Women pastors or not? [Archive]

isshinwhat

8th August 2002, 10:18 PM

Tertullian

"[A female heretic], lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. . . . But we, little fishes, after the example of our Icthus [Greek, "Fish"], Jesus Christ, are born in water . . . so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

Tertullian

"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34-35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office" (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]).

Hippolytus

"When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all" (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]).

The Didascalia

"For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed . . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the Twelve, out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1-2 [A.D. 225]).

Council of Nicaea I

"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" (canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess" (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

Though it is debated today, the Early Christians were firm in their belief that women could not be ordained, but could serve in some offices, for which they were greatly appreciated.

God Bless,

Neal

Fr. Rob

8th August 2002, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Divinus
[B]

Some sources might be nice :)

I'd be happy to.  I've been home sick and off work for a few days.  Since I left my source-material at work, it will be Monday before I have access to it again, as I am off shift for the weekend.  I might be able to borrow a friends on Saturday morning, but I am not sure that I'll have time to get online when I am at his house.  Monday before midnight for sure.

Yes, the gnostics admitted female ministers. But it was the early church which named Mary Magdalene the "Apostle to the Apostles", remember, as well.

True, though I have seen that citation written as disciple of the apostles, and servant of the apostles.  Depends on your translator, and I have not found a copy of the ECF in greek for myself that I can even remotely consider affording (it's expensive to be theologically minded!)

 Plus, I do think there is evidence in the bible itself (which is an early church document, after all) that there were women ministers.

Hard to understand why Paul would be so very adamant about not allowing women to pastor in one book, and permit it in another.  Calling Pheobe a servant or even minister does not put her on the level of an Apostle.  Think about it. . . Martha and Mary ministered to Jesus at Bethany. . .they were not Apostles, they were friends.  They ministered in the same way all are called to minister. 

In the end, we may well disagree on the subject. . . and frankly, while I am inspired by the Early Church example, I freely admit that their writings are falliable and cannot settle all arguments.  They are a good source, and in most places, they speak against women's ordination.  (In fact, I was reading on the topic on Monday, and it forbade women to even baptize. . . I wouldn't go that far in a case of genuine necessity. . . but it is there.)

If you would like to read more about my philosophy of Prima Scriptura, please visit:

http://members.aol.com/anglicanfather

Click on section 2, and then follow the link to the tract on Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

If I had only known I was going to come down with the stomach flu on Tuesday when I left work, I could answer your questions now.  I hope that we can revisit the topic on Monday.

 

Fr. Rob

Fr. Rob

8th August 2002, 10:20 PM

Neal,

Thanks! You are a life-saver. Those were the quotes I was going to be posting on Monday. . .except for the one from the Council of Nicea, I didn't remember reading that one on Monday.

Thanks again!
Fr. Rob

eldermike

8th August 2002, 10:39 PM

This is my view of this. It comes from 1 Tim. But let me say that I don't have any problem with any position taken on this issue. I trust God to use people as He chooses. I turst that denominational differences are within the will of God and not for me to question. But i do have an opinion.

Actually we look at office's within the body of Christ as if we are looking at a company organizational gantt chart. We are all Priest, all Saints, all called to a ministry. The head of the church is Jesus Christ. Spirtual athority is different from church organizational athority. Teachers might be truck drivers all week long and teachers on sunday, ministry is carried out by the flock for the most part. Elders, Pastors are suposed to be the husband of one wife. But there is a reason, the example to the flock is supposed to be His family. The bible says that if He can't manage His family, how can He manage a church?

Is this the most important role, NO, it's a job and it actually prevents other personal ministry work. It's a management position. It's a position held to influence and encourage the work of others. To help grow the body into committed followers of Christ. It's the flock that does the ministry work, they are free to do real stuff in the community or wherever. I personally wish God had said the wife of one husband. Then the husband would have time to go do some work in the kingdom of God.

Now, preachers, that is a different story. Yes women can be preachers. A preacher dosn't have to be a flock leader. They are called evangelist and some of them are the best.

Would I attend a church with a woman pastor? Yes, and I have.

Just my humble opinion.

Blessings

Divinus

8th August 2002, 10:43 PM

Neal,
Thanks for the links, I'll have to check them out tomorrow thougn, because its a quarter to four in the morning here and I must go to bed!
I'll have to take a trip to the library too, and fetch out some of the books I once read on this topic :P

Fr. Rob,
If you can remember who wrote that quote about Mary Magdalene (I can't remember) I can try to get a copy of the Greek text from the library and type it in here for you, if you like? (There's a large theological library just up the road from me, it should have it, somewhere)

I'll check out the link you've given, too :)

-Divinus

Thunderchild

9th August 2002, 12:34 AM

In that ancient Church, the only place where women ministered as clergy was in the Gnostic sects. They never ministered in the Church in the way that a Pastor does. A majority of early churches did have women in positions of authority, including the Church of Rome.

IF I am to hold the scriptures in first place of honour for the purposes of teaching, I will pay attention to the often re-iterated "Every fact is established upon the testimony of two or more (reliable) witnesses." The Bible records women to have been placed in positions of authority over men - a fact attested by more than one author. Paul declares women to be posted to no positions of authority. One author in opposition to several is ignored.

Nor is there any viable way to pretend that all the Bible is scripture, that it does not include eyewitness testimony, personal opinion and at times - mistakes.

Keep the Faith has spoken truly. No-one can stop a person called to a post from undertaking the work. But unwarranted opposition will hamper them in that work and make it far less effective than it should be.

isshinwhat

9th August 2002, 12:39 AM

A majority of early churches did have women in positions of authority, including the Church of Rome.

Could you cite references supporting this statement, please? All I have found, outside of Gnosticism, denies the ordination of women, as well as their legitimate role over men as an official of the Church, in the eyes of the Early Church.   

Thanks,

Neal

sola fide

9th August 2002, 12:42 AM

In reference to 1 Timothy, I just want to know if apostolic authority takes any precedence? I believe it does...I also think Paul's charge to Timothy is recorded by more than one witness, being that the entire canon shows very little of women being in authoritative positions. The entire canon is in agreement with Paul. And remember the phrase apostolic authority when dealing with 1 Timothy ch. 2.

Soli Deo gloria!

Fr. Rob

9th August 2002, 01:11 AM

Div,

I drug out my old Greek textbook. . . it's been a while!

Anyway, diakonos can be either nomitave singular or accusitive plural. When it is used in the when used as a nomative singular (referring to an individual, for instance) it is masculine. When it is used to refer to a class or grouping of people (the accustitive plural), the ending is feminine.

What it then rests upon is, was Paul refering to a single individual, or an office? If he was referring to a single individual, then you may be correct. . . but if he was referring to the role that person played in comparison to others, the ending is feminine, and does not necessialy translate out as Deacon.

According to the New Testament Companion that was produced for the New English Bible, the term can rightfully refer simply to the role of servant, as the role of a minister or servant or deacon is fairly loose at the approximated time of the writing of Romans.

Just posted for info. . . not claiming infallibility here. . .just wanted to share.

Fr. Rob

Thunderchild

10th August 2002, 12:20 AM

Yes - and the Bible documents that Paul was careless in his choice of wording.

James (I think it was) found it necessary to correct a mis-conception brought about by the way Paul approached salvation through grace and faith. James declared that it is incorrect to interpret Paul's exposition of this matter to say works are not involved in salvation. Nonetheless, Paul's sloppy choice of wording in those passages continues to give rise to the concept of Sola Fide.

Paul himself had to make corrections to his first epistle to the Corinthians - stating in 1 Corinthians that his instructions regarding a withdrawal from association with idolators, fornicators et al did not apply to anyone who was not a so called brother. Unfortunately, there are no extant copies of that first letter - we only know of it because Paul found it necessary to correct and declare the error within it.

We have here a very clear example of Papal infallibility as the concept applies to apostles.

Given that Paul,
by his own admission, declared that his first instructions regarding idolators, fornicators et al were erroneous (that is: the written instructions, he made it clear that he did not INTEND to pen the instructions as they stood)
another apostle deemed it necessary to correct mis-conceptions arising from poor phrasing on the topic of works and salvation,
the Bible documents the fact that God is shown to have appointed women to positions of authority
Paul himself declares men and women to be equal
the prophecies of the Old Covenant regarding the New make no distinction between men and women
these instructions do not expand on the gospel as it was first presented, but would seem to be a different gospel

I would hazard a guess that Paul may have had in mind specific women when he wrote these injunctions and got carried away a little bit, wording the instructions to make it look as though they were generally applicable to all women. A small slip only is required for "these women" to become "women." Even if that should prove to be so - the instructions as written neither admit to it, nor allow for such an interpretation.

Thunderchild

10th August 2002, 12:23 AM

For "Paul was careless" in the first line of the foregoing, read "was at times careless." (I haven't edited that post, as this is a good illustration of just how easy it is to mess up a meaning by the simple omission of just two words.)

Thunderchild

10th August 2002, 01:51 AM

Isshinwhat> Almost forgot - your query regarding women in positions of authority.

First - we have no difficulty establishing that women were deaconesses and ordained.

She steadfastly rejected all new proposals of marriage, determining to devote herself to the service of God and to works of charity. Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople (381-97), consecrated her deaconess. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11248b.htm

St. John Chrysostom
Letters to Olympias
LETTER 1
TO MY LADY, THE MOST REVEREND AND DIVINELY FAVORED DEACONESS OLYMPIAS, I JOHN, BISHOP, SEND GREETING IN THE LORD.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1916.htm

In the meantime, the female diaconate was undergoing significant expansion, but exclusively in the East. Beginning with the obscure reference of canon 19 of Nicaea respecting Paulinian 18 deaconesses and ending with canon 15 of Chalcedon which prohibits the ordination (cheirotonia) of a deaconess before the age of forty we have the canonical framework of the most significant period in the expansion and elaboration of the ministry of women before modern times.
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=165

One day I will remember to take notes of the comments I encounter in my travels through the net. There is something about the common practice - in early church history - of establishing "co-ed monasteries." In such groups, the abbess, not the abbot, had ultimate authority.

Just found this - from Jerome.... not that it is on topic, but - well - it IS an interesting example of how a candidate for ordination might be selected, and an ordination conducted...

I knew, moreover, that you could not find or lay hands on this servant of God(3) who had several times fled from you simply because he was reluctant to undertake the onerous duties of the priesthood, and that no other bishop could easily find him. Accordingly, I was a good deal surprised when, by the ordering of God, he came to me with the deacons of the monastery and others of the brethren, to make satisfaction to me for some grievance or other which I had against them. While, therefore, the Collect(4) was being celebrated in the church of the villa which adjoins our monastery--he being quite ignorant and wholly unsuspicious of my purpose--I gave orders to a number of deacons to seize him and to stop his mouth, lest in his eagerness to free himself he might adjure me in the name of Christ. First of all, then, I ordained him deacon, setting before him the fear of God, and forcing him to minister; for he made a hard struggle against it, crying out that he was unworthy, and protesting that this heavy burden was beyond his strength. It was with difficulty, then, that I overcame his reluctance, persuading him as well as I could with passages from Scripture, and setting before him the commandments of God. And when he had ministered in the offering of the holy sacrifices, once more with great difficulty I closed his mouth and ordained him presbyter. Then, using the same arguments as before, I induced him to sit in the place set apart for the presbyters. After this I wrote to the reverend presbyters and other brothers of the monastery, chiding them for not having written to me about him. For a year before I had heard many of them complain that they had no one to celebrate for them the sacraments of the Lord. All then agreed in asking him to undertake the duty, pointing out how great his usefulness would be to the community of the monastery. I blamed them for omitting to write to me and to propose that I should ordain him, when the opportunity was given to them to do so.

2. All this I have done, as I said just now, relying on that Christian love ....

Fr. Rob

10th August 2002, 02:13 AM

Gollie. . . so much for "all scripture is inspired by God."

Fr. Rob

Thunderchild

10th August 2002, 02:53 AM

Gollie. . . so much for "all scripture is inspired by God."

Fr. Rob

On the contrary - so much for the story that everything in the Bible is scripture. Unless you consider, when Paul says that he is giving a personal opinion, both that claim and the opinion ventured are inspired of God: not to mention the Biblical errors - such as the mis-identification of Goliath's brother as Goliath in one of the Old Testament records. Or the accounts of events on the morning of resurrection -
We have two different accounts of how many "visitors" were at the tomb. Two different accounts of where they were located, inside or out. Three different accounts of what the "visitors" said. Two different accounts of whether the "visitors" were angels. Two different accounts of whether the "visitors" arrived before or after Mary. Two different accounts of whether the "visitors" were in the same location as Mary (or the party).

Further details available at http://pub43.ezboard.com/fwayrunnersfrm8.showMessage?topicID=11.topic

 

Or should one ignore the oft repeated Biblical declaration that every fact is affirmed on the testimony of two or more reliable witnesses - is that declaration considered of no worth and unscriptural? On what grounds? 

In the face of that declaration, used by both Paul and Jesus in circumstances that deny any possibility that this is intended only for use at law, why would anyone accept declarations by only one author as conclusive?

heydeerman

10th August 2002, 10:59 PM

I am no authority on modern Church history but a lesson can be learned about women ordination from a modern day example. i am going from memory so bear with me if I mistake a name or two.

In the early part of the 20th century the Presbyterian Church (North and South) were in a serious debate over this subject. A man named Maecham (?) stood opposed to the popular view in the Presb. churches that women should be ordained. he was tried in a church court and givin the boot. He went on to start the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The OPC does not ordain women to this day.

There is a pattern that developes when we throw out what Gods Word says to follow our own oppinions.

The remaining Presbyterians became the Presb. church in America and began to ordain women. Several years later another debate was started and is still going on in the Presbyterisan Church USA. Should homosexuals be ordained. This same pattern has taken place in other denominations as well. It starts by disobeying God and then relying on the oppinion of people. Not Good!

I am not saying women are the cause of homosexuals wanting to be ordained but this belief opened the doors for the homosexuals.

My oppinion is meaningless but I think the Bible is clear on this subject. Women are not to be ordained as Pastors.

Thunderchild

11th August 2002, 01:09 PM

Well now, Heydeerman, I note that the Bible consistently declares homosexuality to be a sin (a condition which it doesn't seem to declare with regard to womanality). Nor does it consistently show that women are not to be in positions of authority. The aforementioned Judge, Deborah, who was also a prophet, as but one example. Likewise one Junia, an apostle (despite attempts to show that Junia was Junias, or that the person was not an apostle), seven daughters of Simon - who prophesied over Paul and who held the post of prophet (according to the Greek - which normally is translated as daughters who prophesied.)

Thunderchild

11th August 2002, 01:45 PM

Neal> Further information to hand from http://www.scs.unr.edu/~fdaniels/rel/women.htm ...

Clement of Alexandria uses the term diakonon gunaikon (female Servant) in several places, writing in the 2nd century. Referring to 1 Tim 3:11, Origen writes, "This text teaches with the authority of the apostle that even women are instituted deacons in the church." (Swidler, p.310).
Tertullian (160-255), who (it is believed) disliked women in positions of power, said, "How many men and women there are whose chastity has obtained for them the honor of ecclesiastical orders!" (Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol 2, Col. 978).
Pliny, circa 99 AD, refers to finding it necessary to torture two Christian maidens called "ministrae", the Latin word for Servants. So here we have a first century reference to women Servants (Deacons).

Women in the early church served actively as Servants, though in the 3rd and 4th centuries the Catholic Church began to separate the men from the women in such orders, allowing women to minister to women but not to men.

1 Tim 3:11: the word "their", added to the text by some translators, is NOT present in the Greek. In fact, there is no textual or historical support for translating "gunaikaV" to be "wives" in v.11. All of the evidence points to the contrary. We must render the word "women" in its general sense and conclude that women Servants are meant. Only tradition clings to the viewpoint that wives and not women are meant in this passage. The passage contains the authorization of women Servants (and perhaps Overseers as well).
The term diakonoV (servant) is used to describe five people: Paul (Eph 3:7; Col 1:23), Tychicus (Eph 6:21;Col 4:7), Epaphras (Col 1:7), Timothy (1 Thess 3:2; 1 Tim 4:6), and Phoebe (Rom 16:1). Of these, Phoebe is the only one described as the Servant of a specific congregation (Cenchrea). The specific language used to describe Phoebe is more concrete than the more general "servant of the Lord", etc. used of the others. Furthermore, the term "prostatiV" is used to relate a function Phoebe performed. The word when used in a technical sense denotes a legal authoritative representative, as over strangers in Rome, who had no rights. (However, Paul was a citizen and needed no help of that type.) Therefore the word should be rendered as it the masculine form is translated elsewhere in the NT. While translators use expressions like "direct the affairs of the church" when the word group is believed to refer to men (1 Tim 5:17), "helper" is used when Phoebe is the person described.

Divinus

11th August 2002, 05:16 PM

Fr Rob,
Sorry I didn't get back to you about the stuff you mentioned, but it looks like its going to be a few days before I can get to the library to look up stuff. Instead, I thought I'd refer you to an essay I wrote on this a while back, which is here (http://www.geocities.com/vinummeus/womennt.html). A warning in advance though, there are some very large omissions in that essay, stuff I forgot to put in, stuff that went peculiar when I edited it (I was trying to get the word count down to the 3,000 it was supposed to be...fat chance) but it might be helpful, nonetheless.

-Divinus

suzie

11th August 2002, 08:46 PM

the NT says relatively little about ordination with the biblical concept of ministry. It clearly portrays the fact however, that the church had varied and faithful ministry arising from the fact that all of God's people were "gifted" by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of edifying or building up one another. A person could exercise ministry who was called and gifted by God and affirmed by the body of Christ, the Church. Some were set apart in leadership positions and some were assigned tasks to accomplish, but the differences among ministries were not distinctions of any kind. Eventually certain types of affirmation were ombined with certain functions of ministry to bring us to the current understanding of ordination we know today. Remember ministry means service. Just as no person should be ordained or given responsibilities of ministry because of their sex, neither should any person called and gifted by God be denied any role of leadership or ministry in the church because of one's sex.

eldermike

11th August 2002, 09:10 PM

I beleive that the pastorial epistles (1Tim, 2Tim and Titus) didn't leave many unanswered questions on this subject. Here is the issue to me. It's the family which is the very reason Paul gave in 1 Tim. A mans house must be in order before He can be considered for the office of Pastor. Why? Because the local church is a family, made up of families. Not excluding anyone that is not in a traditional family but encouraging traditional families as the model God gave us. We find ourselves in a time when the family that God planned is in trouble in this culture. What questions were left unanswered in the pastorial epistles? How would Paul have changed His message if He wrote it today?

suzie

12th August 2002, 09:41 AM

when you speak of the "head" of the household or church what was Paul saying? First of all, was Paul mandating to all women for all times or was Paul addressing various church problems that had arisen out of the diversity of backgrounds. Remember Paul's message was for unity and harmony in worship and as members of the family in Christ. In 1Tim 3:1-11 there is no reference to gender. The Greek word in 1 Tim 1 that is translated "a man" is Ei-tis, which means "if any" or "whever, whatever" In the ensuing scriptures after verse one, nearly all references to him or he are added for English clarity. When the word "he" is included as in v4, the Greek word "ho" which is genderless. Strong defines ho as including the feminine he (hay) and the neuter to (to); The only reference to male gender is in the verse where "husband" is used. This is similar to Titus 1:6. As far as v6 we know and accept that it does not require man to be married to be an elder. We believe it is inserted in the context of "if any man is married it must be to one wife" The reason men are singled out in this verse is that, in the times these epistles were written, it was common for men to have multiple wifes but not for women to have multiple husbands. Men almost exclusively could attain a divorce or have his wife "put away" (which is a discussion within itself), since the woman was the property of the man or husband, she had almost no rights for divorce or to control the consequences of her husband to disregard her. The message would only be pertinent to the husband then. The qualifications in 1Tim and Titus have to do with character traits of the individual to be chosen. Paul could have easily used masculine pronouns if he had intended for exclusion of women in leadership. Actually by the ackward Greek construction of using neuter pronouns it leans toward the fact Paul went out of his way to make this for both men and women who meet the character standards and behavior for leadership.

Now about the head of the household and that order discussion. That is a discussion in itself. The Greek word for head as used in the verses you are leaning toward eldermike, is kephale. This word does not mean authority but instead means "source". "origin" or "starting point". When the husband is called the head of the wife, the expressed idea is that the husband is the source of life to the wife, as Christ is the source of life to the church. Speaking in these terms the issue then does not deal with authority over but instead love. In Ephesians 5 Paul is dealing with household codes during Roman Empire. Paul borrowed from the Greco-Roman moral writings of how the leader of the household should deal with its members. These discussions break down to husband-wife; father-child; master-slave relationships. Paul was actually taking a radical break from the traditional patriarchal households of that day in this by enjoining all Christians to submit to one another. The next implication is whatever submitting a wife must do, the husband is called to do the same as a Christian. The final expression of being filled with the Spirit is submitting to one another because Christ is one's Lord.

Fr. Rob

12th August 2002, 10:35 AM

Here is the problem with all the interpreting being done on this, and other topics, in the Church today.

What we are doing is: 1) Assuming that God's inspired word is not, in fact, inspired. 2) Intrepreting the terms and situations according to our modern needs instead of taking them context with their original writing. 3) Looking for any way to manipulate the scriptures to support our point of view, even when the plain, contextual, literal translation does not support what we say.

This is not only a problem on this topic, but on many others as well. We need to get back to our biblical roots, before we "Mainline" ourselves into oblivion.

Fr. Rob // thankful that the gates of Hades will NOT prevail!

eldermike

12th August 2002, 10:40 AM

Suzie,

You make some good points on this issue. I think we mostly agree.This is a different subject, as you correctly stated. And you may have misunderstood me a bit. I agree with you, this authority is a spiritual authority. But that is, in fact, what I believe Paul was getting at when He was writing about a mans house being in order. Not that all the dishes are clean or anything such as that but rather the house must have a godly man that sets the pace for service to the Lord, not a man that gives orders. But this is the same task as Pastor of a local church. The pastor is not an authoritative order giver, but rather a servant to the membership and spiritual leader by way of example. I do not believe that anyone who understands this issue believes that women have a lesser role in God's kingdom.

I do believe that the family is the issue is this area but hopefully I have explained myself a little better. Men should out-serve their wives, but not by holding them back <grin>

I actually don't have any problem with women in positions of authority in the church (including pastor) and in many cases it's a must because many men are not doing what God has called them to do. However,I do not believe this condition, changes the word of God.

Blessings

Thunderchild

12th August 2002, 11:27 AM

What makes you think that Paul's declarations on the issue of women's roles are scriptural, Father Rob?

suzie

12th August 2002, 02:07 PM

Fr. Rob- I am not sure what context you are coming from with your above remarks. I most wholeheartedly believe that scripture is the inspired Word of God. In that context however, we also know that literally we cannot take word for word scripture to hold the same meaning as it did then, or that sometimes stories or situations were used to give meaning to the message attempting to be conveyed. Jesus himself spoke in parables. Jesus was refered to as a vine, a shepherd, bread, etc. We know he wasnt really all these things, but symbolically the meaning expressed was conveyed by these terms. Salt meant something very different to those times than it does today. We use salt as a flavoring, while salt was the main preservative of that time period and essential to them, which brings a different dynamics to being the salt of the earth. In fact, that is why it is important to have a hermaneutical understanding of the mindset and peoples of the times. That does not take away from the meaning or intent of the message at all. There are some Greek words that are not even able to be translated literally into English, so we have the burden to translate as closely to the meaning as we can. This does not detract from the scriptures and their meaning.
Are we to have slaves then, since Paul gave instructions on how to treat slaves and never denounces slavery, that must mean that we are to own others ....or was Paul attempting to work within the sinful cultures of the times to achieve the goals of the kingdom. Instead, we need to try and understand what Paul was attempting to convey and why. And from that, what message flows in harmony with the message of God and His will for us. I dont think this is a new concept.
eldermike- I appreciate your remarks however I do not think I misunderstood you. I do not believe men are called to be the spiritual leaders of the household or church and if they are unable or unwilling, then it is ok for a woman to take on that role. That is essentially what I believe you are saying, and if not, then I am in misunderstanding and I apologize. I believe husband and wife are to both share spiritual leadership using their gifts as given and both of them are under the authority of God. Needless to say, if both husband and wife are seeking God's will for themselves and family, it will be a mute point who is leading who. That is the uniqueness of marriage where man and woman become "one". God designed woman from man--not from the ground but they are of one flesh, unique in relationship to any other creature. they complete each other . God's creation design was male/female equality. The household codes Paul was dealing with was during a time when women were regarded as subordinate and inferior in virtually every way. They could not partake in public discourse or education. A common Jewish prayer at this time was "Praised be God that He has not created me a Gentile! Praised by God that He has not created me a woman! Praised be God that He has not created me a slave! "(the gentiles had a similar one with Jew inserted instead of Gentile). Most household codes at the time of Pauls letters simply addressed the leader of the household (exclusively men) instructing him on how to govern the other members. Instead Paul speaks first to the woman, the children and slaves omitting any references to govern, instead he calls on him to love his wife, be restrained in disciplining his children, and treat his slaves as equals before God. Most ancient writers expected their wives to be obedient to their husbands, some even required absolute obedience in their marriage contracts. Although Paul upholds the wifely submission of this culture, he qualifies it by placing it under the context of mutual submission. Both husbands and wives must submit and love. Instead of stressing how to rule her, he stresses how he is to love her. This is unity.
Within the church, God is and has used many women in leadership and their gifts and abilities as called. Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Lydia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Cloe, Nympha,Junia, come to mind. There are no distinction of spiritual giftedness or abilities by gender, power, or any other means. Romans 12 and again in 1 Cor 12 it speaks about spiritual gifts --Paul speaks of unity of the body and love. We are called to use our giftedness and abilities to the fullest in our church for God's glory.

Fr. Rob

12th August 2002, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchild
What makes you think that Paul's declarations on the issue of women's roles are scriptural, Father Rob?

Because I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God, and is useful for. . . etc... you know the rest ;-)

As for the witness of the early church: "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the Church, nor to teach, baptize, offer, or to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to mention the priestly office." Tertullian, c. 207

"We do not permit a woman to teach in the Church. Rather, we permit them only to pray and hear those who teach; because Jesus himself never sent out women to preach, even though there was no lack of women avaliable." The Apostolic Constituitions, Compiled c. 390.

Are these Bible verses? No. Are they good examples of the practice of the early church? Yes.

Between the Bible and the witness of application in the early Church, I am secure in the Scriptural prerequsite of being a man to be a minister.

Fr. Rob

suzie

12th August 2002, 04:10 PM

Now you are separating scripture with tradition. But if you wish to look at the early church then.....Junia (Romans 16:7-8) is called an outstanding apostle. Origin (185-253) referred to Junia as a female. likewise Jerome (c.340-420) In fact no one in history supposed the name to be that of a man until the 13th century when Aegidius of Rome referred to Junia as honorable men. John Chrysostom (4th century) wrote "To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles-just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! they were outstanding on the basis of their works and viruous actions. Indeed how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was deemed worthy of the title of apostle." Tertullian said "How many men and woman there are whose chastity has obtained for them the honor of ecclesiastical orders!" (Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol 2. Col. 978. There are surviving stone inscriptions which refer to women overseers..."Theodora Episcopa" and the head of a woman appears in a mosaic of a 9th century church. The name also appears elsewhere in print. Episcopa Terni is mentioned in the canon 20 of the Council of Tours...An episcopa is listed in a Vatican Library manuscript taken from an epitaph which reads (Hono)rabilis femina episcopa. Pliny, circa 99AD, refers to finding it necessary to torture two Christian maidens called "ministrae" the latin for Servants or Deacons. Women in the early church served as deacons or servants though in the 3-4th century the Catholic Church began to separate men from women ---and in the 4th century the diminutive title deaconess was created to describe women in this separate role. in 352 AD at the Council of Laodicea it was proclaimed that women could not serve as priests or preside over churches. In 365 at the Council of Laodicea it also declares that the women may not be called presbutidas (overseers) and also that women must not approach the altar. In 398 the 4th Synod of Carthage proclaimed that women may not teach men in assembly and in another canon they state a woman cannot baptize. and finally in 533 we have that they no longer shall the blessing of deaconess be given because of the weakness of the sex. So it appears that for the first 300 yrs, women were participating in ministry and leadership and after that human tradition has tended away from the gender roles that God declared as equal.

Divinus

12th August 2002, 05:44 PM

Wasn't Tertullian a heretic? I'm sure I remember reading that somewhere...

Fr. Rob

12th August 2002, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Divinus
Wasn't Tertullian a heretic? I'm sure I remember reading that somewhere...

Both Origen and Tertuillan had written some pretty extreme things about exclusion from the Church for those who had sacrificed to idols to avoid persecution. . . some of them borderline and even outright wrong. However, there is a fixed point when his writings change, when he ceases to support he broader Church in their desire to reconcile the "sinners".

I don't believe he died denying any of our core doctrines of faith, but I haven't gotten that far in my studies of their writings in specific.

Fr. Rob

jimnme

12th August 2002, 08:52 PM

Hi,  this is my first post as I just recently found this forum.

My husband and I have had this discussion for the last few days.  After reading scriptures I find that it was appropriate for women to teach other women, but not adult men.

Now I never thought I would have believed this being a woman and all, but I started thinking about God's intended order for us, men and women.  I think this teaching goes right along with it.  I have a certain place in my family....as does my husband.  He is the one that guides our family.  My husband is the head of the family and Christ is his head.  The seems to work out fine for us.  And it makes it easy for me to see why the Lord would have it this way.

Women teaching men does not go along with this order, which has been in place since the day of creation, whether we are willing to see it or not.

please don't be offended, this is what I believe in my heart.

 

 

 

heydeerman

12th August 2002, 10:32 PM

jimnme,

Thank you for your post.

Most folks see men posting or hear people talking about this subject trying to explain Gods plan for men and women and they think you are a cheuvenists (?) or something. There is nothing farther from the truth. I appreciate your comments.

Fr. Rob

12th August 2002, 11:40 PM

jimnme,

Welcome to the boards! Thank you for your wonderful testimony to God's providence and plan.

May God grant you blessings now and always!
Fr. Rob

Thunderchild

12th August 2002, 11:46 PM

jimnme... Unfortunately, it is not possible for a woman to AVOID teaching men. Anytime you declare your understanding of doctrine, that is a teaching, and you are conducting it. However, it is clear that at least one woman had a teaching role on at least one occasion - the fact is recorded in Acts.

Father Rob - My question was "Why do you believe that Paul's edicts are scriptural" Your stating that all scripture is inspired by God does not address the question asked - and I have already stipulated to that fact. I will ask again, what makes you think that Paul's edicts on this matter are scriptural?

Do you perhaps believe that everything an apostle wrote was by definition inspired of God?
Do you believe that no mistake could have been made with the declaration that everything in the Bible, down to the last paragraph and phrase is scripture, by those who chose what was to be included in the Bible?

On what basis do you make the claim that these edicts of Paul's are scripture?

suzie

13th August 2002, 08:12 AM

Jimne- I have respect for whatever you believe that gives harmony to your life and home. I embarked on the scriptural study after a simple question was posed to me regarding women in ministry. I hadnt given it much thought prior to this since it had never affected me personally in any ministry I was called to. In my home, my husband and I share spiritual leadership and the Lord is the authority. It has never ever been an issue to us. We both pray for God's wisdom and plan and eventually it is revealed in those difficult decisions we sometimes face. We submit to each other as called to do. As I have studied Greek and Hebrew wording and the background of the churches in Ephesus and Corinth, along with the style of Paul's writings, it then created a much clearer intent in the Pauline letters. Most theologians agree that paul's writings are very difficult. We do know that all scripture cannot be taken as literal text , but the harmony balance and consistency in interpretation. Although it in some ways would be much simpler to take scripture as stated, and in some ways easier to allow men to lead---gives women an out at times--keeps men involved in church and ministry ---we all will have accountability for what we do or fail to do before God. In the context of the Pauline letters, was Paul mandating to all women for all time or dealing with specific problems arising within the church. Is barring women from ministry in harmony with Jesus' message or Pauls for that matter? God made male/female equal--sharing the same nature, the same image, both commissioned to rule the earth. Did God proclaim man to be authority over woman? I am not attempting to attack you, but I believe that this is something you should think and study carefully.

jimnme

13th August 2002, 08:20 AM

I don't think its impossible for me to teach men what the bible says, I simply don't do it.  I don't stand before my church and teach, but I do teach my children.

 

I also believe the Bible is God's authorized word.  I do not assume for a minute that what Paul writes is not scripture, it's in the Book and thats proof to me.  I believe that the Bible is made perfect by God.  I don't see any other way to see it.

I'm not trying to just be disagreeable, but this is what was revealed to me through the scriptures.  I am not perfect nor have ever claimed to be, I'm just trying to do the Lord's will.

 

suzie

13th August 2002, 08:31 AM

Jimne- I also believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God --all of it. Please reread what I stated to you. I think you are misunderstanding my messge. What I was saying is that we cannot take literal text word for word of scripture---it wouldnt make sense. We also know that Paul and Jesus as well as the other authors sometimes spoke in terms in which their audience would comprehend and understand. They used analogies subjects of the times. Although scripture is revealed and through the Holy Spirit God speaks to us through His Word, there is still meaning that we come to understand as we understand the mindset, the events and the culture of the time of writings. Paul was writing to encourage, direct and problem solve in cases within these young churches that were bringing in new converts from Jewish, Gentile, pagan backgrounds. This influenced his writings and gives a clearer picture of the intentions in his letters and the message God was directing. The point is, the message isnt about power and authority as much as it is about love and unity of the body.

Thunderchild

13th August 2002, 11:30 AM

I also believe the Bible is God's authorized word. I do not assume for a minute that what Paul writes is not scripture, it's in the Book and thats proof to me. The Book you cite as your authority demands two or more reliable witnesses be provided before any matter can be deemed to be a fact. Is the book you refer to as the final authority wrong about that demand?

heydeerman

14th August 2002, 05:29 AM

Thunderchild.....where are you going with this?

DaveKerwin

14th August 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by jimnme
Hi,  this is my first post as I just recently found this forum.

My husband and I have had this discussion for the last few days.  After reading scriptures I find that it was appropriate for women to teach other women, but not adult men.

Now I never thought I would have believed this being a woman and all, but I started thinking about God's intended order for us, men and women.  I think this teaching goes right along with it.  I have a certain place in my family....as does my husband.  He is the one that guides our family.  My husband is the head of the family and Christ is his head.  The seems to work out fine for us.  And it makes it easy for me to see why the Lord would have it this way.

Women teaching men does not go along with this order, which has been in place since the day of creation, whether we are willing to see it or not.

please don't be offended, this is what I believe in my heart.

 

 

 

great post, I agree

being a man, that is something that doesnt feel right with a woman being my head pastor. that's a personal feeling.

DaveKerwin

14th August 2002, 11:39 AM

Has ANYONE ever seen a female head pastor that had long flowing hair and a feminine voice? I haven't. Just as observation.

heydeerman

15th August 2002, 10:12 PM

Interesting......

Nate16

15th August 2002, 10:15 PM

Very

suzie

15th August 2002, 10:36 PM

There are many women pastors in various denominations. I dont think hair and voice are character traits that define pastorship. I have an inclination that you would not "feel" right having a woman doctor giving you a complete physical, however that does not prove that a woman doctor is not competant nor called to her profession.

psycmajor

15th August 2002, 11:49 PM

In my church (Nazarene), there were 2 pastors there. They were husband and wife, and grandparents, as well. Yup, Mrs. Reverend Cahill. I saw no problem with it then, and I see no problem with it now.

The absence of genitalia should not be indicative of how well a person can or cannot perform. That is sexism. Remember, Paul spoke these things. The Bible was inspired by God, but each writer had their own style and opinions. I hold the words of Jesus much higher.

DaveKerwin

16th August 2002, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by psycmajor
In my church (Nazarene), there were 2 pastors there. They were husband and wife, and grandparents, as well. Yup, Mrs. Reverend Cahill. I saw no problem with it then, and I see no problem with it now.

The absence of genitalia should not be indicative of how well a person can or cannot perform. That is sexism. Remember, Paul spoke these things. The Bible was inspired by God, but each writer had their own style and opinions. I hold the words of Jesus much higher.

All scripture is God breathed. Just a reminder.

If you feel fine with a woman pastor, then blessings to you. You are right though, genitalia has nothing to do with the worthiness of spreading the gospel, teaching, preaching, whatever. But there are different venues for those things, and I personally don' t think God planned for a woman to have the role as a pastor, where they are leading a whole church. God made man and woman differently to do different things. At my church, we have a female pastor who leads the children's ministry, up to fifth grade, and she does a wonderful job.

Miss Shelby

16th August 2002, 12:09 PM

My own personal opinion here... I don't know why but I do not want a woman preaching to me from the pulpit. Women certainly have a role to play in other leadership forms... but that should exclude any type Pastoral leadership. IMO.

Michelle

suzie

16th August 2002, 12:50 PM

Your opinion is your opinion -cultural and traditionals views certainly color our thinking. There were women who led and taught, prophesied and played a major role in churches however

Miss Shelby

16th August 2002, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by suzie
Your opinion is your opinion 

I think that's what I said.

Michelle

psycmajor

16th August 2002, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by DaveKerwin

All scripture is God breathed. Just a reminder.

If you feel fine with a woman pastor, then blessings to you. You are right though, genitalia has nothing to do with the worthiness of spreading the gospel, teaching, preaching, whatever. But there are different venues for those things, and I personally don' t think God planned for a woman to have the role as a pastor, where they are leading a whole church. God made man and woman differently to do different things. At my church, we have a female pastor who leads the children's ministry, up to fifth grade, and she does a wonderful job.

Nope. I just don't see myself in any way limited to a certain area as when compared to a man.

godchaser2003

16th August 2002, 02:43 PM

Where exactly in the Bible does it say that women ca't be pastors? I have not found anything, so far. All I have seen was that God has used ordinary people, women INCLUDED, to do His will. What about Esther? I mean, she was a queen....

I'm asking because I want to be a youth minister, and I am a girl. What's the difference?

suzie

16th August 2002, 04:04 PM

I believe one effect of redemption through Jesus Christ is the restoration of God's creational intent of full equality between men and women (Gal 3:28). The task of the church is to model that restored relationship to a sinful world. As a result, all Christians, male and female, should have equal access to all parts of the church's life and ministry.

We have numerous examples of women in ministry including Junia the Apostle (Rom 16:7), Female teachers (of men also), Female deacons, Female leaders, Female "fellow workers" where the Corinthians are commanded to be subject to fellow workers (In other words, Paul puts "fellow workers" in leadership postitions and calls women "fellow workers".) I will go with what scripture says.

Gerry

16th August 2002, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchild
The Book you cite as your authority demands two or more reliable witnesses be provided before any matter can be deemed to be a fact. Is the book you refer to as the final authority wrong about that demand?

Apparently one of us is lacking in understanding here. So I assume it is me. Would you please explain what you have written?

Chloe

16th August 2002, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by suzie
I believe one effect of redemption through Jesus Christ is the restoration of God's creational intent of full equality between men and women (Gal 3:28). The task of the church is to model that restored relationship to a sinful world. As a result, all Christians, male and female, should have equal access to all parts of the church's life and ministry.

We have numerous examples of women in ministry including Junia the Apostle (Rom 16:7), Female teachers (of men also), Female deacons, Female leaders, Female "fellow workers" where the Corinthians are commanded to be subject to fellow workers (In other words, Paul puts "fellow workers" in leadership postitions and calls women "fellow workers".) I will go with what scripture says.

Umm, where does the Bible teach that one effect of redemption through Jesus was the restoration of God's creational intent of full equallity between men and women?  That is not what Galatians 3:28 means at all. Men and women have always been equal yet with seperate roles.  Men were always intended by God to be the leader and women to be their help.  Junia who was in fact a woman apostle, and it is also believed that Andronicus was her husband and she was not in authority over men, apostle does not equal leader or one in authority.  An apostle was one who was sent, not necessarily one in authority over men.  What woman was teaching men?  Are you speaking of Priscilla who taught Apollos along with her husband?  A fellow worker is not one who is necessarily in authority over men either.  I am a fellow worker with my husband, yet he is the head of the house and I submit to his authority and leadership as he faithfully submits to the authority and leadership of Jesus Christ (whom I also submit to).  One can work alongside one in leadership, yet not be in authority over anyone.  Just because a woman is not to be in a postion of authority does not mean she is of no service to God. 

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

It should be noted that obviously Jesus is not inferior to God and this verse is not about superiority, but about order.  We all are called to be  ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but women are not to be in a position of authority over men, period.  The Bible says that and it is not difficult at all to understand Paul in 1 Timothy 2.  The passage needs no reading into it and should be taken literally.  Paul (well God actually) thought it to be significant to include the fact that Adam was formed first and Eve was the one deceived. 

Deborah cannot be used as proof that woman are also called to be pastors, because Deborah was before the church and was called more than likely as many scholars believe, because there were no men that were fit to be called.  Also it should be noted that Deborah was the exception, not the rule. 

Also, prophesying has nothing to do with being in authority or in leadership over others or men.  

Women have always been used mightily of God and will continue to be used, and I will state again one needn't be a pastor or a teacher over men to be of service to God or man.  Women (in general) have one of the most important ministries in teaching their children! Teaching other women is also very important as women are exhorted to do in this verse: 

Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

The word of God is very clear on this issue and others and I find it to be very sad to see people say, "Surely God didn't mean that", it's very similar to Satan saying to Eve, "Yea hath God said...?"

ALL SCRIPTURE is the word of God and people need to stop making what it says more difficult than it is!  

Take God at His word people!! 

And Thunderchild, the book of James in NO WAY contradicts any of Paul's epistles.

 

hobart schmedly

16th August 2002, 05:57 PM

Servant (διάκονον)
The word may be either masculine or feminine. Commonly explained as deaconess. The term διακόνισσα deaconess is found only in ecclesiastical Greek. The “Apostolical Constitutions” distinguish deaconesses from widows and virgins, prescribe their duties, and a form for their ordination. Pliny the younger, about a.d. 104, appears to refer to them in his letter to Trajan, in which he speaks of the torture of two maids who were called minestrae (female ministers). The office seems to have been confined mainly to widows, though virgins were not absolutely excluded. Their duties were to take care of the sick and poor, to minister to martyrs and confessors in prison, to instruct catechumens, to assist at the baptism of women, and to exercise a general supervision over the female church-members. Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom_16:12) may have belonged to this class. See on 1Ti_5:3-16. Conybeare (“Life and Epistles of St. Paul”) assumes that Phoebe was a widow, on the ground that she could not, according to Greek manners, have been mentioned as acting in the independent manner described, either if her husband had been living or she had been unmarried. Renan says: “Phoebe carried under the folds of her robe the whole future of Christian theology.”

Rom 16:3 Salute Prisca and Aquila, my helpers, in Christ Jesus
Rom 16:4 (Who have for my life laid down their own necks: to whom not I only give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles),
Rom 16:5 And the church which is in their house . Salute Epenetus, my beloved: who is the firstfruits of Asia in Christ.

Miss Shelby

16th August 2002, 06:06 PM

Chloe, I think I'm gonna like you, sister!

Michelle

Kary

16th August 2002, 07:01 PM

Right ON Chloe! Nice post! :clap:

suzie

20th August 2002, 09:59 AM

Chole-

Gal 3:28 does indeed speak about restoration of the intended Kingdom of God. I do not see however where God mandated separate roles for male and female with men in authority over women. Your references to the female leaders within scripture saddens me that you downplay their roles to bring light to your point of view. Junia was not the wife of Andronicus. At least no where in my studies has this ever even been suggested. I am curious what reference you have about this. Priscilla did teach Apollos along with her husband, and although mentioned over 6 times in the NT, Priscilla is almost always mentioned first. This is significant because the culture of this day would put the husband's name first before the wife. Scholars agree that this would indicate Priscilla was the more important or visible leader with possibly a higher social status than that of her husband.

Deborah was a married prophetess and raised up to be a judge over Israel. I find it difficult again to see the source of where there were no other men able or willing to lead at this time so she was raised up.....It is just as significant as the other leaders and judges that God raised up through the OT. She was called and used by God without regard to her gender but by her heart. Miriam was also noted as prophetess and as a leader.
The head you speak of is not about authority but about source. Kephale id the Greek word used here for head--the issue is not about authority but about love. The Greco-Roman culture already had social roles deeply in place. Paul was attempting to use this structure to bring about the Christian unity instead of heirarchy that was in place.

Prophecy was one of the two spiritual ministries of the church. Prophets were very much seen as leaders and gave direction , edification and instruction through God.

Scripture is difficult to understand especially the Pauline letters. Scholars have very difficult time with these because they are sometimes confusing and sometimes seem to contradict. They are not simple. We do not hold the same culture or ideals as they did. Things that were very meaningful content do not hold the same for today. It is important to allow God to speak to us through scripture , but it is also our responsibilty as believers to understand the meaning of scripture and come to understand the mindset and culture of the times to give us a clearer message of the meaning of the message being portrayed.

DaveKerwin

20th August 2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by psycmajor

Nope. I just don't see myself in any way limited to a certain area as when compared to a man.

I do!

You are a woman, made from man to be a suitable helper. God made women different from men for a reason. If he wanted everyone to be exactly equal, he would have made us all hermaphrodites, in which there would be no distinction. I understand there are women in the Bible who did some great things, but check the scriptures without your mind made up and you will see the differences, the limitations. I am not saying a woman is UNABLE to be a pastor, because she can, but I don't see it as right. Many women are thrown into men's roles because of a bunch of men who don't know their own role. For example, single mothers need to provide, be the head of the house, and do everything, because the lack of a male doing his job. It should not be that way.

eric_b

22nd August 2002, 04:39 PM

1 Timothy has a pretty clear passage about this:

1Ti 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
1Ti 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Does anyone else have some Scripture that they think applies to this question? If so, please post it. It's always good to root discussions like this directly in the Word...

Eric

Thunderchild

24th August 2002, 12:10 PM

James (I think it was) found it necessary to correct a mis-conception brought about by the way Paul approached salvation through grace and faith. James declared that it is incorrect to interpret Paul's exposition of this matter to say works are not involved in salvation. Nonetheless, Paul's sloppy choice of wording in those passages continues to give rise to the concept of Sola Fide.

Did someone think the foregoing is a claim that James contradicted Paul? Oh dear....

The Book you cite as your authority demands two or more reliable witnesses be provided before any matter can be deemed to be a fact. Is the book you refer to as the final authority wrong about that demand? What was so hard to understand? The Bible declares that two or more reliable and independent witnesses are needed before a matter can be declared as a fact. The Bible not only makes this demand, it makes the demand repeatedly. (And NO - it doesn't apply only at law. Paul and even Jesus himself, when they referred to the requirement, were not using the requirement with regard to a legal matter.)

Given that there are NOT two reliable and independent Biblical authors as witnesses requiring women to assume a subordinate role, given that there ARE independent and reliable Biblical authors as witnesses to show that women are appointed by God to positions of authority - I am quite happy to ignore Paul's edicts.

suzie

24th August 2002, 01:44 PM

Eric--
First of all, regarding this scripture, in 1 Tim v11-12 is a general prohibition on teaching and authority exercised by women. It is not directed to only a certain level of persons (such as "ordained" in distinction from "non-ordained" or "pastors" as distinct from "missionaries"). It is not limited only to a cerain style of teaching either (preaching as opposed to sharing, seminary teaching or writing theology books). In other words, if 1 Tim 2:11-12 were trans-cultural, with absolute prohibition of all women teaching and exercising authority in the church, it prohibits all such activity.

The word in v11 and 12 often translated as "in quietness" (11) and "silent" (12) is identical in Greek. The same term is used by Paul in 1 Thes 3:12 which the NIV translates "settle down". The point is that this term, which is often assumed to mean only "verbal silence" is better understood as
an indication of proper order or acceptance of normal practice.

The term translated "to have authority" (authentein) occurs only here in the NT and was rarely used in the Greek language. It is not the usual word used for the type of authority as we would view it, but rather is a negative term usage which indicates abuse or unsurpation of authority, some authorities have stated that the term authentein is akin to "to assassinate" or to "kill with one's own hand" .

This would indicate that the prohibition in v11-12 is against abusive activity within the church, not against appropriate exercise of teaching and authority. The clue to the abuse is found within the heretical activity combatted in 1-2 Tim.

Compare the direction to women as to Epesians 6:1-9; Col3:22-24 and again in 1Tim 6 regarding slaves. If were are to take the scriptures as literally meaning, then it would mean that slavery is acceptable. We know that is not God's intent however, and that Paul was working within a sinful culture. It isnt about authority --it is about unity.

Loser For Jesus

24th August 2002, 03:19 PM

Suzie,

Some nice textual gymnastics there.

The problem is that God's order was laid down at the very beginning of creation and has its roots in Genesis and the Garden of Eden - not just after the Fall but before.

All this arguing about "culture", Greek meanings, different "authors" in Scripture, etc. is really quite pointless. The fact is that God wrote the Bible - He may have used human hands to do it with, but He is the ultimate author. You think He based His Word on human "culture"? You think He requires us to understand Greek in order to understand what He's saying to us? (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with knowing Greek, by the way!)

The fact is that people will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid simply obeying Scripture. They'll twist it this way, interpret it that way, and generally find some way of justifying their own opinion and allowing them to do exactly as they want.

It's been shown time and time again that women have very important roles to play within the church, which do not involve being pastors or having authority over men. It is simply pride which makes women want to do something that God says they shouldn't do. (Hmm, remind you of a story from the beginning of Genesis, perhaps?)

This applies equally to men who find it much more convenient to go along with this feminist pride and not stand up for the Word of God. (Hmm, that story in Genesis keeps coming to mind!)

Really, would it kill people just to obey?

love in Christ,
Malcolm

Thunderchild

24th August 2002, 03:23 PM

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Does this meet with

In Christ there is neither male nor female?

Also, prophesying has nothing to do with being in authority or in leadership over others or men.
God has appointed in the church, first apostles then prophets... and so on down the line. Is this "first" a declaration of authority? "Though as an apostle I have authority to order compliance, I rather appeal to you" Paul.

Deborah cannot be used as proof that woman are also called to be pastors, because Deborah was before the church and was called more than likely as many scholars believe, because there were no men that were fit to be called. Also it should be noted that Deborah was the exception, not the rule.
Who says Deborah was called to judge because men of the time were unfit? There were other judges at the time - or will you claim that every one of them was a female? What evidence exists to show that Deborah was an exception to a rule? But given that an exception is made - and not because there were no men available to fulfil the task - would you care to explain what the basis is for making exceptions? Or could it be that God will make exceptions without bothering to explain why?

Thunderchild

24th August 2002, 03:28 PM

The fact is that God wrote the Bible An interesting assertion. Where does it come from? You got a proof text to show that everything in the Bible is scripture perhaps? Didn't think so.

The Bible states that every fact is affirmed on the testimony of two or more independent and reliable witnesses. Are you saying that the Bible is wrong on this issue?

Loser For Jesus

24th August 2002, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchild
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Does this meet with

In Christ there is neither male nor female?

Yes. Perfectly. God doesn't contradict Himself.

Also, prophesying has nothing to do with being in authority or in leadership over others or men.
God has appointed in the church, first apostles then prophets... and so on down the line. Is this "first" a declaration of authority? "Though as an apostle I have authority to order compliance, I rather appeal to you" Paul.

Indeed, prophesying is quite different. There's nothing to say a woman can't prophesy - if its done in a fitting and orderly way according to 1 Corinthians 11-14. 

love in Christ,

Malcolm

Loser For Jesus

24th August 2002, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchild
An interesting assertion. Where does it come from? You got a proof text to show that everything in the Bible is scripture perhaps? Didn't think so.

The Bible states that every fact is affirmed on the testimony of two or more independent and reliable witnesses. Are you saying that the Bible is wrong on this issue?

Give me a break. Are you saying God isn't the author of His own Word? If you're able to pick and choose what you accept and don't accept from the Bible itself, then there's little point trying to have any kind of Christian or Scripturally based discussion with you.

love in Christ,

Malcolm

Thunderchild

24th August 2002, 10:57 PM

I see no claim within the Bible that everything in the Bible is God's own word. I have seen that a number of people make that claim that everything in the Bible is God's word. Fortunately, the Bible itself declares that certain passages - notably twice in 1 Corinthians 7 - are not from God. Further, I see that the Bible declares every fact to be affirmed on the testimony of two or more reliable and independent witnesses. Opposed to this, there are people who tell me that only one witness is necessary. I make no apologies for believing the Bible itself, rather than the claims made about it.

suzie

26th August 2002, 09:39 AM

Where exactly was God's order mandated that men are to be in authority over women prior to the fall Loser?? And about "Culture" and different authors, well the bible was translated from Greek and Hebrew into English. I find it equally prideful that some men find it difficult to think women are called into leadership and God does use all as called instead of boxing into a mindset.......and scripture is not as simple as you relate it to be....if it were so why are there so many disagreements on the nonessentials of faith within the Christian community??
Deborah, Miriam, Phoebe, Junia, these are women who were biblical leaders. That would conflict with your opinion. If God used a woman as leader, how does that fit into your logic?

Thunderchild

26th August 2002, 12:19 PM

If you're able to pick and choose what you accept and don't accept from the Bible itself, then there's little point trying to have any kind of Christian or Scripturally based discussion with you. Ah - but you have chosen for yourself what to pick from the Bible, and what to reject...After all, you HAVE rejected the Bible's declaration that every fact must be affirmed by more than one witness.

Loser For Jesus

26th August 2002, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by suzie
Where exactly was God's order mandated that men are to be in authority over women prior to the fall Loser??

(Gen 2:18-23)  The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." (19) Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. (20) So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. (21) So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. (22) Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (23) The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man."

... and scripture is not as simple as you relate it to be....if it were so why are there so many disagreements on the nonessentials of faith within the Christian community??

Because human beings are sinful and prideful and rebellious and won't just accept what God says. We refuse to allow God to crucify our flesh by the Holy Spirit - to die to our own opinions.

Deborah, Miriam, Phoebe, Junia, these are women who were biblical leaders. That would conflict with your opinion. If God used a woman as leader, how does that fit into your logic?

First of all, it's not my opinion - you don't have any idea what my personal opinion is. I'm just standing up for what Scripture says. Secondly, I don't see how the women you mention conflict with anything. God's Word doesn't say women can't be leaders, it just says they should not have authority over men.

Again, would it really kill people just to obey?

love in Christ,

Malcolm

 

Loser For Jesus

26th August 2002, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchild
Fortunately, the Bible itself declares that certain passages - notably twice in 1 Corinthians 7 - are not from God.

No, it doesn't.

Further, I see that the Bible declares every fact to be affirmed on the testimony of two or more reliable and independent witnesses.

Really? Where and how does it declare this? How many times is this declared? Is it declared by two or three independent witnesses?

I've looked at all the passages where Scripture talks about "two or three witnesses" and, the fact is, you're rather obviously stretching them to suit yourself.

love in Christ,

Malcolm

Thunderchild

26th August 2002, 02:26 PM

1Cr 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1Cr 7:25 - 26 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, [I say], that [it is] good for a man so to be.

2Cr 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Jhn 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Will you also claim that Jesus and Paul attempted to misapply the requirement?

Oh - and just a by the way, Deborah gave orders to Barak - she commanded him to come to her - as if it was really necessary to show that a JUDGE had authority over men.

Loser For Jesus

26th August 2002, 03:49 PM

Was Paul filled with the Spirit when he wrote 1 Cor 7:12 and 25-26? Doesn't he say "I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful?" According to you, I suppose the Corinthians could have just ignored his instructions then? So what was the point of him writing them?

Does the Holy Spirit count as a witness to the truth?

As for Deborah giving orders to Barak, as far as I can see she just sent for him - which doesn't necessarily constitute an order. The actual "orders" she gave came directly from the Lord - she is called a prophetess (of course, its perfectly acceptable for a woman to prophesy). And what do you make of Judges 4:9?

The fact is, however, that lots of things happened in the time of the Judges that weren't God's will.

Judg 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.

Which, of course, is pretty much what's happening now - people just doing as they see fit and coming up with all sorts of fancy ways to justify themselves - because God isn't really King in their lives.

love in Christ,
Malcolm

Thunderchild

27th August 2002, 12:17 AM

Judg 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. And that is the way that God wanted it: He did not want any king appointed over Israel. People were supposed to look to him as their king.

I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful?" Is not part of the statement "I have no command of the Lord" is not part of the statement "to the rest speak I, not the Lord" is not part of the statment "I suppose."

I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful?" does not declare that Paul is speaking by divine inspiration.

I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful?" DOES declare that Paul is faithful to God. Does declare that Paul has obtained mercy. Does declare that Paul's opinions are shown to be worthy of serious consideration.

The Holy Spirit is considered to be a witness by anyone with more than two working brain cells. The Holy Spirit's witness is clear enough - women have been appointed to roles of authority. Including the teaching of an active evangelist, as recorded in Acts. Paul said a woman is not to teach a man - who was ignoring the witness of the Holy Spirit?

As for Deborah giving orders to Barak, as far as I can see she just sent for him Oh - she just "sent for him." Barak could quite acceptably have ignored the summons. When someone says "come here" that is an order. And when someone tells another - go tell so and so to come here, that order does not originate with the messenger..
A Judge gave orders - it is part of the job of judging.

The actual "orders" she gave came directly from the Lord - Of course: a prophet is the voice of God. And you still haven't explained what "God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets" might mean - given that an apostle is in a role of primary human authority.

she is called a prophetess (of course, its perfectly acceptable for a woman to prophesy). Not according to Paul it isn't. A woman must keep silence in the ecclesia (gathering of believers.) He forbids the voice of God to speak in the church.

suzie

27th August 2002, 12:55 AM

Loser--In the Genesis account you have quoted (Genesis 2) did you think that God was in a dilema about what kind of helper he was going to give Adam? God foreknew woman was to be made....this is a poetic account of the creation story. First of all Helper isnt a title of subordinance or mandating man over woman. the Hebrew word for helper is 'ezer...it is used throughout the OT and almost always used as a position of authority, usually God. woman serves God  with man. Also God created male and female in His image. He gave them both commission over the earth. He also united them in a manner that was unique to all other creation.....he made woman from man. Not from the ground, but from man.....they were flesh of flesh and bone of bone. They were to be united as one flesh. Two become one. This is what God mandated. This isnt about power but about unity.

Scripture isnt simple loser. It isnt about pride or rebellion. Jesus called himself a vine , a shepherd, bread....is this what he is? Jesus said we are the salt of the earth.....are we salt? or is this a symbolic meaning.
What about slavery...Paul gives direction to slaves and never tells us that slavery is wrong. So then are we to assume that slavery is something God favors? Many Christians used scripture to defend their rights to have slaves. It wasnt all that long ago in the realm of history. It is not an attempt to bend the scriptures when you try to understand the meaning and intent of what was being said and to what audience for what reason. The scriptures were written in Greek, Hebrew as well as Aramaic. To understand the translations and hermaneutical interpretation does not detract from the Word, in fact, quite the opposite. It gives further insight. God could have clearly given a list of rules and regulations to follow. He could have wired us to automatically obey and praise Him. He instead gave us a guide to follow in His Word and through His Son. He gave us free will to choose and think thoughts. Just as the early churches struggled in their desire to follow God and unite pagan, gentile and jewish converts, we continue to struggle today to separate traditions and denominations from God's truth.

Why is there controversy over scripture? You say it is a matter of pride and rebellion....and I am sure that you have the correct mindset to interpret scripture correctly.  I am sure the theologians would love to have you become consult for them, for they continue to struggle with many biblical concepts and issues.  It isnt about God and His Word not being truth, it is about how we address and interpret it.  The underlying message of love, hope, and salvation  however, is quite simple. 

LouisBooth

27th August 2002, 01:09 AM

suzie

27th August 2002, 01:34 AM

Culture and tradition can be a hard thing to overcome

LouisBooth

27th August 2002, 01:51 AM

Don't think is has anything to do with culture or traditon. :) teaching and authority are two different things. :)

suzie

27th August 2002, 03:22 AM

We know that women did teach men in scripture. We know that women held positions of authority in scripture.

What I mean by culture and tradition is that our view of scripture is colored by our cultural and tradtional view.

I have done a fairly indepth study of women's role in scripture and I understand the Positions.

The Hierarchial Position: This is in essence that male and female are created by God with shared dignity value and nature, but also distinct in role whereby male was given responsibility of authority over the female. Using Gen1:26-27 makes it clear they share equality in creation of God's image, and so are fully equal and fully human. But, Gen 2 shows this group that their humanity would find expression differently wtih the female functioning in a subordinate role under the leadership and authority of the male. (They use 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2 in support of this). Passages as Eph 5:22-23 and 1 Tim 2:8-15 show, to them, God's created intention of male authority should now, in Christ, be fully affirmed, both in the home and church. Wives are to submit to their husbands in the model of the Church's submission to Christ, and women are not to exercise authority roles of teaching in the Church in view of Eve's created relation to Adam.

Then there is the Moderate Position: Male and female are created by God in value, essence and dignity. Gen 1:26-27 makes no distinction between men and women as they are both equally made in God's image and both given the responsibility to rule over creation. They were also created to have distinct roles whereby the wife is the "completer" of her husband and the husband is to be the "compassionate leader" using Gen 2. In the church, proper role distinctions are to be restored. Both men and women are to be encouraged to minister in accordance to their gifts and qualifications, in all areas but office of elder which is reserved for males. (Otherwise, women are not inherently unable to teach or hold authority, they are completely equal to men. But God has determined, for his own purposes, to limit leadership in the church and marriage to men)

The Egalitarian Position: Male and female created by God as equal in all respects. Gen 1:26-27 makes no distinction between men and women insofar as both are equally made in God's image and given the responsibilty to rule over creation.(functional equality). One effect of redemption through Jesus Christ is the restoration of God's creational intent of full equality between men and women (Gal 3;28). The task of the Church is to model that restored relationship to a sinful world. As a result, all Christians, male and female, should have equal access to all parts of the church's life and ministry. This also would extend into the marriage as full partners in spiritual leadership and ministry within the home.

All 3 sides have scriptural support for their point of view. As I began to dig deeper and deeper, I was searching for the position that would thread most consistantly with the message of Christ, since scripture at times seemed to conflict on this topic. We know that scripture is in harmony, so then it becomes a matter of what the scripture is saying --At times this means I had to understand what was being said prior to and after verses that were being used to defend their stand. Why they would be said and to what audience. I had to look at the Greek and Hebrew wording and understand what the words meant and meant to them at this time. I attempted to be fair in my study and use sources that were theologically sound.....the more I studied the more evident it became to me that the moderate and traditional lines of interpretation were just that---traditional.

It is frustrating to attempt to bring to light this point of view in a mindset that isnt open to hearing this. It would go against some deeply established doctrine. This issue is deeply divided within denominations themselves and between denominations. I only encourage each of you to delve into this further. It may open your eyes to things you cannot now imagine.

LouisBooth

27th August 2002, 03:35 AM

Thanks for the post suzie, my mom has done the same indepth study for a few years now and came to quite different conclusions then you. :)

suzie

27th August 2002, 03:40 AM

Why dont you study it for yourself?

LouisBooth

27th August 2002, 03:44 AM

I had planned on it. I found what she told me to be very interesting. Stuff like the greek used for be silent and for the king to lead a quite life. Great stuff. Also a good word study on women and how they are talked about through out the bible.

Loser For Jesus

27th August 2002, 10:39 AM

Thunderchild,

I knew it was a mistake to try to continue arguing with you. Sorry.

Suzie,

Scripture is simple, if you approach it from a position of wanting to have your own opinions crucified by the cross of Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. Do I know how to interpret Scripture properly? Absolutely not. I could come up with just as many intellectual and theoretical arguments as you are coming up with - and, indeed, I used to do just that. All of that is really just a way for people to do what they want and justify their disobedience. "Oh, I don't have to obey that part of Scripture because it doesn't really mean what it says! It was a cultural thing! It doesn't apply to us today! It was only for the early church! The Greek says this, the Hebrew says that. You can interpret it either way! There are many different opinions on this subject! etc. etc."

The fact is, it's only when we are able to lay aside our own opinion and just surrender to God that we can understand the Scriptures as God intended - with an attitude of simple obedience. If we approached the Bible with this kind of attitude in the first place and let the Holy Spirit put to death the desires of our flesh, we wouldn't need to waste our time doing complicated "word studies" and all sorts of other textual gymnastics in order to justify the fact that we just don't want to obey.

love in Christ,
Malcolm

Thunderchild

27th August 2002, 12:07 PM

Well said Suzie. Fact is, there are statements in the Bible which can be said to suppport either viewpoint.

There are also admonitions in the Bible regarding the proper course for dealing with disputable matters - let each do what conscience dictates....let no one speak evil of another's good - the person is not our slave, do not usurp the prerogatives of the master of that servant.

DaveKerwin

27th August 2002, 12:16 PM

my first observation is that women pastors usually have short hair and a deeper voice, and other non-feminine characteristics.

my second observation is that strong willed women usually marry weak willed men. I know for myself, I want a woman who will submit to me, and allow me to do what God created me to do, which in turns allows her to do the same. I am turned off by women who try to do my job for me. If I was dating a girl, and we were getting serious, and we talked about marriage, I WOULD BE THE ONE to propose, for example. If she got down on her knee to propose to me, I would be extremely insulted.

covenant914

27th August 2002, 12:30 PM

Women for pastors? An unqualifiable, resounding YES. Who is to say how a person has been called? Not you. Not me.

Thunderchild

27th August 2002, 01:35 PM

Indeed - a person stands or falls to his own master. Not to those who think it is theirs to usurp a master's authority.

However, the point of not passing judgement in disputable matters is that neither party may tell the other that it is in the wrong. All that may be done is to declare that I follow this course, or I follow that course, as a matter of MY devotions to God.

 

However - when either party DOES declare the other to be in the wrong, the one making that declaration needs to have it made known that their finger is pointing away from the party who IS in the wrong.

Loser For Jesus

27th August 2002, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by DaveKerwin
my first observation is that women pastors usually have short hair and a deeper voice, and other non-feminine characteristics.

I've observed the same thing. Of course, its just a general observation, but the fact that it ties in so obviously with Scripture is very suggestive.

Its also interesting that one of Satan's prime schemes is to try and disrupt God's order, just as he did in the Garden of Eden. What's so worrying is that he now has so many "Christians" helping him - all in the name of love and tolerance and equality, of course.

love in Christ,

Malcolm

Loser For Jesus

27th August 2002, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchild
However, the point of not passing judgement in disputable matters is that neither party may tell the other that it is in the wrong. All that may be done is to declare that I follow this course, or I follow that course, as a matter of MY devotions to God.

That's a particularly self-centered way of looking at it, which basically boils down to letting people do exactly what they want. It also takes no account of the fact that God calls us to unity in the Truth, not some false unity that comes from "agreeing to disagree" on anything that might challenge our own opinions or be seen as, heaven forbid, judgmental!

love in Christ,

Malcolm

Mister

27th August 2002, 03:20 PM

1 Cor 14:34

How am I reading this wrong? I see you talking a lot about Titus but not much seems to be mentioned on this verse.

Mister

spirituality

27th August 2002, 03:22 PM

I dont see anything wrong with woman in the church. Why shouldnt women have the same rights as men and be pastors? arent we all created equal and in the image of god?

Thunderchild

27th August 2002, 03:37 PM

Mister: Would you be willing to tell a woman who is a prophet that she is not permitted to prophesy among the ecclesia? Or perhaps she should simply write down what God's directive is, and pass it to a man to read out aloud?

You haven't read it wrongly. Not a bit.

DaveKerwin

27th August 2002, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by spirituality
I dont see anything wrong with woman in the church. Why shouldnt women have the same rights as men and be pastors? arent we all created equal and in the image of god?

for your answer, read the other pages of this thread.

Thunderchild

27th August 2002, 03:46 PM

The Early Church equally forbade women from holding Church office.
In the early church, and in co-ed monasteries, the abbess was the ultimate authority, not the abbot.

Spirituality: It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of responsibilities. Particularly, the responsibility to ensure that the person best equipped by God for a given role is placed in that role.

Where rights come into play - it is the right of man to declare to God whom God may appoint to positions of authority. According to the Biblical record, God appointed women to positions of authority, and according to the Biblical record, a woman may not hold a position of authority.

Mister

27th August 2002, 04:29 PM

When I was child I would visit my Grandfater. He would often be plowing the field, and every time I would watch him he would have one horse and one mule. Finally one day I asked him why is it that you use one horse and one mule, why not two horses or two mules. He smiled and told me, well if you use just a mule then it would take forever because they will sometimes walk slow and other times stop completely, if you use just a horse it is difficult to get a staight line. The mule is Stubborn and will walk a staight line even if the horse is pulling it a little to the left or right. The Horse however is obediant and will keep moving forward as instructed.

Niether is more important than the other, they just have different roles. I feel God has done the same with Man and Woman. I'm not trying to do a debate I've alread come to the conclusion from what scripture has revealed to me. I just wanted to make the point that believing that man is the leader is not a sexist view.

Mister

oh and that story didn't happen to me, it was a from a friend of mine :)

DaveKerwin

27th August 2002, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Mister
When I was child I would visit my Grandfater. He would often be plowing the field, and every time I would watch him he would have one horse and one mule. Finally one day I asked him why is it that you use one horse and one mule, why not two horses or two mules. He smiled and told me, well if you use just a mule then it would take forever because they will sometimes walk slow and other times stop completely, if you use just a horse it is difficult to get a staight line. The mule is Stubborn and will walk a staight line even if the horse is pulling it a little to the left or right. The Horse however is obediant and will keep moving forward as instructed.

Niether is more important than the other, they just have different roles. I feel God has done the same with Man and Woman. I'm not trying to do a debate I've alread come to the conclusion from what scripture has revealed to me. I just wanted to make the point that believing that man is the leader is not a sexist view.

Mister

oh and that story didn't happen to me, it was a from a friend of mine :)

great post!

I agree, upholding the man's role as head is not sexist. I believe women have as much importance as men, no doubt. Just different roles.

suzie

28th August 2002, 11:47 PM

Well, that is a nice story, Mister. I have a couple of observations however.
First is that a mule and horse are two different animals all together. Male and female are the same image of God--equal. The two animals are yoked together-neither is leading, both are dependant upon one another, and the farmer has the reigns.

What exactly do you mean when you say that male and female have different "roles"? What exactly do you mean? The only thing I hear that is consistant with this thinking is that men are leaders. That would give the woman the role of ---follower? Is that consistant with the biblical message?

I do agree wives are to submit to husbands, as well as husbands are to submit to wives. Women are to submit to men, and men to women. We are to submit to one another out of love. The Lord is the authority, not man nor woman. In a marriage, if both husband and wife are seeking God's will, then it no longer becomes a matter of who is right, who is boss, who is leader, for it isnt about us but God and His will and desire for us. No one needs to be leading each other --we become one in union with God.
That was the point of Paul's message as well as the message of Jesus. we are all equally gifted by God and to use the gifts to the fullest for God's kingdom. We are no longer male nor female, but one in Christ.

As for 1 Cor 14:34; What is the message Paul is speaking about prior to this verse? Orderly worship. We clearly know that women both prayed and prophesied in worship during this time. (1Cor 11:5). In chpts. 12-14 we know that women are given spiritual gifts and encouraged to use them in the body of Christ. We also know, from this culture, that Corinth women were not allowed to confront men in public.

To give women the gifts as part of the body, appointing apostles, prophets, teachers, workers of miracles.....these were also available to women. Fortunately, there are many denominations that have women pastors leading their churches. While some of you may be uncomfortable with this, that is your "problem" so to speak....for it isnt about hair or voice or gender, but about our hearts and calling.

DaveKerwin

29th August 2002, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by suzie
Well, that is a nice story, Mister. I have a couple of observations however.
First is that a mule and horse are two different animals all together. Male and female are the same image of God--equal. The two animals are yoked together-neither is leading, both are dependant upon one another, and the farmer has the reigns.

What exactly do you mean when you say that male and female have different "roles"? What exactly do you mean? The only thing I hear that is consistant with this thinking is that men are leaders. That would give the woman the role of ---follower? Is that consistant with the biblical message?

I do agree wives are to submit to husbands, as well as husbands are to submit to wives. Women are to submit to men, and men to women. We are to submit to one another out of love. The Lord is the authority, not man nor woman. In a marriage, if both husband and wife are seeking God's will, then it no longer becomes a matter of who is right, who is boss, who is leader, for it isnt about us but God and His will and desire for us. No one needs to be leading each other --we become one in union with God.
That was the point of Paul's message as well as the message of Jesus. we are all equally gifted by God and to use the gifts to the fullest for God's kingdom. We are no longer male nor female, but one in Christ.

As for 1 Cor 14:34; What is the message Paul is speaking about prior to this verse? Orderly worship. We clearly know that women both prayed and prophesied in worship during this time. (1Cor 11:5). In chpts. 12-14 we know that women are given spiritual gifts and encouraged to use them in the body of Christ. We also know, from this culture, that Corinth women were not allowed to confront men in public.

To give women the gifts as part of the body, appointing apostles, prophets, teachers, workers of miracles.....these were also available to women. Fortunately, there are many denominations that have women pastors leading their churches. While some of you may be uncomfortable with this, that is your "problem" so to speak....for it isnt about hair or voice or gender, but about our hearts and calling.

If God wanted us the same, he woudl have left it with Adam and allowed him to reproduce on his own. But God wanted man to have a helper, which is woman.

Men and women have different roles because they were created for different things. Women are typically nuturers, would you disagree? A woman can see things in a different light than I can, and I need that. We work together, just like the illustration of the body of christ, different parts have different roles, doing one main thing together.

Yes, the Bible does say to submit one to another, but it also says for wives to submit to husbands as the husband submits to christ. In the family structure, it makes sense for one person to be the head of the house (though both parents can make the decision, it makes more sense if one person says the bottom line).