the words on the page).

Maybe "despising Holy Scripture" is something we read into other people's writings simply because we either disagree with them, or we lean towards disagreeance with them. In which case, it reflects on our hearts more than the hearts of the person to whom we are responding.

This quote:

"
Third, women were held responsible and in a constant state of punishment for the first sin. This prejudice is even found in the Bible."

It is a true statement. Women were held responsible many many times. Paul both blames Eve and also says "through man sin was passed on" (or something like that). It depends on where he's writing to and what he is addressing.

Yes, Eve was deceived. She ate the fruit after being convinced that it was okay to eat it. Adam, however, ate the fruit, still knowing full well it was not okay to do so. It was only after Adam ate the Fruit that sin entered the world, and God punished mankind.

So if anyone is going to be barred from ministry because their gender brought sin and punishment into the world, it ought to be my gender, not the female gender.

Protoevangel
6th July 2005, 12:05 PM
I didn't see a despising of Holy Scripture at all in Bridget's post. To me, it merely appeared to be placing Scripture within the proper understanding based on when it was written, who it was written to, and who it was written by (the actual man writing the words on the page).

Maybe "despising Holy Scripture" is something we read into other people's writings simply because we either disagree with them, or we lean towards disagreeance with them. In which case, it reflects on our hearts more than the hearts of the person to whom we are responding.

This quote:

"
Third, women were held responsible and in a constant state of punishment for the first sin. This prejudice is even found in the Bible."

It is a true statement. Women were held responsible many many times. Paul both blames Eve and also says "through man sin was passed on" (or something like that). It depends on where he's writing to and what he is addressing.

Yes, Eve was deceived. She ate the fruit after being convinced that it was okay to eat it. Adam, however, ate the fruit, still knowing full well it was not okay to do so. It was only after Adam ate the Fruit that sin entered the world, and God punished mankind.

So if anyone is going to be barred from ministry because their gender brought sin and punishment into the world, it ought to be my gender, not the female gender.

And maybe I would call someone for "despising Holy Scripture" even if I was solidly on the same side of the argumnet. In fact, I have done so on more than one occasion. Holy Scripture is exactly that... Holy (set apart, inviolable, sacrosanct). They are inspired by God and of Divine authority. Whatever the inspired writers here declare to be true and binding, God declares to be true and binding. Any word spoken against any part of the Holiness of Scripture is profanity and blasphemy against the whole. Against the very Holy Spirit who inspired them.

ChiRho
6th July 2005, 12:12 PM
Maybe "despising Holy Scripture" is something we read into other people's writings simply because we either disagree with them, or we lean towards disagreeance with them. In which case, it reflects on our hearts more than the hearts of the person to whom we are responding.

Maybe not.


Disagreeance? You must be a Fred Durst fan. :P

ctobola
6th July 2005, 12:16 PM
I think George W. used that word last year when he spoke to the National Convention of D.A.M.N. (Nude Mothers Against Dyslexia). ;)

-Cloy

Disagreeance? You must be a Fred Durst fan. :P

Willy
6th July 2005, 12:51 PM
It's hard for me to believe that this question is still being discussed. This is a done deal as far as I am concerned. My MOm was a part of the convention in 1970 that approved women's ordination. I am very proud of that. Sorry it took us so long to get there. But then the church frequently learns slowly. There's a wonderful thing that happens when the fullness of humanity comes together in ministry.

AngelusSax
6th July 2005, 02:22 PM
It's also hard for me to beleive that there are still people seeking bondage of pre-Christ laws over post-Christ freedom.

AngelusSax
6th July 2005, 03:01 PM
The Apostle Paul also appealed to a lot of Jewish laws. Does that mean we have to adhere to the Jewish laws to be Christians?

If so, we need to stop calling ourselves Christians, since none of us adhere to all the laws, and in doing that, we fail to every law by falling to even one.

Willy
6th July 2005, 03:18 PM
I don't like this pre-Christ vs. post-Christ stuff. Christians are people of both books Yet the understanding of the faith has changed because of a variety of experiences and needs. Jesus' teaching obviously was a very important part of that change. He obviously was a reformed Jew who called for changes in the way the faith was practiced. But those changes didn't do away with the importance of the past. Matthew puts it this way: Jesus didn't come to do away with law but to fulfill it, that is, to bring it to its intended completion/end. In Jesus, there is both continuity and discontinuity. Paul explored the discontinuity side but primarily in the context of dealing with how the Gentiles become a part of the club. The law (read "circumcision") is not necessary for them. Faith is the matter that matters. The issue really is the mission of the church, reaching those who are not tied to the traditions of Judaism.

ChiRho
7th July 2005, 07:27 AM
I don't like this pre-Christ vs. post-Christ stuff. Christians are people of both books Yet the understanding of the faith has changed because of a variety of experiences and needs. Jesus' teaching obviously was a very important part of that change. He obviously was a reformed Jew who called for changes in the way the faith was practiced. But those changes didn't do away with the importance of the past. Matthew puts it this way: Jesus didn't come to do away with law but to fulfill it, that is, to bring it to its intended completion/end. In Jesus, there is both continuity and discontinuity. Paul explored the discontinuity side but primarily in the context of dealing with how the Gentiles become a part of the club. The law (read "circumcision") is not necessary for them. Faith is the matter that matters. The issue really is the mission of the church, reaching those who are not tied to the traditions of Judaism.

And what of those who are tied to the traditions of Judaism?

KagomeShuko
8th July 2005, 10:07 PM
And what of those who are tied to the traditions of Judaism?

Um, they wouldn't be Christians??? :scratch:

ChiRho
14th July 2005, 08:48 AM
Um, they wouldn't be Christians??? :scratch:

Jews are Christians? :scratch:

KagomeShuko
14th July 2005, 04:47 PM
Jews are Christians? :scratch:

Thus, my question of "Um, they wouldn't be Christians?" Why would you even ask, being that this thread isn't discussing Jewish beliefs whatsoever. . .

Protoevangel
14th July 2005, 09:19 PM
Thus, my question of "Um, they wouldn't be Christians?" Why would you even ask, being that this thread isn't discussing Jewish beliefs whatsoever. . .
Now I get your comment/question...

Please notice the end of Willy's post:
The issue really is the mission of the church, reaching those who are not tied to the traditions of Judaism.
So Bridget, is it not also the mission of the church to reach those who are "tied to the traditions of Judaism?" To reach the Jews who reject the Son, and therefore the Father as well?

I think that is what ChiRho was getting at. That's what I read out of his question to Willy, anyway.

KagomeShuko
15th July 2005, 02:23 PM
Now I get your comment/question...

Please notice the end of Willy's post:

So Bridget, is it not also the mission of the church to reach those who are "tied to the traditions of Judaism?" To reach the Jews who reject the Son, and therefore the Father as well?

I think that is what ChiRho was getting at. That's what I read out of his question to Willy, anyway.

It's the mission ofthe church to reach anybody. I didn't understand ChiRho's post because I must've misread Willy's post. Yes, I have no idea why Willly would pinpoint only those not tied to Judaism. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

Willy
15th July 2005, 04:26 PM
And what of those who are tied to the traditions of Judaism?
They can be circumcised if they wished. they probably already were. My point has to with Paul's thought, not anything with whether Jews should be converted. Paul does deal with the question of the Jews in Romans. He seems to indicate that God will not negate the promises made to them.

sculpturegirl
18th July 2005, 12:43 PM
Here is my take on it. Women should be involved in ministry, but we should not be the HEAD of the church.

Much of this stems from the order of the family, as the husband is the head of the household. The church is God's household and therefore ought to be governed over by a man. Furthermore, a woman's first responsibility is to her family. An assignment as the head pastor of a chuch would certainly impede on that and it would put her in spiritual headship over her husband.

What about unmarried women and retired women, you ask? I think it unfair to require women to be celibate or retired and not require the same of men.

This may sound tired and old-fashioned but it seems that in scripture God offers an order to the universe. We are all equal, yet each part of the Body has its own function. He created us male and female, not only that we may reproduce, but that we function in our unique gifts in the church.

Whether or not Eve sinned first is a neither here, neither there point. We are all deserving the grave.

2 cents.