Women's Ordination

[Simon_Templar]

So, what do you guys think about the topic of ordaining women as pastors/priests etc??

[talitha]

I personally believe there is no restriction given by God, but I don't think people should create factions within their respective denominations based on this belief. :)

[StephanStrategy]

Personally, I am not in favor of ordaining women to the pastorate. That being said, I was just replaced by a woman Chaplain when my unit redeployed from Iraq.

I am free enough to work in the "co-ed" environment of the Army Chaplaincy, but my personal beliefs are different.

Mike

[CyberPaladin]

I don't believe women should be pastors.

[GreenMunchkin]

One of my closest CF friends is a female pastor :) She's conservative, and wonderful and I don't know what I'd do without her.

Women often have a nurturing quality that makes them more approachable, and that's an important quality to have. Have known pastors who were brutally cold, and the idea of going to one of them for advice or help was anathema.

[hizlamb]

I think a woman should stick with scripture when it comes to her roles in service to God...

Im sure thats a long drawn out battle already been over more times than can count..but oh well

JMO

[John1and1]

i think we should do what God said to do and dont do what He says not to do... hows that for a concept?

[GreenMunchkin]

i think we should do what God said to do and dont do what He says not to do... hows that for a concept?It's a great one :)

[talitha]

where does it say "women are not allowed to pastor" in the Bible?

[hizlamb]

Alot of places...alot of places show the roles of women in the church..

Where does it say its allowed?

Im gonna say study it..then ask yerself. Cuz I believe you know scripture and its only a stab at conforming..

Actually, there may be people reading that DONT know the scripture that well..so I will add this:

THIS is Gods word on it... not mine... those who wish to explain it away and disregard it... well, all I can do is give you the word, and you can accept it or reject it...
1 Tim. 2
[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
The woman is to learn in silence... this is not to say she isn’t to ask questions to clear up points she doesn’t understand... but she is NOT TO TEACH A MAN... NOR IS SHE to rule over a man... nor use authority over a man. This ELIMINATES a woman from pastoring a church.

***credit due John 1and1 from a previous study ****

[lost_and_found]

Jesus made the first ordained leaders of His Church all men. Enough said.

[GreenMunchkin]

Jesus made the first ordained leaders of His Church all men. Enough said.Hey! :hug: When'd you become a mod? :D That's good to see :)

[talitha]

When did Jesus ordain anyone?

[talitha]

Alot of places...alot of places show the roles of women in the church..

Where does it say its allowed?

Im gonna say study it..then ask yerself. Cuz I believe you know scripture and its only a stab at conforming..
You're a woman, and you're teaching right now.

I think this is another one where we at CCF are going to have to agree to disagree. The "slain in the spirit" thread was the first, and it's wonderful how civily that thread is going. I hope this one maintains the same high road.

blessings
tal

[John1and1]

Hiz Lamb is not usurping any authority over a man... this is a biblical requirement that a pastor userps biblical authority over the flock, making him responsible for all he teaches and for each soul in his hand. He leads the men in confronting sin in other brothers 2-3 at a time if he is aware of it or suspects it. He brings it before the church so that the man must repent or turn in shame. A woman is not to userp this authorty over men

[hizlamb]

Therez a difference between teaching ..as in showing, helping, aiding, offering scripture for growth..

The question was for ordaining a woman. Not teaching

Letz also add that the scripture sayz 'teaching or ursurping authority over a MAN"
Letz also add this:

Tit.2
[1] But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
[2] That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
[3] The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
[4] That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
[5] To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
[6] Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.

God bless

[John1and1]

By the way... Jesus certinaly did ordain men

He ordained the 12 and then the 70... After He arose He ordained Peter, saying "Feed My sheep".

He ordained them all before He ascended into heaven, telling them to preach the gospel in all the world, making diciples.

[Albion]

So, what do you guys think about the topic of ordaining women as pastors/priests etc??

By scripture and/or by tradition--the two conservative standards--there aren't women priests or presbyters.

If this were another forum, I'd say "to each his own" but since it is the Conservative Christians' forum, the conservative answer is...no women ordained.

The only ways that it could be otherwise are:

1) if a person were to put human reasoning about equality, etc. ahead of tradition and scripture, i.e. the liberal approach

or else

2) support change concerning pastors because society has changed in its own socio-political views, which again is a liberal approach to providing an answer.

[Sophia7]

I'm not in favor of women pastors. I think that we are all--women and men alike--called to minister to others as God empowers us, but I don't believe that the Bible supports the practice of placing women in positions of authority over men in the church.

[Albion]

When did Jesus ordain anyone?

When he called his apostles (by definition, messengers of Jesus the Christ) and commissioned them to celebrate the Lord's Supper, baptise converts, and preach the Gospel. That's essentially what ordination has been about ever since.

[hizlamb]

Whatever you wanna label it in whatever approach..I wouldnt be willing to do this:

1) if one were to put reasoning about equality, etc. ahead of tradition and scripture,

There is NO excuse for not conforming to scripture and Gods commands to us, demonination is squat in light of scripture..

Yeah..Imma woman, my fiance' is a ordained man. In order to be blessed and feel the value and depth of a true union given by God, my wisest choice is to just know that God made the rules, God knows best...therefore can trust my husband will also...

[talitha]

Hiz Lamb is not usurping any authority over a man... this is a biblical requirement that a pastor userps biblical authority over the flock, making him responsible for all he teaches and for each soul in his hand.
The word usurp does not describe what pastors are supposed to do at all.

Usurp v. assume: seize and take control without authority and possibly with force; take as one's right or possession (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn )

Pastors are not to take control over anyone without authority and certainly not with force. But they are to exercise godly authority over whatever sphere they are given, as is anyone.

He leads the men in confronting sin in other brothers 2-3 at a time if he is aware of it or suspects it. He brings it before the church so that the man must repent or turn in shame.
humm, not sure if I understand that procedure - I'll leave that alone.

A woman is not to userp this authorty over men
You are correct; no one should ever usurp any authority. :)

Therez a difference between teaching ..as in showing, helping, aiding, offering scripture for growth..

The question was for ordaining a woman. Not teaching
But hizlamb, the scripture you used also concerned "speaking" - or is typing on the Internet not teaching?
:scratch:

By the way... Jesus certinaly did ordain men

He ordained the 12 and then the 70... After He arose He ordained Peter, saying "Feed My sheep". [quote]
Oh, but He was not ordaining Mary when He commissioned her to break the Best News Ever?

[quote]He ordained them all before He ascended into heaven, telling them to preach the gospel in all the world, making diciples.
It is not clear to me that there were not any women present at the ascension of Jesus.

blessings
tal

[hizlamb]

Amen and ditto Sophia

[hizlamb]

Talitha...

Im not gonna duke this out..you can make light and manuever word play all night if ya wish..

The scripture is clear. Theres no diploma needed for it.

Love God. Conform to HIS word, not mine

Its easy :)

[Albion]

Whatever you wanna label it in whatever approach..I wouldnt be willing to do this:

1) if one were to put reasoning about equality, etc. ahead of tradition and scripture,

...............................

my wisest choice is to just know that God made the rules, God knows best...therefore can trust my husband will also...

Bless you for saying what so many can't bring themselves to do--let God be God. I am not speaking about women's ordination in particular in saying that, but when Gays want to do what they want AND have the church approve of it, the refrain is that God wouldn't want me to be unhappy. If divorce is wanted, God wouldn't want me to live like this. If Hell is too hard to contemplate, say that God wouldn't be THAT cruel or I won't have him for my God, etc.

It takes faith to say, God's will (even if I might do it differently if someone had asked me to be God instead. No one did.)!

[GreenMunchkin]

.

[hizlamb]

What do you mean 'by his definition'? He said no such in what he said. He told you what the bible tells you.

Mangling the context from disciple to teacher to pastor to follower and then the christian comment is just wrong..

You know the difference of all those terms..lets use them correctly ey?

Truth..or nothing

[GreenMunchkin]

What do you mean 'by his definition'? He said no such in what he said. He told you what the bible tells you.

Mangling the context from disciple to teacher to pastor to follower and then the christian comment is just wrong..

You know the difference of all those terms..lets use them correctly ey?

And..assa side note, its women like you that will lead younger women down a very wrong path to displeasing God if you dont conform...Gosh. Not the kindest of posts... but you're entitled to your opinion :)

My friend is a female pastor and I support her fully. It's as simple as that and, sweetie, your insults are like water off a duck's back.

I conform. Beyond that, it's not your business :)

God bless you very much. x

[talitha]

hizlamb, can we please be less antagonistic here? I'd appreciate that. I am firmly with you on the authority of the Bible! Or I wouldn't be in this forum! Certainly wouldn't have composed the original Wiki for it!

[hizlamb]

Really? Lets see you admit ya just put words in another posters mouth?

I didnt realize conforming to Gods word was condoning and praising the things that go against it..

Ooops..guess you can tell God this when yer standing before Him and Hes askin ya why..lol

[John1and1]

The word usurp does not describe what pastors are supposed to do at all.

Usurp v. assume: seize and take control without authority and possibly with force; take as one's right or possession (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn )

Pastors are not to take control over anyone without authority and certainly not with force. But they are to exercise godly authority over whatever sphere they are given, as is anyone.


Pardon me but how does a man captain a ship if he has no power to captain over his men??

Even the heathen centurian recognized the fact that he userped power over men and Christ userped power over demons AND men. He certainly commanded the apostles and He certainly commanded the demons.

A pastor is the captain of the ship in his hand. He CANNOT pastor without at times userping authority. Paul, we could say, pastored MANY churches and he certainly userped his power over them as their sheperh AND delegated his authority as with Timothy when he told him to flee youthful lusts and let no man despise his youth. He userped power overthe people in the church of Corenth. He delegated authority for men to confront an adulterer in the church and that if he would not repent tell it to the church.

The woman is not to userp this sort of authority over the man. I'm very sure that for some people this sounds offensive, nevertheless this is not the word of men but of God. This certainly doesnt makle women second hand citizens, but recognize that God in every way, established His order




You are correct; no one should ever usurp any authority. :)


You are INCORRECT. Did the apostles userp authority over the church or not?


But hizlamb, the scripture you used also concerned "speaking" - or is typing on the Internet not teaching?
:scratch:


She is not attempting to teach a man. She is attempting to teach you. Or are you a man and just faking it? Neither is she attempting to userp authority over you, she is admonishing you to believe God

By the way... Jesus certinaly did ordain men

He ordained the 12 and then the 70... After He arose He ordained Peter, saying "Feed My sheep". [quote]
Oh, but He was not ordaining Mary when He commissioned her to break the Best News Ever?


[quote]It is not clear to me that there were not any women present at the ascension of Jesus.

blessings
tal


It is even more unclear where you can show Jesus ordaining a woman as a pastor

[hizlamb]

Sorry Tal..I dont mean to come across as atagnositic..but yanno..

People say they love God and read His word. Then do what they want anyway..

Cmon..ya gotta admit that makes ya wanna stand for the One who gave His life for it...

:)

[Colabomb]

I isupport women in ministry

[GreenMunchkin]

.

[hizlamb]

I support women in ministry too

:)

[John1and1]

I isupport women in ministry


Do you do this because you do not know what the scripture says concerning this, or because you dont believe God's word really means what it says? Are these just vague 'desires' that He wouldnt really mean in the latter days when men departfrom the truth and teach instead commandments of men as prophecied? Or would you say you just do not generally regard the bible as being relevent in that you should conform to it?

[talitha]

to those who hold a different view than I do on this subject: I used to believe as you do - but now I believe that the Lord Himself has redirected me. My husband's beliefs on this subject actually changed before mine did. I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily, but I do expect to be treated with respect. Thank you. You will notice that I'm not arguing against everything you say. I do not disagree entirely, just with some points, and I take issue with the tone of some of the posts.

Pardon me but how does a man captain a ship if he has no power to captain over his men??
No where in my post did I say that a pastor should not have authority; as a matter of fact, I said that they should "exercise authority". I was just explaining to you the definition of the word "usurp" - it's not the right word for what you are trying to say.

Amen, Jesus "certainly commanded the apostles and He certainly commanded the demons." AMEN.

The woman is not to userp this sort of authority over the man.
Amen, no one should usurp authority - that means that no one should seize authority that is not given to them by God.

You are INCORRECT. Did the apostles userp authority over the church or not?
Absolutely not. The authority of the apostles over the Church was and is God-given, not seized by man.

It is even more unclear where you can show Jesus ordaining a woman as a pastor
Again, I do not see Jesus "ordaining" anyone, really.

Sorry Tal..I dont mean to come across as atagnositic..but yanno..

People say they love God and read His word. Then do what they want anyway..

Cmon..ya gotta admit that makes ya wanna stand for the One who gave His life for it...

:)
Yes, I do admit that. And I understand where you're coming from, sister. I just hope we can, as I said before, agree to disagree on this subject, and continue to fellowship as sisters.

blessings
tal

[hizlamb]

We can do that..yup

:)

[John1and1]

question though

You see the scriptures it seems... we know they are there. We also know Jesus ordained many men, we actually see it in the scriptures

I don't mean this sarcasticly or angrily at all, but pointedly yes... Who would you agree to disagree with first, the scriptures or the doctrine held by you and your husband?

[talitha]

I don't disagree with Scripture.

[John1and1]

You will notice that I'm not arguing against everything you say. I do not disagree entirely, just with some points, and I take issue with the tone of some of the posts.


No offence intended at all. But we should agree with God yes? or are there parts of His word it is ok not to belive?


No where in my post did I say that a pastor should not have authority; as a matter of fact, I said that they should "exercise authority". I was just explaining to you the definition of the word "usurp" - it's not the right word for what you are trying to say.


Exercising authority IS userping authority.


VERB:
u·surped , u·surp·ing , u·surps
VERB:
tr.


To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force and without legal authority.

This is the power of the pastor and the woman is not to hold this over the man... This is not a power trip on my part, it is simply the word.



Amen, no one should usurp authority - that means that no one should seize authority that is not given to them by God.


Again God ordained men over the church. They EXERCIZE and therefore usurp authority over the flock, not fleecing or beating them but taking authority when it is neccessary


Absolutely not. The authority of the apostles over the Church was and is God-given, not seized by man.


And if you note pastorship of the church was not seized by man but ordained by God as one of the positions within the church, just like apostle and prophet and teacher. Paul put men in charge... GAVE them authority because this authority was given to him by God... it SHOULD work the same today, unfortunately men with more credential than spirit HAVE seized power and usurps authority in a bid to depart from the faith


Again, I do not see Jesus "ordaining" anyone, really.

Did Jesus not ordain Peter when He said feed my sheep?

[beverhome]

I do not think woman should be a pastor over a mixed church. If it was a church ministring to woman than I could see that. But God did set up a structure of Himself and then man and then woman. I really would not feel comfortable with a woman only as the head of the church but totally agree with a couple working together and being jointly working together.
April

[talitha]

unfortunately men with more credential than spirit HAVE seized power and usurps authority in a bid to depart from the faith
I can definitely agree with this.

Did Jesus not ordain Peter when He said feed my sheep?
I can see how you could call it that. But then if He was ordaining Peter then, without any ceremony, without the word "ordain" being used, and without being more direct in language, then (as I see it) He was also ordaining Mary to be the very first messenger of the Resurrection!

blessings
tal

[John1and1]

I can definitely agree with this.


I can see how you could call it that. But then if He was ordaining Peter then, without any ceremony, without the word "ordain" being used, and without being more direct in language, then (as I see it) He was also ordaining Mary to be the very first messenger of the Resurrection!

blessings
tal


If you agree with my first statement, then wouldn't you also agree that a true 'ordination' doesnt involve a ceremony at all?

Ordaining a pastor may be no more than that today, but this certainly want the case in the days of the early church. God ordains, sometimes this call may be given when one man lays hands on another, but certainly not in some ceremonial act. Rather a passing on of the stick, commanding the call of God, and this is certainly what Jesus was doing with Peter, when Peteer in his shame grieved for his betrayal of Christ. God ordained him with a call that moment, "Feed my sheep"

[John1and1]

one more thought

When man ordains he does so empowering with ceremony and with paper. When God ordains it is an empowering of the spirit.

[talitha]

When man ordains he does so empowering with ceremony and with paper. When God ordains it is an empowering of the spirit.
Agreed.

I think the conversation began with one definition of the word "ordain" and ended up with another. The point I was trying to make was that if one informal ordination is accepted, we must also accept the other.

[John1and1]

But it isnt UP to man to ordain a man over a church with paper and ceremony. It is up to God to empower a man with the authority and empowerment, so how do you trump the word of God with paper and ceremony?

You may think you do.... you dont, that woman is empowered in this case, with nothing BUT ceremony and paper, there is no empowerment from God

[talitha]

But it isnt UP to man to ordain a man over a church with paper and ceremony. It is up to God to empower a man with the authority and empowerment, so how do you trump the word of God with paper and ceremony?
I don't think that at all, and I am sorry if I unintentionally hinted that I did.

You may think you do.... you dont, that woman is empowered in this case, with nothing BUT ceremony and paper, there is no empowerment from God
Agreed.

[Criada]

Ouch!

I came here to get away from people being horrid to each other....

Personally, I don't believe in ordaining anyone! We are all 'a royal priesthood', should that not be enough?

As to church leadership, I believe this should be a team, with men and women playing a part. This is what is apparent in Acts.

But mostly, can we be nice to each other here?
Please?
We are bound to disagree sometimes, but it is possible to do so in a civil and loving manner!

Blessings
:)

[karen freeinchristman]

No offence intended at all. But we should agree with God yes? or are there parts of His word it is ok not to belive?It is about context. Plain and simple.

Exercising authority IS userping authority.


VERB:
u·surped , u·surp·ing , u·surps
VERB:
tr.

To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force and without legal authority.you have proved that usurp is not the same as exercise, because in the definition above it states that usurp means to seize and hold by force and without legal authority. That is not the same as exercising authority when given that authority.





But it isnt UP to man to ordain a man over a church with paper and ceremony. It is up to God to empower a man with the authority and empowerment, so how do you trump the word of God with paper and ceremony?

You may think you do.... you dont, that woman is empowered in this case, with nothing BUT ceremony and paper, there is no empowerment from GodGod calls, and God has given the Church the authority to 'ordain' (which means to 'set aside'). Because it is the Church who ordains (under God's authority), there is just cause for 'ceremony and paper'. It is a public Church-wide act of commissioning.

[Hishandmaiden]

I believe women shouldn't be pastor, in the evidence that Jesus chose 12 men as their disciples and not women. I often think women's roles are as prayer supports to their partners and to bring up children to love the Lord.

But I also believe, there when men lack the faith to take on leadership responsibilities, God does use women in pastoral role, like the case of Deborah in Judges.

But I believe, personally, it is God's preference to use a man whenever men are available. It is not that men are better than women, it is just that God have different roles for men and women.

[Hishandmaiden]

Hi, I want to clarify that the leadership position I refer to are as head of a church, like an official pastor of an official church, etc.

[karen freeinchristman]

But I also believe, there when men lack the faith to take on leadership responsibilities, God does use women in pastoral role, like the case of Deborah in Judges.This is something I've always wondered: why do I often hear (from people who are against women leaders) the argument that Deborah was only in the authoritative position she had 'because there weren't enough men'? This isn't scriptural, as far as I can see.

[Albion]

Humm... but by your definition, women can't really be Christians at all, then

That doesn't follow logically. Christ had followers, probably thousands from what we read in the NT, but he only commissioned a few to do the work that we know as duties of the pastoral office(s).

[Albion]

Folks, I'm sorry that I came upon this exchange hours after it occurred, but for the record...

I appreciate you coming to my side, HizLamb, because it did seem that what I had said was not well represented in the reply to it that we all read.

But also for GreenMunchkin, I didn't take offense at another holding a more liberal POV. No.

And, BTW, I know and appreciate some very fine women pastors. That doesn't mean that it's illogical for me to hold to the traditional Christian view of the matter (especially on a forum which is entitled 'CONSERVATIVE Christians!').

[talitha]

Albion, perhaps I'm not remembering correctly, but the only one I remember Jesus specifically (if a bit cryptically) commissioning to pastoral office was Peter. He did issue the Great Commission - which I believe is given to all who belong to Him, regardless of race, gender, or social status, but that is not a pastoral commission as far as I can see.

blessings
tal

[Macrina]

Im gonna say study it..then ask yerself. Cuz I believe you know scripture and its only a stab at conforming.

By scripture and/or by tradition--the two conservative standards--there aren't women priests or presbyters.

If this were another forum, I'd say "to each his own" but since it is the Conservative Christians' forum, the conservative answer is...no women ordained.

The only ways that it could be otherwise are:

1) if a person were to put human reasoning about equality, etc. ahead of tradition and scripture, i.e. the liberal approach

or else

2) support change concerning pastors because society has changed in its own socio-political views, which again is a liberal approach to providing an answer.

you can make light and manuever word play all night if ya wish.

And..assa side note, its women like you that will lead younger women down a very wrong path to displeasing God if you dont conform...

People say they love God and read His word. Then do what they want anyway.

Do you do this because you do not know what the scripture says concerning this, or because you dont believe God's word really means what it says? Are these just vague 'desires' that He wouldnt really mean in the latter days when men departfrom the truth and teach instead commandments of men as prophecied? Or would you say you just do not generally regard the bible as being relevent in that you should conform to it?

I don't mean this sarcasticly or angrily at all, but pointedly yes... Who would you agree to disagree with first, the scriptures or the doctrine held by you and your husband?

No offence intended at all. But we should agree with God yes? or are there parts of His word it is ok not to belive?

For those who have invited me to this forum: The above comments are the sorts of things that cause me to doubt my welcome here. The characterization of those who support women's ordination as people who disregard the Bible, who just want to conform to society, etc., is unjust, untrue, unfounded, and uncharitable.

I understand that people disagree with me. My mission isn't to change your mind. I'm not here to preach feminism; I'm here to preach the Gospel. But if any of you would like to understand why a Bible-believing conservative Christian can support women in ordained ministry, you can look in my blog for some explanations and references. You can also ask me for references and such, and I will do my best to direct you toward helpful resources.

[hizlamb]

You can call it as you see it Macrina

So will the rest of us..

In the end..Testimony will stand before God

Let me also add..I could go thru and pick chose what everyone said that I dont like, yadda yadda. Its kewl, I will still chose to sumbit to my God and Husband..take my place willingly in service, whatever little thing that might be will be good enough for me...

God bless all

[Criada]

Macrina, this is a wide forum, really, and there are many viewpoints represented. If you look through the thread you will see that many of us are saying the opposite!
And discussion must be good, as long as it remains loving!

Again, you are, truly, welcome - and i hope will meet with love even from those who may disagree with you!
:hug:

[Albion]

Albion, perhaps I'm not remembering correctly, but the only one I remember Jesus specifically (if a bit cryptically) commissioning to pastoral office was Peter. He did issue the Great Commission - which I believe is given to all who belong to Him, regardless of race, gender, or social status, but that is not a pastoral commission as far as I can see.

blessings
tal

I agree that the great commission does not relate to the pastoral offices. But he did call 12 men who were his inner circle and they were all given the powers we associate with pastoring. Look at Matthew 28:16. He here is authorizing them only. They also were the only ones who were told to officiate at the Lord's Supper--one of the two sacraments. There are many such indications in scripture, not to mention how these men passed it on.

[Macrina]

You can call it as you see it Macrina

So will the rest of us..

In the end..Testimony will stand before God

Let me also add..I could go thru and pick chose what everyone said that I dont like, yadda yadda. Its kewl, I will still chose to sumbit to my God and Husband..take my place willingly in service, whatever little thing that might be will be good enough for me...

God bless all

It's not just that I didn't like what you said -- it's that your words were phrased uncharitably. Perhaps you do not realize how they came across, but the tone was insulting. Perhaps if there was less questioning of others' walks with God then disagreement could occur without insult.

[Macrina]

Sister, this is a wide forum, really, and there are many viewpoints represented. If you look through the thread you will see that many of us are saying the opposite!
And discussion must be good, as long as it remains loving!

Again, you are, truly, welcome - and i hope will meet with love even from those who may disagree with you!
:hug:

Thank you, Criada. As I said, I don't mind sharing my reasons with people who genuinely want to know them -- my problem is when my faith and/or love of God and/or belief in scripture is insulted. If people can refrain from those behaviors, we'll get along fine.

FWIW, I'm a pastor in small town in rural Mississippi. I'm quite used to working alongside people who don't believe I belong behind a pulpit -- we get along fine, because we recognize that each of us is doing the best we can to interpret the scriptures given to us by the Lord we all love and seek to obey.

[Criada]

Folks, we all love Jesus.
We are all doing our best to follow Him, and to do the things that He leads us to do.

So, please, can we continue to be loving toward one another, even when we disagree?
Because God is far more upset by lack of love between us than by minor doctrinal differences!

God bless you all.

[hizlamb]

Well..insulting isnt meant ..nor is uncharitable gurl..

But Im sorry ..I see alot of insult against the Word and what it directly means..so I find that offensive. I stand for God, thats all. If a person loves God and really desires to serve Him, they start with conforming to His word to begin with...

Jeez..even the word "ursurp" is being slaughtered

[Criada]

.

[Macrina]

Folks, we all love Jesus.
We are all doing our best to follow Him, and to do the things that He leads us to do.

So, please, can we continue to be loving toward one another, even when we disagree?
Because God is far more upset by lack of love between us than by minor doctrinal differences!

God bless you all.

That's all I'm asking for -- not for people to agree with me, but for people to treat others with respect. If it was not clear that was my intention, I'm sorry, so I'll say it now: I don't mind if anyone disagrees, as long as it is done respectfully.

[hizlamb]

Because God is far more upset by lack of love between us than by minor doctrinal differences!

I dunno if I agree with THIS..but I luv ya anyway..lol

[Macrina]

Well..insulting isnt meant ..nor is uncharitable gurl..

But Im sorry ..I see alot of insult against the Word and what it directly means..so I find that offensive. I stand for God, thats all. If a person loves God and really desires to serve Him, they start with conforming to His word to begin with...

Jeez..even the word "ursurp" is being slaughtered

I'm glad you didn't mean those things; perhaps knowing how it came across to me will help us communicate better in the future.

As far as "insult to the Word" goes -- I hope you realize that I do not believe that's what I'm doing, and I think the same could be said for everyone else in this thread.

[Albion]

There's a good spirit among the people here--better than I personally have witnessed on any other forum.

Let us all always keep in mind this attitude we have now when little differences come along. That way, they will stay as small differences of opinion we share, nothing more.

[Criada]

John 13:35
"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

[hizlamb]

As far as "insult to the Word" goes -- I hope you realize that I do not believe that's what I'm doing, and I think the same could be said for everyone else in this thread.

Im sorry..I dont understand this..there are ALOT of doctrines that are very easy to misunderstand or interpret..to me, this command of God was one of the easier ones..

God bless

[hazeleyes80]

It's apparent that nobody's mind is going to be changed by the back-and-forth going on. There's only so much that we as people can do. If you truely believe that someone needs to believe something that they're not believing then pray that that person be guided by God in the way that they should go/think. We should pray that about each other and ourselves. The fact is, we are not going to be in agreement on everything. IMHO, praying for each other (and ourselves) will be a lot more productive than arguing. Give it to God and move on.

[MMXII]

I don't believe women should be pastors.
I agree.

[Simon_Templar]

Wow, this thread exploded over night.

I hope that even when we disagree passionately we can remain civil, and remember that we are talking to beloved brothers and sisters.


Here is my view on the topic...


1st Timothy chapter 2 is one of the key passages on the issue, so I'll look at that.

Verses 11-14 (ESV translation)

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The first point I would like to address is the issue of remaining quiet, and learning in quietness etc. Some versions translate this as silence. It has been argued by some that this means women can not or should not speak in a church service. This is an incorrect understanding of this passage.

The word quiet, and quietness here is not refering to literal silence. Rather it means a state of living, or a state of being quiet and content. It specifically conotates the idea of quietly minding your own business. So this does not mean that women can't speak or participate in a service etc. In fact, in other scriptures Paul makes it clear that women are used in prophecy etc, so it would be contradictory to say that they simply can't speak in a service.

In the next verse Paul says that he does not allow women to teach the church, nor to exercise authority over a man. Other translations say "usurp" authority over a man.
The word translated usurp (or here "exercise") literally means to take of one's own accord. It means acting on your own authority.

This is why it is translated "usurp" in many translations.

When paul says a woman is not to exercise authority, but rather should remain quiet, he sets up a comparison, between the act of usurping authority, or exercising authority, and remaining quiet. They are presented as the opposite of each other. When you consider what the original words there mean, he is basically saying

"I do not allow a woman to teach, or to take authority upon herself over a man, but rather she should mind her own affairs and be content."

The issue here is all about authority, not ability. Authority is given by God, and authority can only be given. It can not be taken. Thus when paul speaks of a woman taking authority on her own he is making a point that God did not give her authority, thus its not her affair.

Paul then goes on to say "for Adam was formed first, then Eve."
He presents this as a reason why women should not take authority in Church leadership. This almost exactly parallels what Paul says to the Corinthians when he is speaking of women covering their heads. That issue, like this one was entirely about authority.

It would seem somewhat odd that women can't have authority over men simply because Adam was first chronologically. The issue here, again, is authority. What Paul is saying is that God created Adam (and thus men) to be first in authority. It is the role God assigned to them in creation.

The last verse 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

This, to my knowledge is one of the ONLY places in the entire bible where you will find responsability for the sin of Adam and Eve actually laid upon Eve. Every other place in scripture that I can think of, it is laid upon Adam. Details like that are important, so when we find this out of the ordinary, we should examine why.

When you look at the original language here it is very difficult in the part where it describes eve as a transgressor. You'll find this rendered a few different ways for that reason.

Some version say, Eve was "in the transgression" other say she "fell into" transgression, Some like the ESV say she "became a transgressor" etc.

the word that is in some version translated "was" and is translated "became" in this version, literally means "to come into existence" "to come to pass" or "to happen".

The sin of the human race is not imputed from Eve, but from Adam, that is plainly shown through out scripture. Why is that? It is because Adam was the one in authority. He was the authority and whatever was to come to pass to us, had to come through him.
So it tells us here that Adam was not decieved, but Eve was... why does it tell us this.

Adam is the one held responsible because he had the authority. He was not decieved, so why did he sin? because he followed Eve. God had given him authority, but he abdicated his authority to Eve and followed her.

Eve sinned because she was deceived. However, when it says "Eve became a transgressor" or "Eve was in the transgression", the original language could be understood to say "Eve brought the transgression into being" "Eve, because she was deceived, brought sin into existence".

The image presented is that because Adam abdicated his authority to Eve, to whom God had not given it, she was deceived, and brought Adam's sin into being.

A very similar idea is presented when Paul talks to the corinthians about women having their head covered. He is talking primarily about women being under authority and one of the things he says is that it needs to be that way because of the angels. That is not explained and it could mean a few different things.

However, the over all image presented is that when the church remains under God's appointed authority structure, it is protected, and when we don't, we are essentially leaving God's protection, his authority and leaving ourselves open to deception and attack.

Ordination is all about authority. A couple of further points. None of this means that women can't teach the gospel, or teach men even in places like this etc. The issue is authority. When the church teaches a doctrine from the pulpit, it is backed by the authority of the church, or it should be. Women are not allowed to give authoritative teaching on behalf of the church. That is totally different than spreading the gospel, or debating in forums like this, or acting as a councilor etc.

On the topic of the ordination of the 12 apostles. As I have stressed, ordination is about authority. Jesus had hundreds of disciples who followed him around and proclaimed the gospel etc, many of them were women. However, he specifically ordained the 12 apostles to be the leaders of the church in John chapter 20 (if memory serves). There he imparted to them authority that he gave to no one else.

He breathed on them and said "receive the Holy Spirit". Many people don't understand why he did that since the Spirit didn't fall till pentecost. Yet the fact is they received the Spirit in that instance, just not the over flowing baptism of power in the Spirit. They received authority. Jesus goes on to tell them that they not only have the authority to forgive sins, but the authority NOT to.
Earlier in his ministry he gave them the authority to bind and loose, in terms of teaching doctrine, and disciplining the church by casting people out.

We are also told that after he was resurrected when he visited the apostles, he told them the meaning of all scripture. He also told them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (which he imparted to them in John 20).

Those were his impartation of authority specifically to the apostles that were their ordination, and that they passed on to the church through ordination of others by the laying on of hands.

[Albion]

John 13:35
"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Which is what Jesus said to his 11 Apostles (after Judas has left the gathering), not to anyone else. It is not like the words spoken during the Sermon on the Mount, for example, which have a universal application and were spoken to multitudes.

[Macrina]

Im sorry..I dont understand this..there are ALOT of doctrines that are very easy to misunderstand or interpret..to me, this command of God was one of the easier ones..

God bless

It's apparent that nobody's mind is going to be changed by the back-and-forth going on. There's only so much that we as people can do. If you truely believe that someone needs to believe something that they're not believing then pray that that person be guided by God in the way that they should go/think. We should pray that about each other and ourselves. The fact is, we are not going to be in agreement on everything. IMHO, praying for each other (and ourselves) will be a lot more productive than arguing. Give it to God and move on.

Hizlamb, I agree with hazeleyedChristian that this isn't productive. I don't want to debate the issue. If you would like to know how someone in good faith can disagree with you, there are some posts in my blog which might explain -- even if you don't agree with me, which is fine, perhaps you'll see that I come to scripture with an attitude of respect and obedience. But truly, I do not want to debate this and my only concern is that we treat each other with respect.

I would like to say that I do have respect for those who disagree with me based on scriptural convictions. I would much rather have someone disagree with me because of what they believe the Bible says than agree with me because they don't care what it says. :hug:

[Albion]

Wow, this thread exploded over night.

I hope that even when we disagree passionately we can remain civil, and remember that we are talking to beloved brothers and sisters.


Here is my view on the topic...


1st Timothy chapter 2 is one of the key passages on the issue, so I'll look at that.

Simon, that's a thorough treatment of the issue, but we must also keep in mind that we are here allegedly as Conservative Christians. That's not to say that believing and understanding scripture is not important, but it's also important for us to remember what you yourself posted a few days ago.

Conservatism means holding to what the Church has agreed upon. If one understands why woman are not to be ordained, and understands this from the instruction you are giving here, great. All the better for they will be at ease. But if anyone says that they read those scriptures differently and come to the conclusion that men and women are equally eligible for ordination, then that person may be right, in theory at least, but it.....is......not......Conservative Christianity.

I suppose I seem to be harping on this, but I really fear that if we all don't know what brings us together here under the banner of this particular, conservative, forum, we will shortly be experiencing difficulties.

[talitha]

I would like to say that I do have respect for those who disagree with me based on scriptural convictions. I would much rather have someone disagree with me because of what they believe the Bible says than agree with me because they don't care what it says. :hug:
Amen@Macrina!

[hizlamb]

Hizlamb, I agree with hazeleyedChristian that this isn't productive. I don't want to debate the issue. If you would like to know how someone in good faith can disagree with you, there are some posts in my blog which might explain -- even if you don't agree with me, which is fine, perhaps you'll see that I come to scripture with an attitude of respect and obedience. But truly, I do not want to debate this and my only concern is that we treat each other with respect.

I wasnt askin to debate it..just sayin it wasnt clickin for me in light of the Word. But like the one poster said..hazeleyed I think..prayer is effective. And we should always be bringing forth our brothers and sisters to God onna daily basis anyway.


I would like to say that I do have respect for those who disagree with me based on scriptural convictions. I would much rather have someone disagree with me because of what they believe the Bible says than agree with me because they don't care what it says. :hug:

I gotta give a shout out loud amen to that..lol

[Simon_Templar]

Simon, that's a thorough treatment of the issue, but we must also keep in mind that we are here allegedly as Conservative Christians. That's not to say that believing and understanding scripture is not important, but it's also important for us to remember what you yourself posted a few days ago.

Conservatism means holding to what the Church has agreed upon. If one understands why woman are not to be ordained, and understands this from the instruction you are giving here, great. All the better for they will be at ease. But if anyone says that they read those scriptures differently and come to the conclusion that men and women are equally eligible for ordination, then that person may be right, in theory at least, but it.....is......not......Conservative Christianity.

I suppose I seem to be harping on this, but I really fear that if we all don't know what brings us together here under the banner of this particular, conservative, forum, we will shortly be experiencing difficulties.
I may agree in principle, but I also have to recognize that there are a lot of people today who are conservative in every other respect except this one issue. Most of them are from protestant traditions that don't take into account the historic tradition of the church on issues like this.

I don't want to exclude such people from the forum because I think that they do have the same basic conviction we do, they just have got a couple things mixed up ;).

[Codger]

Alot of places...alot of places show the roles of women in the church..

Where does it say its allowed?

Im gonna say study it..then ask yerself. Cuz I believe you know scripture and its only a stab at conforming..

Actually, there may be people reading that DONT know the scripture that well..so I will add this:

THIS is Gods word on it... not mine... those who wish to explain it away and disregard it... well, all I can do is give you the word, and you can accept it or reject it...
1 Tim. 2
[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
The woman is to learn in silence... this is not to say she isn’t to ask questions to clear up points she doesn’t understand... but she is NOT TO TEACH A MAN... NOR IS SHE to rule over a man... nor use authority over a man. This ELIMINATES a woman from pastoring a church.

***credit due John 1and1 from a previous study ****


1 Tim. 2:12-15 (KJV)
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. [15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Any one doing an in depth study of this topic may want to read the book "I suffer not a woman". It has good historic background and a thorough look at the passage of 1Timothy 2:11 15.The authors were Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger.

One of the difficulties with the interpretation of the afore mentioned passage is the Greek word "Authentein" (To dominate or rule over). It is only used once in the Bible so there is no frame of reference for this word inside of scripture. Words change in meaning over the years and this is a point in Kroger's book. They believe this passage was written in answer to correct heretical Gnostic error, which was invading the Church.

Here is some commentary based on Kroegers Book...

“In light of the authentic meaning of the word "authentein" and of the social context within which Paul wrote his letters to Timothy, let me offer what I believe is an appropriate rendering of the text in Timothy. I believe Paul is saying, "I am not allowing (present tense for that situation) a woman to teach or to proclaim herself the originator of man (authentein)." Do you see how this translation offsets false doctrine?

The word that is frequently translated "silence," "hesuchia", also means harmony, peace, conformity or agreement. I therefore suggest Paul goes on to say, "she must be in agreement," meaning agreement with the scriptures and with sound teaching in the Church.

He continues in this vein saying, "Adam was formed first then Eve." This statement militates against the doctrine of Eve as progenitor. He also says "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was! And sinned!" This statement directly contradicts the notion that Eve was the "illuminator," and carrier of new revelation.

I submit that this translation is possibly the most legitimate because it fits the social context, is true to the Greek, speaks to the troubled situation, and lines up perfectly with all of Paul's other teachings and practices concerning women.”

Dr. Paul Yonggi Cho pastor of the largest church in the world. He said that his ministry would not be what it is today were it not for his mother-in-law and for women who were willing to pastor the many cell groups of which his church consists. He claims that 6,000 women were leading cell groups before he found the first man who was willing to do the task.


It seems that very few women have a heart for ministry. Most are content with their careers and in rasing their families. But I wouldn't want to stand in the way of one who does have a heart and calling to the ministry. You would think that since the time of Kathryn Kuhlman this argument would be over forever - for no man since the times of the Apostles has had a greater ministry than she.

[Criada]

Which is what Jesus said to his 11 Apostles (after Judas has left the gathering), not to anyone else. It is not like the words spoken during the Sermon on the Mount, for example, which have a universal application and were spoken to multitudes.
So are we not commanded to love one another?

Apologies if that was out of context - though it seemed to me to apply to all who would be known as His disciples.
But there are numerous other instances where the same command is given to all believers!

[Lisa0315]

So, what do you guys think about the topic of ordaining women as pastors/priests etc??

I am against it. I believe we are all called to preach the gospel. However, I believe that the position of pastor or head of the church has been given to men. This is not an insult to women, but rather an embracing of our different gifts.

Lisa

[talitha]

Wow, thank you, Codger! Very interesting and well-informed post!

So many times we read scripture with glasses provided by people who do not understand the context......

[Albion]

So are we not commanded to love one another? Apologies if that was out of context - though it seemed to me to apply to all who would be known as His disciples.
But there are numerous other instances where the same command is given to all believers!

Yes, of course. However, that is not the case when we are dealing with Jesus' establishment of the church's leadership, the pastoral office, etc.

I see nothing complicated or contradictory in this. He instructed everyone equally concerning some matters, mainly those we'd call morals or a lifestyle. He also called a certain few followers for special roles.

[hizlamb]

From my personal view..within my own heart...
To be in service to God should be in EVERY followers heart. Man or woman. Each with their own designed roles, handed down by a God that loves us and knows whats best. Just as every member within the 'body' of Christ has their own gift and role. It makes things complete, strengthened and pleasing to God.
Most here now know I am engaged to a ordained, called man. Theres not a doubt in my mind. I met him online even, and knew NOTHING of what the bible said. My life has changed. Rough and tumbled, but changed and blessed. We need to be thankful for those who enter our life, and in all honesty and love, try to help show and share with others.
MY role, in MY personal spirit, is definately not to ursurp authority over the man Im about to unite with. My place is much better utilized when I encourage him, show my faith in him, and if there is something I disagree with, take it to him 'quietly'.
ALbeit ya'll..DONT get me wrong, lol I have failed SO miserably in this. Ive had to learn, but I keep on keepin on. And he has truely been SO patient and guiding with me..in such gentle manner sometimes it hard for me grasp. I can promise you with sure confidence, he cringes at the whisper of the word 'rebellion'..lol
Thats only a small part ..but to me, that service is not only in line with Gods command..I give it freely(most of the time..lol) and I am blessed and joyful for it. I love my job :)
Anyway..pry off topic and I shoulda made a another thread? I dunno..sorry

[Albion]

I may agree in principle, but I also have to recognize that there are a lot of people today who are conservative in every other respect except this one issue.

I agree, which is why I'm not thinking in terms of who should be here and others not. All of us, as a matter of fact, are probably not conservative on a few issues, yet we'd still be conservatives in general. A woman pastor is liberal when defending women pastors, but many of them are conservatives in every other way.

My main concern--and I realize that I did not make my point very well in that last post to you--is that we always should KNOW which is the conservative position even when any of us dissents from it. I would be disappointed, for example, if it was generally thought that while conservatives may differ on women's ordination that conservatism does. It does not. It has a meaning.

You want to inform the readership. I only meant to say that if there is not some progress coming out of it (or anyone else's post in a similar vein), we'd best move on. You'll have to judge that for yourself, but I hope not to have an equal argument coming back at you, and especially not if it is labelled as an alternative kind of conservative POV to boot!

I don't want to exclude such people from the forum because I think that they do have the same basic conviction we do, they just have got a couple things mixed up ;).

I understand completely.

[talitha]

blessings on you, sister - it may be a tad OT, but it is welcome. :)

[Codger]

Wow, thank you, Codger! Very interesting and well-informed post!

So many times we read scripture with glasses provided by people who do not understand the context......

Thank you - I just read a lot. I think you will agree that there is just something wrong with the "Spirit" of that passage. This wrong spirit causes one to dig deeper into the subject. Hyper literalists don't seem to recognize this.

Just like the "other" anti women passage being quoted all the time by the HL's. Paul's writings are so hard to understand, but don't feel bad because Peter had the same problem.


1 Cor. 14:34-37 (KJV) Read in a mocking, sarcastic voice.
[34] “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” [35] “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
The passage then continues… Loudly...and in a rage...
[36] What?came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? [37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

In 34 & 35 St. Paul is quotingthe words of someone in the Church probably a "Judiazer", someone - who in judging from the text - considered himself a prophet in that local body. In vs. 36 & 37 he is giving an angry response to the quote of 34 & 35. Obviously he limited his comments probably because he only wanted to correct this person - not destroy him.

The following is a quote from Dr. John Gustavson.

"Professor Sir William Ramsey, the most widely accepted authority on St. Paul in the early 1900's says "we should be ready to suspect Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul's known views."Considering Paul's views on the ministries of Priscilla, Phoebe and others referred to earlier, it is clear that Paul believed in equality of women in ministry.

Moreover, ICor 14:34,35, if taken totally literally, cannot refer to the Old Testament Scriptures when speaking of the Law for there is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to literally keep silent in the church nor is there a single word in the whole "law of Moses" dealing with the subject. Therefore the words, "it is not permitted" and "as also saith the Law" roust refer to some "rule outside of Scripture." There was no other but the Oral Law of the Jews appealed to by the Judaizers in the church in their efforts at that time to bring Christianity back within the confines of Judaism.

The Jewish Oral Law did teach the silencing of women. The Talmud also taught that it was "a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men". However, the Oral Law of the Jews is not Scripture. Again, the reference to the "law" is, of itself, sufficient to show that the Apostle who labored so earnestly to free the Christian Church from the very shadow of Judaism was not expressing his own conviction in the language attributed to him. Paul never appealed to the "law" for the guidance of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, declared that believers were dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Ro 7:4) that they might serve in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter (v.6).)"

Some translations like the KJV and the Amplified Bible insert the word What! at the beginning of vs. 36. This is an expression of outrage at the previous verses or quotations (33-35). Verses 36 - 37 should be read with an element of anger. Verse 37 continues where he is upbrading someone who thought themselves to be a Prophet in the Church. Obviously the person he quoted in vs. 33-35. As Ramsey suggests, 1CO was probably written in response to a letter sent to him by the Corinthians.

In summary, because the quote was given in a Sarcastic tone, it simply means that the exact opposite was true because he was mimicking them and not making a statement.

Dr. John Gustavson's papers - part one and two on Women in the Church...

www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women1.htm (http://www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women1.htm)

www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women2.htm (http://www.ncinter.net/~ejt/women2.htm)

[Albion]

Just like the "other" anti women passage being quoted all the time by the HL's. Paul's writings are so hard to understand, but don't feel bad because Peter had the same problem.

Am I wrong to feel disappointed when a liberal argument, Gustavson's or any other, is presented HERE as though Conservatives on the Conservative forum have to defend against it?

Now, this makes it almost incumbent upon us to rebut the mistakes presented and to uphold the divinely-ordained nature of scripture. What a waste of our time.

I just don't think this is the place where that should be happening. On "General Theology" perhaps, but not here. We know the Conservative view of this matter. It's not "in play."

[talitha]

Codger, thankyou for going back to the Word of God. Your posts are ministering life.

Albion, what is conservative? I would say that the most conservative viewpoint possible on any Biblical subject would be the original intent of the Biblical author. That is what Codger (in my view) is seeking, and I believe he's close, if not right on it.

blessings
tal

[Albion]

Codger, thankyou for going back to the Word of God. Your posts are ministering life.

Albion, what is conservative? I would say that the most conservative viewpoint possible on any Biblical subject would be the original intent of the Biblical author. That is what Codger (in my view) is seeking, and I believe he's close, if not right on it.

blessings
tal

No, he's not. He's siding with a departure from 1900 years of Christian belief and practice. You ask, what is conservatism. It is to conserve. It is not to innovate.

The latter is the essence of Liberalism, not Conservatism. If any person says that he's found a new meaning to scripture that the church and all the Christians of history have overlooked, that's not conservative. The source is correct; but the use of it is radical.

Not only that, but it is totally wrong to say that Paul and Peter were just popping off with their personal, and therefore unofficial views, biased and sexist as they allegedly were supposed to have been. THIS IS THE BIBLE. THE WORD OF GOD. IT IS FROM GOD. IT IS NOT AN EDITORIAL ON PAUL'S PART.

But if anyone thinks parts of it are not reliable...

...let's not have any illusions about what that means.

It means theological liberalism, the "de-mythologizing" of scripture which led to the denial of the bodily resurrection, the Virgin Birth, etc.

In theory, Codger's point and that of those he cited and quoted may be right. The Bible may have been misunderstood and wrongly applied by Christians for almost all of Christian history, but THAT IS NOTHING WE SHOULD BE FORCED TO DEBATE OR DEFEND AGAINST...HERE...ON A FORUM CALLED CONSERVATIVE. It belongs on another one where Liberals and Conservatives are gathered for the purpose of going at each other.

[talitha]

In theory, Codger's point and that of those he cited and quoted may be right. The Bible may have been misunderstood and wrongly applied by Christians for almost all of Christian history, but THAT IS NOTHING WE SHOULD BE FORCED TO DEBATE OR DEFEND AGAINST...HERE...ON A FORUM CALLED CONSERVATIVE. It belongs on another one.
I am one of the original members of this group, and we are defining this forum. There needs to be room for a difference of opinion on this subject. I acknowledge your opinion, and I don't believe you need to leave the forum because of it, even though I disagree with you.

[Albion]

I am one of the original members of this group, and we are defining this forum. There needs to be room for a difference of opinion on this subject. I acknowledge your opinion, and I don't believe you need to leave the forum because of it, even though I disagree with you.

How generous of you for not asking the Conservative to leave the forum for standing up for Conservative principles and so that Liberal ones can be secured.

The question concerns the use of the forum for Liberal views and arguments.

Surely you did not help found the forum for the purpose of considering Liberal Christianity and Conservative Christianity all the same. We have plenty of forums where they go at each other.

What was SUPPOSED to be different here that it would be called "Conservative--not Liberal and Conservative--Christians?"

[talitha]

Albion, I hate that this discussion has degenerated into some kind of showdown. I don't think either of us is going to switch opinions or suddenly say to ourselves "hey, i'm not conservative after all, I think I'll leave." I certainly won't.

I guess that for me the point is that where the Bible in context and the traditions of men collide, I'll side with the Bible. I'm not saying you aren't siding with the Bible. I just don't put as much stock in the traditions of men as you do.

bless you, let's stop fighting.
tal

[Simon_Templar]

On the Kroger argument.

Kroger's argument was first put forward back in 1979. At that time the argument was based on a lack of evidence as to what the word Authentien ment in koine greek at the time of Paul. Words change in meaning over time as the use of the words evolve etc.
Kroger attempts to argue that the word Authentein should be understood in a sexual sense based on its usage in a number of greek erotic writings.

there are several problems for this view point.

1st, she is essentially assuming that just because the word is used in erotic literature, it must be understood to be erotic even when its not used in erotic literature. Basically her argument is that if I were to say "my lover's authority over me..." or "you committed adultery to bear the son of a ruler" that therefore, the word authority and ruler must be understood in other contexts to be erotic.
I disagree. I don't think the usage of the word in those context means that it must always be understood in those contexts. So, I would say that her reasoning right off the bat is flawed.

2nd - Jerome translated the Latin vulgate bible about 300 years after Paul wrote this letter. When he made his translation koine greek was still a living spoken language. Which he himself undoubtedly knew. In addition to that he had access to numerous written documents from the early church, and from greek literature in general which have long since been lost to us. In addition to that, he was 1700 years closer to the living tradition of the Apostles and their verbal teachings than we are.

Jerome translated the word 'authentein', as 'dominari' which means rulership or authority. Not origin, no sexual conotation, and notably, not usurp.

3rd, when Kroger first posed her argument there was very little source material available and scholars on all sides were basing their arguments on a few documents here and there.
In the 20 years since then several research projects have specifically addressed the meaning of the word Authentien. Due to the efforts of various university projects etc, in digitizing historic texts there are now more than 10,000 greek documents readily available for study. Including hundreds of known examples of the word authentien.

the result is that it can now be demonstrated that the majority of uses of the word authentein do infact simply refer to "having authority".

Part of the confusion which is being taken advantage of in order to argue that authentien means "to originate" is that the word carries the conotation of deriving authority from self. Which is likely one of the reasons that the word is so rarely used in scripture. Authority, by its very nature can not be derived from self in a biblical understanding. Authority can only be received from God. Authentien refers to a person who has authority in and of themselves. This probably derives from some of its earlier understanding as a person who acts on their own initiative.

Another big problem with this argument is that it assumes the traditions and understandings of the church, from the very beginning were merely the result of men's prejudices and ideas.
It is easily demonstrable from the history of the church going right back to the time of the apostles that there were no ordained women. Further, the only groups which did have women leaders were heretical gnostic groups (something which is briefly reflected but then totally ignored in Kroger's argument).

History does show us that there were female deacons. However, it also shows that they had a different process to become a deacon than men did, and were appointed specifically to assist other women in situations where it would be in-appropriate for a man to do so. The fact that they had a different process for female deacons than for ordained men further strengthens the idea that they were not ordained with authority to teach the church.

[Criada]

Please, can we agree to disagree here?
Cos this is getting rather nasty...

:hug:

[hizlamb]

Christ was a meany when it came to the blatant disregard and disrespect for His Fathers word..

Im not going to apologize for standing firmly when it comes to scripture..

Anyway...on to the topic

[Simon_Templar]

I would point out that showdowns become inevitable when people start tossing around statements like "there is something wrong with the spirit of that passage" and in so doing strongly imply that those who take said passages literally are not following the Holy Spirit and they have something wrong with them, or at the very least are following a wrong spirit.

Now, I've defended my view point firmly, but I have not said, or implied that anyone who disagrees is following a wrong spirit, or implied that they are ministering death etc.

I don't appreciate having it implied that I have a wrong spirit, or that I'm ministering death because I take a conservative, traditional view on this issue.


I don't think your views on this make you un-conservative. However, Albion is absolutely right that this particular viewpoint on this issue is not conservative.

Don't forget that when you put forward your opinion here you are not just disagreeing with me, and the other people here.. you are disagreeing with literally EVERY christian scholar and teacher from the time of Christ up to about 100 years ago, give or take.

I'm not suggesting that such tradition must absolutely be followed, or that it is infallible etc etc.. however, a view that disagrees with every christian prior to this century can hardly be called traditional or conservative.
Further, while I admit that tradition is not infallible. I think it should give people serious food for thought when they go against the understanding of the entire body of Christ for 1900 years.

[John1and1]

Those of you who are not conservative, (and youre not the only ones who know who you are lol), Let me say that you do violence to the word of the very God you say you love and believe.

Now dont take this as a smack in the face, but rather take it as truth, that you ARE in fact handling the word of God VERY lightly, and esteeming your pride and feelings of 'hey im equal', above the order of God.

We could debate this with you all day long and youve already conceded every valid point in this discussion, and yet some of you are going to go right on believing what you want, justifying it any way you want, even redefineing words so you may believe what you want...

One thing you cannot do, produce a scripture showing us the ordination of a woman as a pastor, or approving of it.

So then why do you not believe the passage that forbids it?

Do you deny God has an order?

[Albion]

Another big problem with this argument is that it assumes the traditions and understandings of the church, from the very beginning were merely the result of men's prejudices and ideas.

Exactly. There is no way that a denial of the Word of God, any part of it, as being actually the revealed truth of God can be what this forum is supposed to be. Some differences are sure to arise, but the denial of Scripture?? How is that greeted with "Well, we all have different ideas as to what it means to be a Conservative, etc. etc.?"

It is easily demonstrable from the history of the church going right back to the time of the apostles that there were no ordained women.

Precisely. Undeniable.

I am very, very sad at the turn of affairs on what was supposed to be a Conservative forum. But you said what you did so well that hopefully you will make an impression that I could not. Thanks.

[Albion]

I'll side with the Bible. I'm not saying you aren't siding with the Bible. I just don't put as much stock in the traditions of men as you do.

Have you read my posts? I don't put my stock in the "Traditions of Men."


But I also do not put stock, as you do, in the NEW NOTIONS OF MEN which deny the Divine origins of the Bible. That's an even less authoritative approach than the old and established "Traditions of men," don't you see?


To rewrite or reinterpret the Bible a few years ago is not to believe in the Bible; it is a rejection of the Bible. You complimented Codger on "going back to the Bible." What you didn't add was that it was a going back to the Bible in order to debunk it.

[talitha]

First of all, I am a conservative Christian, not a liberal. I don't appreciate being called a liberal.

I would point out that showdowns become inevitable when people start tossing around statements like "there is something wrong with the spirit of that passage" and in so doing strongly imply that those who take said passages literally are not following the Holy Spirit and they have something wrong with them, or at the very least are following a wrong spirit.
I understand that's how Codger came across - and I'm sorry about not pointing that out - but what he was saying is that Paul was quoting someone who was wrong, and then that he went on to elaborate on how wrong that quote was. It seems clear to me as I read the passage.

Now, I've defended my view point firmly, but I have not said, or implied that anyone who disagrees is following a wrong spirit, or implied that they are ministering death etc.

I don't appreciate having it implied that I have a wrong spirit, or that I'm ministering death because I take a conservative, traditional view on this issue.
I did not say anyone was ministering death. I did say that Codger was ministering life. I'm sorry about any negative implications that gave. I was only addressing Codger's post, no one else's.

Don't forget that when you put forward your opinion here you are not just disagreeing with me, and the other people here.. you are disagreeing with literally EVERY christian scholar and teacher from the time of Christ up to about 100 years ago, give or take.
I really don't think you or I have read every Christian scholar and teacher. And as I'm sure you have argued when addressing other subjects, just because the entire class gets the same answer on a question - that doesn't make their answer right. It could mean that the teacher didn't get that point across.

I'm not suggesting that such tradition must absolutely be followed, or that it is infallible etc etc.. however, a view that disagrees with every christian prior to this century can hardly be called traditional or conservative.
Maybe the problem here is that I do not see "traditional" and "conservative" as synonyms. :)

Those of you who are not conservative, (and youre not the only ones who know who you are lol), Let me say that you do violence to the word of the very God you say you love and believe.

Now dont take this as a smack in the face, but rather take it as truth, that you ARE in fact handling the word of God VERY lightly, and esteeming your pride and feelings of 'hey im equal', above the order of God.
I don't take it as a smack in the face; I just think you don't understand. I have not redefined words - I have tried in any case to go back to the original meaning of words - isn't that the conservative thing to do?

So then why do you not believe the passage that forbids it?
There is no passage that forbids it.

Do you deny God has an order?
I have repeatedly agreed with you in that God has an order. I just don't agree that His order includes a separation in what gifts He gives to men and what gifts He gives to women.

Galatians 3:28

blessings
tal

[Albion]

First of all, I am a conservative Christian, not a liberal. I don't appreciate being called a liberal.

If you are addressing that comment to me, I never called you a liberal. I may, and correctly, have said that on this issue you take the liberal position. That is undeniable. This was all discussed by Simon and myself in several other posts, i.e. that even Conservative people may side with Liberal positions from time to time, and that doesn't probably make them Liberals. But as for the forum, it is only right that the Liberal position not be passed off as a Conservative one. Can you see that?

I understand that's how Codger came across - and I'm sorry about not pointing that out - but what he was saying is that Paul was quoting someone who was wrong, and then that he went on to elaborate on how wrong that quote was. It seems clear to me as I read the passage.

That was merely one part of the presentation. The rest was as I described.


Maybe the problem here is that I do not see "traditional" and "conservative" as synonyms. :)

Perhaps not, but the terms are what they are. If you stand by a new notion that revises the meaning of the Bible after almost 2000 years of a consensus to the opposite, IT IS NEITHER. It's the stock in trade of liberalism.


I don't take it as a smack in the face; I just think you don't understand. I have not redefined words - I have tried in any case to go back to the original meaning of words - isn't that the conservative thing to do?

The point is this--who says? The conservative answer is to uphold the Bible and the way it has been received by the Christian community. If one wants to redefine it yesterday, saying that all of Christianity has been wrong for almost all of its existence, that could, in theory that is, be right. But it's still not conservative.

[John1and1]

I would like to ask every one who disagrees, this one question.

You have the passagre forbidding a woman to pastor... why do you assume there are arguements to trump the command of God?

[hizlamb]

Actually..now that I think on this..

Theres a fine fine line between agreein to disagree.

I dont think thats acceptable. Not with scripture. Its compromising and God does NOT want His commands/word compromised...

So really..unless Johns post is given the worth its seeking...I cannot in good conscious say "ok lets disagree and its ok"

[talitha]

To rewrite or reinterpret the Bible a few years ago is not to believe in the Bible; it is a rejection of the Bible. You complimented Codger on "going back to the Bible." What you didn't add was that it was a going back to the Bible in order to debunk it.
I'm sorry you see it that way. I do not believe in any way that Codger wants to debunk the Bible. I do believe in debunking any idea - no matter how old - that goes against the original intent of the Bible.

I'm trying to think of another example - oh, how about slavery? For many years people used the Bible to defend their practice of slavery, but that did not make the practice Biblical. It was WRONG. And the truly conservative thing to do was to go back to the Bible, back to the Holy Spirit, back to the original intent of the One who breathed the Scriptures, and see what was there all along.

If you are addressing that comment to me, I never called you a liberal.
I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I was mainly addressing John1and1.

But as for the forum, it is only right that the Liberal position not be passed off as a Conservative one. Can you see that?
I understand your perspective. I feel that way about MANY MANY topics - one of which I agreed with Colabomb to disagree on - see Wiki discussion.

The point is this--who says? The conservative answer is to uphold the Bible and the way it has been received by the Christian community.
Oh, okay, I see the conservative answer as upholding the Bible, period, and defending the truth of the bible against all pretenders, young and old.

I would walk away from this argument and not look back, but I realize that I and those like me are the ones who are on the defense of something we believe. I was not the originator of this discussion; I'm merely trying to make my position as a conservative clear.

bless you
tal

[Simon_Templar]

I really don't think you or I have read every Christian scholar and teacher. And as I'm sure you have argued when addressing other subjects, just because the entire class gets the same answer on a question - that doesn't make their answer right. It could mean that the teacher didn't get that point across.


Maybe the problem here is that I do not see "traditional" and "conservative" as synonyms. :)


I don't take it as a smack in the face; I just think you don't understand. I have not redefined words - I have tried in any case to go back to the original meaning of words - isn't that the conservative thing to do?


We all agree that we should try to understand the original intent of scripture.

However, here we run into a HUGE problem. There is NO issue currently in contention within the church, from abortion, to homosexuality which has not been supported by people re-interpeting scripture.

If you talk to people who support homosexuality, one of the first things you will find is that they have a number of 'scholarly' arguments telling you what the scriptures dealing with homosexuality "REALLY" mean. The same is true on abortion. There are a number of arguments directly from scripture, based on the re-interpetation of scripture which are used to support abortion.

So, the problem is, if you accept the re-interpetation of scripture, against what it has universally been understood to mean in one instance.. why not the others?
The result is that you are essentially reducing the scriptures to subjective opinion. If I can re-interpet the bible in regards to women's roles.. why can't I do so in regard to sex? well because I think women should be pastors, but I don't think people should have sex outside of marriage, or that people should be homosexual...

The determining factor there has ceased to be the bible, and become your opinion.

The real kicker is that the re-interpetation arguments in favor of homosexuality are almost IDENTICAL in methodology and theory to those in favor of women's ordination.

If we can't rely on God's ability to get things right in the church, we might as well give up now because we have no ground to stand on.
When people talk about "traditions of men" I would suggest that when we talk about the universal teaching of the church we are not talking about traditions of men, we are talking about God's ability to keep his Church on track and his ability to convey truth to mankind.

[Simon_Templar]

I'm trying to think of another example - oh, how about slavery? For many years people used the Bible to defend their practice of slavery, but that did not make the practice Biblical. It was WRONG. And the truly conservative thing to do was to go back to the Bible, back to the Holy Spirit, back to the original intent of the One who breathed the Scriptures, and see what was there all along.


In this example, if you look at the history of the church, you will find that for its entire history, it faught to limit and remove slavery.
The use of scripture to support slavery was an aberation, in which people wanted to justify a certain behavior which had been traditionally condemned by the church and so they re-interpeted scripture to justify themselves.

[talitha]

I would like to ask every one who disagrees, this one question.

You have the passagre forbidding a woman to pastor... why do you assume there are arguements to trump the command of God?
I don't see a passage forbidding a woman to pastor. I've asked for one twice, and you have not answered me.

Actually..now that I think on this..

Theres a fine fine line between agreein to disagree.

I dont think thats acceptable. Not with scripture. Its compromising and God does NOT want His commands/word compromised...

So really..unless Johns post is given the worth its seeking...I cannot in good conscious say "ok lets disagree and its ok"
I have really tried to answer every question. I'm kind of alone here, because it seems those who agree with me are walking away. Maybe I should walk away from this topic too. I don't want God's words compromised either.

[Criada]

Sorry, tal - was not walking away, just busy!

However, having read through what has been written, I think I had better go elsewhere.

I came here to avoid the nastiness of the rest of the site...

God bless you all.

[Albion]

I'm sorry you see it that way. I do not believe in any way that Codger wants to debunk the Bible. I do believe in debunking any idea - no matter how old - that goes against the original intent of the Bible.

If one says that what is there is not of God (as he did), how can it be anything else?

I'm trying to think of another example - oh, how about slavery? For many years people used the Bible to defend their practice of slavery, [quote]

Nope. That is not a valid analogy. A valid priesthood/pastorate relates to the authenticity of the Church. That's why it's an issue. Slavery in no way defines the church or makes its worship or sacraments valid or invalid. Not only that, but it was not the case that slavery was typical of Chrstians in history. For most of Christian history, slavery was nonexistent, and even when the African slave trade in modern history got going and people tried to defend it by Bible quotes, that never was the position of the Church itself. So there's no "tradition" to kick around with the slavery example. In fact, it only operated in a portion of the Christian world when it was in practice.

[quote]I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I was mainly addressing John1and1.

I know. I did append a few of my comments to what you were saying to him while I tried to keep it limited.

I understand your perspective. I feel that way about MANY MANY topics - one of which I agreed with Colabomb to disagree on - see Wiki discussion.


Oh, okay, I see the conservative answer as upholding the Bible, period, and defending the truth of the bible against all pretenders, young and old.

I would walk away from this argument and not look back, but I realize that I and those like me are the ones who are on the defense of something we believe. I was not the originator of this discussion; I'm merely trying to make my position as a conservative clear.



As said before, even Conservatives hold to a Liberal position once in awhile. My main point was whether or not the forum, being intended for Conservatives, is going to be neutral when Liberal POVs are argued. Argued, not mentioned, that is.

I didn't notice you saying that "yes, although I am a Conservative, I am with the Liberals on this one because I do think that on some matters the Church can be wrong, even for almost all of its history. However, I don't see the gender of the presbyter as acutally invalidating an ordination, so what's why I can feel as I do."

You said you understand me, but I hope this clarifies it even better. I support you personally, but it is the integrity of the forum that I don't want to see go downhill, and that is what will happen if "Who is to say what is Conservative?" is our misguided way of saying we need to be polite and loving to each other.

[Macrina]

The real kicker is that the re-interpetation arguments in favor of homosexuality are almost IDENTICAL in methodology and theory to those in favor of women's ordination.

I'm trying to keep my distance from this thread, but I feel I need to say that the above statement is untrue. The hermeneutics involved are very different, which is why you will find many conservative evangelicals who support women's ordination but not gay marriage.

[karen freeinchristman]

I see the conservative answer as upholding the Bible, period, and defending the truth of the bible against all pretenders, young and old.
:amen: I guess we need a 'Truth Defenders' forum if Conservative won't do it.... ;)


I'm kind of alone here, because it seems those who agree with me are walking away. Maybe I should walk away from this topic too. I don't want God's words compromised either.You're not alone, it's just a case of many of us having been through this argument too many times. :sigh:

[Macrina]

Sorry, tal - was not walking away, just busy!

However, having read through what has been written, I think I had better go elsewhere.

I came here to avoid the nastiness of the rest of the site...

God bless you all.

I don't want to see you go -- you're a bright spot here and I hope you'll stay.

[John1and1]

I'm sorry you see it that way. I do not believe in any way that Codger wants to debunk the Bible. I do believe in debunking any idea - no matter how old - that goes against the original intent of the Bible.



Here is what i do not understand. Perhaps you can explain this. Thus far you have conceded every point we discussed. And yet you still speak as though there is room for discusson and arguement.

We also have even the OLDER GOD ORDAINED tradition of the priests and high prisest... God ordained the Levites AND Aaron. What woman was ordained as a priest?

God's order is consistant and as unchanging as He is.

[talitha]

Blessings on you sisters!

I've been through this argument several times before too - but I am trying to defend this forum just as Albion is - I want it to be a safe place for all of us.

blessings
tal

[Criada]

I don't want to see you go -- you're a bright spot here and I hope you'll stay.


Not sure I'm 'conservative' enough any more!
Anyway - going on holiday tomorrow for two weeks - I'll see what's going on when I return!

God bless you, Mac! :hug:

[karen freeinchristman]

As said before, even Conservatives hold to a Liberal position once in awhile. My main point was whether or not the forum, being intended for Conservatives, is going to be neutral when Liberal POVs are argued. Argued, not mentioned, that is.
I understand what you're saying here, Albion, but the problem is, this particular issue hits some of us at the core of our very being.

I'm trying to keep my distance from this thread, but I feel I need to say that the above statement is untrue. The hermeneutics involved are very different, which is why you will find many conservative evangelicals who support women's ordination but not gay marriage.I agree wholeheartedly.

[Albion]

I'm trying to keep my distance from this thread, but I feel I need to say that the above statement is untrue. The hermeneutics involved are very different, which is why you will find many conservative evangelicals who support women's ordination but not gay marriage.

On that issue, they are conservative evangelicals who have agreed with the theologically liberal POV. It happens, and it's fair of you to mention it.

But ask yourself the obvious question. Why out of 2000 years of Christian history did this not become much of an issue (save for a few way-out-of-mainstream churches like the Unitarians) ONLY WHEN THE WOMAN'S LIBERATION MOVEMENT AROSE AND PRESSED FOR IT?

To think that it was just the working of ongoing Bible study, completely separate from what the secular world wanted makes about as much sense as believing that the Mormons suddenly got a revelation from God to eliminate polygamy only when Utah wanted into the Union and another one just happened to come when the church was under intense pressure from civil rights activists of more recent years to admit blacks to the priesthood.

[Macrina]

I don't have the time to write a dissertation every time this topic comes up, so some time back I started collecting some posts in my blog as sort of an "FAQ" that might allow me to respond when the same questions come up. I'll link to what I've got so far. It's not intended to end conversation or to be comprehensive, but it's a start.

Question: Where in the Bible can I find the precedent for female leaders in the church, in a pastoral role? One example passage here. (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31058489&postcount=5)

Question: What about the passages that seem clearly to prohibit women in ministry? One exegetical example here. (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30363321&postcount=2)

Question: What do you mean when you claim that you were called by God? Answers to some personal questions here. (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31089495&postcount=6)

Question: Your "FAQ" is incomplete. What are some reputable evangelical, conservative sources that back up what you say and answer more questions? Resources here. (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31041840&postcount=4)

[John1and1]

I understand what you're saying here, Albion, but the problem is, this particular issue hits some of us at the core of our very being.

I agree wholeheartedly.


The issue may hurt, for this i apologize but not for God, rather for your resistance to the word in this case. The same word also limits me in MY activities. I can ONLY perform that which i am called and empowered to do. If i am not empowered to prophesy, i cannot simply begin to prophesy without the empowering of God. If my talent is not teaching i cannot empower myself to teach. Rather i must remain within my calling and within the ordder of God just as you must, and if we resist it satan is one happy fella.

Can i aspire to be God and refuse His order and say that i am just as good? Many do and to theor own destruction just as satan did. This is what we do EVERY time we resist the word and justify esteeming our own feelings over the word

[Macrina]

On that issue, they are conservative evangelicals who have agreed with the theologically liberal POV. It happens, and it's fair of you to mention it.

But ask yourself the obvious question. Why out of 2000 years of Christian history did this not become much of an issue (save for a few way-out-of-mainstream churches like the Unitarians) ONLY WHEN THE WOMAN'S LIBERATION MOVEMENT AROSE AND PRESSED FOR IT?

To think that it was just the working of ongoing Bible study, completely separate from what the secular world wanted makes about as much sense as believing that the Mormons suddenly got a revelation from God to eliminate polygamy only when Utah wanted into the Union and another one just happened to come when the church was under intense pressure from civil rights activists of more recent years to admit blacks to the priesthood.

Your analogy is flawed in that it redirects discussion away from the hermeneutical methods used, and instead questions the reasons why those methods were employed. While I could and would take issue with the implications of your post, I would rather emphasize my original point, which is that the methods used to interpret the "gay" passages and the "woman" passages to so-called "liberal" points of view are very different. Your statement that the methods were the same was in error.

[hizlamb]

In light of the compromise of Gods word and walking away

I walk away. My conscious and stand for my Fathers word..intact

God bless

[karen freeinchristman]

But ask yourself the obvious question. Why out of 2000 years of Christian history did this not become much of an issue (save for a few way-out-of-mainstream churches like the Unitarians) ONLY WHEN THE WOMAN'S LIBERATION MOVEMENT AROSE AND PRESSED FOR IT?

The obvious answer: the pure and simple fact that it was a male-dominated society.

[Simon_Templar]

I'm trying to keep my distance from this thread, but I feel I need to say that the above statement is untrue. The hermeneutics involved are very different, which is why you will find many conservative evangelicals who support women's ordination but not gay marriage.
I disagree. I think the arguments presented are very similar in form and substance. They all revolve around questioning the accepted translation of a few words here and there to alter the meaning of a pertinant passage.
In both cases, the translation of the words in question is not even a case of being mistranslated, but rather based on the argument "It COULD mean this". The idea that there is room for a different translation is then used to effect a complete reversal of teaching on the issue.

furthermore, while there are individual evangelicals who support women's ordination but not gay marriage etc, if you look at churches as a whole who have accepted one in the past, many of them have moved on from that point to now beginning to accept the other as well.

This is proving true in the Anglican church, the Lutheran church, the Methodist church, and even now it is becoming more and more common in evangelical non-denom. circles as well.

[karen freeinchristman]

The issue may hurt, for this i apologize but not for God, rather for your resistance to the word in this case. The same word also limits me in MY activities. I can ONLY perform that which i am called and empowered to do. If i am not empowered to prophesy, i cannot simply begin to prophesy without the empowering of God. If my talent is not teaching i cannot empower myself to teach. Rather i must remain within my calling and within the ordder of God just as you must, and if we resist it satan is one happy fella.

Can i aspire to be God and refuse His order and say that i am just as good? Many do and to theor own destruction just as satan did. This is what we do EVERY time we resist the word and justify esteeming our own feelings over the word
Thank you very much. I will remain within my calling. :)

[Macrina]

The issue may hurt, for this i apologize but not for God, rather for your resistance to the word in this case. The same word also limits me in MY activities. I can ONLY perform that which i am called and empowered to do. If i am not empowered to prophesy, i cannot simply begin to prophesy without the empowering of God. If my talent is not teaching i cannot empower myself to teach. Rather i must remain within my calling and within the ordder of God just as you must, and if we resist it satan is one happy fella.

Can i aspire to be God and refuse His order and say that i am just as good? Many do and to theor own destruction just as satan did. This is what we do EVERY time we resist the word and justify esteeming our own feelings over the word

Hypothetical question:

Situation One: Let's just say -- for the sake of argument -- that you're mistaken in your interpretation (hypothetically). Now let's say that you successfully convinced me to leave the ministry and thus saved me from what you believe is sinning by defying God. Yet, the arguments have actually caused me to ignore a real call.

Situation Two: Let's just say -- for the sake of argument -- that I'm mistaken in my interpretation (hypothetically). Now let's say that I continue to serve as I am, unconvinced by your arguments. I'm not called t