The age ol' Lutheran Women being Pastors debate June '04

[Flipper]

Those verses in Timothy have been interpreted by some scholars to mean that Paul was speaking to specific women about a specific church problem, and wasn't meant to mean all women. I realize looking at it that way makes it hard to determine what Paul said was meant for all of us or certain individuals. Me personally, the jury in my brain is out on the issue.

I have a hard time seeing what Paul said ringing true for everyone when you look at how many women in the OT contributed to the church and were Prophets, etc. Then you look at the practicality of it all - many more women are going to church than men, etc. etc. Women are intelligent, bring other perspectives to the table that are just as important, and have much to offer in pretty much anything and everything.

I'm not a feminist, so don't mistake anything I've said for being feminist ramblings. I do agree about the male only pastor thing. However, I'm kind of torn, because I know at least one female who posts on this particular forum regularly, who has a legitamate calling to be a pastor. Is she lying? Is she being deceived? If so, by whom? The Devil? No - none of that.

[SPALATIN]

Those verses in Timothy have been interpreted by some scholars to mean that Paul was speaking to specific women about a specific church problem, and wasn't meant to mean all women. I realize looking at it that way makes it hard to determine what Paul said was meant for all of us or certain individuals. Me personally, the jury in my brain is out on the issue.

I have a hard time seeing what Paul said ringing true for everyone when you look at how many women in the OT contributed to the church and were Prophets, etc. Then you look at the practicality of it all - many more women are going to church than men, etc. etc. Women are intelligent, bring other perspectives to the table that are just as important, and have much to offer in pretty much anything and everything.

I'm not a feminist, so don't mistake anything I've said for being feminist ramblings. I do agree about the male only pastor thing. However, I'm kind of torn, because I know at least one female who posts on this particular forum regularly, who has a legitamate calling to be a pastor. Is she lying? Is she being deceived? If so, by whom? The Devil? No - none of that.
The question I would have about Paul only speaking to one specific situation is that he never said or clarified it as only that situation. He used the terms broadly for all circumstances. This is where I have a hard-time with the Historical-Critical method. It tries to re-define what someone said who isn't around to clarify it. We can't say that it is Adiaphora as it pertains to how a church is run.

Now on the issue of your friend who feels called to the ministry. Since I don't know her or her history I really don't have the qualifications to say that she is or isn't being misled. I do believe that Satan can twist the truth for his benefit and if it will in some ways undermine the church it could be a possibility because he does know what God says and that is how he deceived Eve in the Garden.

I think it would be interesting to do a study and find out how many men are involved in churches that allow women to have a leadership role either as a Pastor or Deaconess vs a Church that allows no women in leadership or voting. I am willing to bet that if you compare the situations that the churches with more female leadership have less of a male involvement. Now I am not saying that the study can't be skewed one way or another but if we looked at it objectively what do you think would be found.

Scott Strohkirch

[Flipper]

I think it would be interesting to do a study and find out how many men are involved in churches that allow women to have a leadership role either as a Pastor or Deaconess vs a Church that allows no women in leadership or voting. I am willing to bet that if you compare the situations that the churches with more female leadership have less of a male involvement. Now I am not saying that the study can't be skewed one way or another but if we looked at it objectively what do you think would be found.

Scott Strohkirch
I think that study would be hard to do in the LCMS because while women are allowed to teach, be a DCE, and hold officer positions in the congregation, they are not allowed to be elders. It seems to balance, or at least that is what I see in my church.

Other than that, you may be correct, but I have to wonder if the lack of male involvement is for other reasons than because of what the leadership consists of? Accross the Christian denominational spectrum, there is a huge problem with men not being true spiritual heads of the household, or not going to church, period.

BTW, Deaconesses are traditionally used in cultures where a man and a woman alone in a room is an extreme no-no (an example being a pastor visiting a widow who can't get to the church, for one on one ministering), like in Mexico and other Latin American countries. There is a need for women in that role.

[SPALATIN]

I think that study would be hard to do in the LCMS because while women are allowed to teach, be a DCE, and hold officer positions in the congregation, they are not allowed to be elders. It seems to balance, or at least that is what I see in my church.

Other than that, you may be correct, but I have to wonder if the lack of male involvement is for other reasons than because of what the leadership consists of? Accross the Christian denominational spectrum, there is a huge problem with men not being true spiritual heads of the household, or not going to church, period.

BTW, Deaconesses are traditionally used in cultures where a man and a woman alone in a room is an extreme no-no (an example being a pastor visiting a widow who can't get to the church, for one on one ministering), like in Mexico and other Latin American countries. There is a need for women in that role.
Let me give you a for instance. When I was born my Mother was a Superintendant of the Sunday School at our church which was ALC. My Dad really didn't do much more than just attend church with her and was not actively involved. When I was 5 years old my parents decided to find church that was closer to home (we lived about 15 miles from the first church). We ended up joining a LCMS church where the women didn't have the vote yet much less any other definitive roles. However, my father became involved as an Elder. My mother did get involved in the Sunday school program but didn't get the vote until about 9 years later.

It would not necessarily be a study of one specific synod but a study of Lutheran Churches regardless of synod. Where do you think the men would be serving less?

[Lotar]

I don't know, it seems to me that women take over more positions because men are unwilling too, rather than men not getting involved because women are.

[Flipper]

I don't know, it seems to me that women take over more positions because men are unwilling too, rather than men not getting involved because women are.
That's always been my observation. :)

[Flipper]

Let me give you a for instance. When I was born my Mother was a Superintendant of the Sunday School at our church which was ALC. My Dad really didn't do much more than just attend church with her and was not actively involved. When I was 5 years old my parents decided to find church that was closer to home (we lived about 15 miles from the first church). We ended up joining a LCMS church where the women didn't have the vote yet much less any other definitive roles. However, my father became involved as an Elder. My mother did get involved in the Sunday school program but didn't get the vote until about 9 years later.

It would not necessarily be a study of one specific synod but a study of Lutheran Churches regardless of synod. Where do you think the men would be serving less?
I don't know. Seriously, I have only been a regular attender for the last 7 years at one church. I don't have as much to compare to, except what others tell me about their church. My observation from what others tell me and what I see, is that women get involved, more to take the place of men who won't. Even if more men were involved, I think women have a lot to contribute and bring to the table. I can't see a female pastor, but that's probably as much because I grew up Catholic and am not used to that notion. I will say that my friend who posts here who has a calling, has a true calling. I've seen her explain scripture better than a lot of pastors. In fact, she's short, sweet, and to the point, which is what I prefer.

Are you saying that your dad only got involved once your mom wasn't involved? That doesn't make any sense.

[SPALATIN]

I don't know. Seriously, I have only been a regular attender for the last 7 years at one church. I don't have as much to compare to, except what others tell me about their church. My observation from what others tell me and what I see, is that women get involved, more to take the place of men who won't. Even if more men were involved, I think women have a lot to contribute and bring to the table. I can't see a female pastor, but that's probably as much because I grew up Catholic and am not used to that notion. I will say that my friend who posts here who has a calling, has a true calling. I've seen her explain scripture better than a lot of pastors. In fact, she's short, sweet, and to the point, which is what I prefer.

Are you saying that your dad only got involved once your mom wasn't involved? That doesn't make any sense.
No, I just don't think he was motivated to get involved in the first church because all of the Elder spots were filled and the women were in charge of the Sunday School. Other than that I am not sure. Once we moved to the new church though my Mother had been the Superintendant of the Sunday school at the first church she didn't have the role at the LCMS church though she did the work of the Superintendant within the first couple of years. My Father was encouraged by the Pastor and other men to become an Elder. He did so and 10 years later he was the President of the Congregation. His involvement meant more to my mother than her work in the Sunday school.

[ByzantineDixie]

Those verses in Timothy have been interpreted by some scholars to mean that Paul was speaking to specific women about a specific church problem, and wasn't meant to mean all women. I realize looking at it that way makes it hard to determine what Paul said was meant for all of us or certain individuals. Me personally, the jury in my brain is out on the issue.

I have a hard time seeing what Paul said ringing true for everyone when you look at how many women in the OT contributed to the church and were Prophets, etc. Then you look at the practicality of it all - many more women are going to church than men, etc. etc. Women are intelligent, bring other perspectives to the table that are just as important, and have much to offer in pretty much anything and everything.

I'm not a feminist, so don't mistake anything I've said for being feminist ramblings. I do agree about the male only pastor thing. However, I'm kind of torn, because I know at least one female who posts on this particular forum regularly, who has a legitamate calling to be a pastor. Is she lying? Is she being deceived? If so, by whom? The Devil? No - none of that.

Well this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. I started to draft this long essay on my conversion (with regard to this particular subject) but I'll refrain. Suffice it to say I was once a feminist but God has changed my heart. Let me just share with you what I have learned.

The letters to Timothy and to the church at Corinth which speak to women being silent are not simply a reflection of those specific churches at that specific time. (Scott, I agree with you...it is too easy to bend Scripture to tickle one's ears if proper biblical hermeneutics are not practiced. The historical critical method can be dangerous).

The order of things was established way back in Genesis. Women are not to have authority over men in the church (or at home, but that is another subject though same origin). What are authoritative positions? The LCMS has defined these as the roles associated with the means of Grace, Word and Sacrament, the pastor and those elders who by the church constitution would be eligible to administer the Word and Sacrament. WELS goes a little further--I believe they do not allow women to vote in their congregation nor to hold office (but Recht, please correct me if I am wrong.)

Now...here is an interesting tidbit I discovered recently. Luther was of the same opinion as Lotar (imagine that!!! :P ) God will appoint women into certain leadership roles to shame the men who are not doing their part.

I think the reason the scriptural role of women is so difficult for many of us to accept today is cultural. Hey...I grew up when women thought they needed to be equal. I was one of those women and to be fair there were some societal things that needed to be corrected, equal pay for equal work is a specific issue that comes to mind. The reality is that women and men are equal, our roles, as defined by Scripture, are simply different.

Flipper, despite my certainty regarding women's roles in the church...I also agree with you. Some women are called to ministerial leadership. Scripture is clear that woman can and should teach and train up women. To have a female in charge of a womens ministry is completely appropriate. I do not think the LCMS has fully taken advantage of this.

Peace

Rose

[JMRE5150]

/MODHAT ON


So far this thread has remained civil, and quite pleasant. Lets keep it this way. remember you are conversing with your own Lutheran brother and sisters. While they may be of difference to your ideals, they are still your brothers and sisters.

/MODHAT OFF

Ok gang, great discussion. Lets keep these open talks on women Pastors going.

But please...don't make me throw the mod hat on if it gets into the mudslinging.

Robb

[Flipper]

Ok, who did this? LOL!

[ByzantineDixie]

I think Mr. Robb did this. He has warned all to behave. I always thought I did behave but I think he making sure!!! ;) ------R

[Flipper]

Well this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. I started to draft this long essay on my conversion (with regard to this particular subject) but I'll refrain. Suffice it to say I was once a feminist but God has changed my heart. Let me just share with you what I have learned.

The letters to Timothy and to the church at Corinth which speak to women being silent are not simply a reflection of those specific churches at that specific time. (Scott, I agree with you...it is too easy to bend Scripture to tickle one's ears if proper biblical hermeneutics are not practiced. The historical critical method can be dangerous).

The order of things was established way back in Genesis. Women are not to have authority over men in the church (or at home, but that is another subject though same origin). What are authoritative positions? The LCMS has defined these as the roles associated with the means of Grace, Word and Sacrament, the pastor and those elders who by the church constitution would be eligible to administer the Word and Sacrament. WELS goes a little further--I believe they do not allow women to vote in their congregation nor to hold office (but Recht, please correct me if I am wrong.)

Now...here is an interesting tidbit I discovered recently. Luther was of the same opinion as Lotar (imagine that!!! :P ) God will appoint women into certain leadership roles to shame the men who are not doing their part.

I think the reason the scriptural role of women is so difficult for many of us to accept today is cultural. Hey...I grew up when women thought they needed to be equal. I was one of those women and to be fair there were some societal things that needed to be corrected, equal pay for equal work is a specific issue that comes to mind. The reality is that women and men are equal, our roles, as defined by Scripture, are simply different.

Flipper, despite my certainty regarding women's roles in the church...I also agree with you. Some women are called to ministerial leadership. Scripture is clear that woman can and should teach and train up women. To have a female in charge of a womens ministry is completely appropriate. I do not think the LCMS has fully taken advantage of this.

Peace

Rose
First of all, I want to apologize for taking it off topic. I'm also very glad we can discuss this in a civil manner.

You said something very interesting: Now...here is an interesting tidbit I discovered recently. Luther was of the same opinion as Lotar (imagine that!!! :P ) God will appoint women into certain leadership roles to shame the men who are not doing their part.

Where is that line drawn where a woman should take over? I'm sorry, I'm kind of black and white in my thinking of this. If a woman is capable in this circumstance, why can't she be in any other circumstances? I need a more concrete answer than "it says so in the Bible." It's been proven time and time again, that Women can successfully have the calling, that the Holy Spirit has entered her heart and led her to this calling when there wasn't a "need", so could it be that we are somehow misinterpreting scripture?

Let me reiterate before someone calls me a femi-nazi: I have no problem with a male pastor or elders. I have no problem with submitting to my husband as the spiritual head of the household (though I feel silly saying that since I'm here discussing this and he's curently on the other computer killing things, but I digress). I just want to understand why the Bible seems to be so clear about women in church leadership roles, when there are so many women who are assuming leadership roles now, and are quite capable and successful.

[Flipper]

I think Mr. Robb did this. He has warned all to behave. I always thought I did behave but I think he making sure!!! ;) ------R
I think he figured me out as the troublemaker that I am. :P

[Flipper]

All these people have been here so long with no response. Rose, what you have written is truely captivating. It has to be what you've written, can't be my writing.

[theologia crucis]

This is ironic!

Last summer, I ordered all the CTCR documents from CPH. After the recent trip, I decided to randomly [sic?] pic one and read through it. What I picked was Women in the Church: Scriptural and Ecclesial Practice (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Women_in_Church3.pdf). It's a pretty interesting read. Y'all probably have seen it, but if not, I do suggest reading it...

Also, here's all the CTCR reports (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=515) on Women in the Church.

After studying some of these documents, I do agree with the conclusion that men alone should be pastor's in the church. But women always have and always will be one of the greatest assests of the church and greatest witnesses to the proclomation of the Gospel (remember the FIRST Easter Sunday?!). And men should NOT lord over women or EVER treat them as inferiors (see pp. 27-38 especially). Of course, due to the fall, this proper treatment has been lacking through history, unfortunately...

I hope I don't tick y'all off with my thoughts! The Holy Spirit definitely worked through my wife to bring me to saving faith! We men can be awefully pathetic in fulfilling our callings (obligations?)!

[ByzantineDixie]

First of all, I want to apologize for taking it off topic. I'm also very glad we can discuss this in a civil manner.

You said something very interesting: Now...here is an interesting tidbit I discovered recently. Luther was of the same opinion as Lotar (imagine that!!! :P ) God will appoint women into certain leadership roles to shame the men who are not doing their part.

Where is that line drawn where a woman should take over? I'm sorry, I'm kind of black and white in my thinking of this. If a woman is capable in this circumstance, why can't she be in any other circumstances? I need a more concrete answer than "it says so in the Bible." It's been proven time and time again, that Women can successfully have the calling, that the Holy Spirit has entered her heart and led her to this calling when there wasn't a "need", so could it be that we are somehow misinterpreting scripture?

Let me reiterate before someone calls me a femi-nazi: I have no problem with a male pastor or elders. I have no problem with submitting to my husband as the spiritual head of the household (though I feel silly saying that since I'm here discussing this and he's curently on the other computer killing things, but I digress). I just want to understand why the Bible seems to be so clear about women in church leadership roles, when there are so many women who are assuming leadership roles now, and are quite capable and successful.

You raise some great questions...

One thing I can address is the issue of capability. I don't necessarily think that a woman is capable is sufficient evidence that she should step into the role designed for a man. In many cases I think (and many men will agree) women may be more capable for a particular task...but their capability shouldn't be the "sign" that its OK to disrupt God's orderly plan. I am better at decision making than my husband. I do that for a living...but that is not the role I should play at home. I can help but it would be wrong of me to just bulldoze in and take over. I surely could do it and do it quite well, but it would be wrong.

That being said...I know a few woman preachers who are so incredible in their ministry. It would be impossible for me to believe that they were anything other than anointed by God to do what they do. These are woman who are leading new people to the Christ continuously. How can this be of satan? It doesn't make sense.

I don't know the answer Flipper...there is a part of me that admits we surely could be wrong in understanding what Scripture is telling us. I look at Martin Luther and how he was led to defy the teachings of the church at the time. Should he have done that or should he have abided by scripture and complied with those in authority, trusting God's promise in Romans 8:28?

I don't know....

I will tell you this. If I were a member of a denomination that allowed women preachers I would have just completed my 3rd year of seminary by now. But I am not. I can't help but think that is part of God's plan.....

Peace

Rose

[Flipper]

This is ironic!

Last summer, I ordered all the CTCR documents from CPH. After the recent trip, I decided to randomly [sic?] pic one and read through it. What I picked was Women in the Church: Scriptural and Ecclesial Practice (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Women_in_Church3.pdf). It's a pretty interesting read. Y'all probably have seen it, but if not, I do suggest reading it...

Also, here's all the CTCR reports (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=515) on Women in the Church.

After studying some of these documents, I do agree with the conclusion that men alone should be pastor's in the church. But women always have and always will be one of the greatest assests of the church and greatest witnesses to the proclomation of the Gospel (remember the FIRST Easter Sunday?!). And men should NOT lord over women or EVER treat them as inferiors (see pp. 27-38 especially). Of course, due to the fall, this proper treatment has been lacking through history, unfortunately...

I hope I don't tick y'all off with my thoughts! The Holy Spirit definitely worked through my wife to bring me to saving faith! We men can be awefully pathetic in fulfilling our callings (obligations?)!
I've only had time to read the first 9 pages of the first paper, and all I can say is WOW. Thank you for the interesting reading.

[Flipper]

You raise some great questions...

One thing I can address is the issue of capability. I don't necessarily think that a woman is capable is sufficient evidence that she should step into the role designed for a man. In many cases I think (and many men will agree) women may be more capable for a particular task...but their capability shouldn't be the "sign" that its OK to disrupt God's orderly plan. I am better at decision making than my husband. I do that for a living...but that is not the role I should play at home. I can help but it would be wrong of me to just bulldoze in and take over. I surely could do it and do it quite well, but it would be wrong.

That being said...I know a few woman preachers who are so incredible in their ministry. It would be impossible for me to believe that they were anything other than anointed by God to do what they do. These are woman who are leading new people to the Christ continuously. How can this be of satan? It doesn't make sense.

I don't know the answer Flipper...there is a part of me that admits we surely could be wrong in understanding what Scripture is telling us. I look at Martin Luther and how he was led to defy the teachings of the church at the time. Should he have done that or should he have abided by scripture and complied with those in authority, trusting God's promise in Romans 8:28?

I don't know....

I will tell you this. If I were a member of a denomination that allowed women preachers I would have just completed my 3rd year of seminary by now. But I am not. I can't help but think that is part of God's plan.....

Peace

RoseI interpret submitting to the husband to mean that he is the head of the household in spiritual matters, and the final decision maker in times of indecision or disagreement. You can't have 2 presidents of a corporation - makes sense. However, most corporate vice presidents really run things, if you think about it.

Therefore, if I am stronger in something than he is, I take over in that area, and vice verse if he's strongest. He doesn't mind, and actually rathers our marriage be handled that way. If we have a true disagrement on something and can't come to a decision, I quickly back off and let him make the final decision. In 5 years of marriage, we might have had 2 true honest to goodness fights, and we had more than made up on those before going to bed that night. ;)

I guess the issue of capability also has to do with all the stories of strong women in the background supporting their famous husbands in history. I used to think that was a waste of brain power. I'm starting to see that there might be something there. I think it is a true test if you are marrying the right person, that if you are willing to step aside for that person to soar and to support that person in what they are soaring in.

I'm getting off the subject again - sorry. However, I do think some of what I said above can be used in the context of the church. I think of the women getting the communion stuff to the pastor and elders during communion. No one looks at them, but would the lines run so smoothly otherwise? Takes just as much brain power to administer as it does to get the stuff to them to administer.

[theologia crucis]

BTW, one of my best friends is a female Lutheran pastor in Germany...

And I do feel that women can preach and teach, often better than men.

However, when in the Scriptures it says we should bear our crosses, it doesn't mean we should wade through hard times, it means we should die to self. How many wonderful women have done that in serving their church and won people to Christ (or more theologically correct, the Holy Spirit worked through their witness)? Many more than men, I'm sure.

Also, I'd bet you'd make a better pastor than me, Rose. You're far more compassionate. And if I was a pastor and you were in my congregation, I would lean on your help in ministering to the flock, which we ALL have a responsibility to serve. I realize my limitations and would try and utilize your strengths to the good of His church.

But, YHWH is a god of order, and I do find it pretty clear in the Scriptures that He does have a specific order in mind for His creation. But this is a sequence, NOT a hierarchy (don't have time to go into details, but maybe you've studyed the Lutheran principles of sequence vs. hierarchy in the Scriptures).

And in that order, men should be "head of the household" (that is a horrible term, but my brain is nearly dead!) or pastor of the congregaion. But, the should also serve his wife (or the men and women of his congregation) like he serves Christ. The loss of this order could be a reason for all the confusion in society over the rolls and responsibilty of men. Men, after the fall, and especially since we have been rejecting God here in the West, have lost sight of that Scriptural truth, and have been shirking their responsibilities, especially in recent decades. That's a whole other topic!

But, be absolutely certain, God IS using us all for vocations we're probably not even aware of, and we probably have absolutely no idea what kind of positive impact we are having in others! (Except me, I know I have NO impact!)

I'm rambling, so I'll shut up.

Rose, in regards to your question: "Should he have done that or should he have abided by scripture and complied with those in authority, trusting God's promise in Romans 8:28?"

Yes, he had an obligation as a Christian to. Just as you, I, Flipper, Lotar, Chi Rho, Phoebe, Danhead, Rob, Recht all have. The truth was not being taught, and people's eternal souls were (ARE!) at stake. It is our God-given obligation (not in a "legalistic" sense, but in a "how can we not!" sense) to proclaim Christ and Him crucified to the world unambiguously and truthfully!

And Rose, you can go to Sem and become a Deaconess! And you'd get to take some good theology classes!

[theologia crucis]

I've only had time to read the first 9 pages of the first paper, and all I can say is WOW. Thank you for the interesting reading.

You're welcome. BTW, Flipper, I'd utilize you're talents if you were in my congregation! Y'all are both great! You too, Phoebe...

And I'd use the dudes, too, 'cause I'd need all the help I could get!

(Did I miss anyone?)

[Music4Hym777]

I am a literal and not a liberal, so I agree that women should not be pastors, but should they be completely silent? No way!!! Women did do a lot of prophesizing(sp) and can give good messages to the church. But they also are not to be in leadership over the men. We were actually talking about this subject today.

(What do you get when you cross an ELCAer, LCMSer, and a non-denominational person? You get crazy debates about women pastors, gay pastors, and what the heck does a denomination have to do with anything)

So no, I dont agree that women should be pastors! (If I did I would be in seminary (probably Luther's)), but I know that is not a womens place, so I wont be going).

In Christ,
Monica

[JMRE5150]

I think Mr. Robb did this. He has warned all to behave. I always thought I did behave but I think he making sure!!! ;) ------RLOL! you aren't a troublemaker! :D (not yet anyway ;) )

But I did move it to a new thread because the topic veered off subject from the original post. Alot of threads do, and mods are charged with "splitting" threads when we see two conversations (or more) branch out.

It keeps things orderly and easy to find for folks entering the forums looking for certain topics. If this good discussion was buried deep in a "differences" thread, a newer person unaware that it was inside the old thread would never know to look there.

Anyway, its 4am, I'm half asleep and need to get my butt in the shower for work *sigh*

I'll see you guys later when I have a few cups of coffee in me and I'm sitting at my desk (yeah yeah, I mod while I'm working, don't tell :P )


Robb

[JMRE5150]

Coffee'd up, awake, at work...and back :)


Anyway, I'm gonna throw out there a REALLY strange hypothetical situation for ya's to discuss. I'm not gonna share my personal views on this matter, as me being ELCA should be enough...but anyway, here is the crazy hypothetical for ya's...

Let's say mankind creates a biotoxin and it gets axccidently introduced into the world. Its extrememly deadly, but for some reason, it only affects men. Its something that was designed by man in labs, and accidently released by man. (Told ya I was going WAY out here to get some folks thinking)

Now, the biotoxin spread worldwide, wiping out every last man. Are you to tell me that Christ's Church here on Earth as we know it should stop having Pastoral Leaders since women aren't allowed? Is that what God would want?
No more Bishops, Pastors, etc because some believe women cannot hold these positions? While its a completely exaggerated story, could we say that our structure of Christianity is weak enough to fall to a simple manmade virus? No more Pastors to sheperd Christ's sheep?

While the idea I have given is completely perposterous, you get my point when I say "I just can't see Paul talking to all women, for all of time". But then again, thats why I'm ELCA. We truly don't believe Paul meant for all time. We believe he was talking to a fledgling Christian movement who, at the time, needed strong male leadership roles, as those women of that day were shunned, looked down on, traded like trash slaves etc. I mean, could you imagine how fast a message would die if folks of the time heard it from a women? We believe Paul didn't bother to elaborate on exactly how long or what (that goes both ways for the arguement) he indeed meant, as he most likely felt as though, living during those times, the idea of those women sheperding a flock of fledgling sheep was ridiculous and assumed. He probably didn't envision 2000 years later where women are held in much higher regard, educated and asteamed as any man can be.
But alas, he never clarified this either way, so we will forever battle this out in indecision.
Anyway, my last point is, ELCA does NOT claim that Paul was wrong, but rather Paul never elaborated as to "How long" a women was not to lead, and why. For those that say "Well, it didn't say, so we assume "forever", thats just as bad as us saying "Well, he didn't specify so we can assume he was talking for the times he lived in". Either way, its making an assumption on something that does seem to have a few question marks attached to it. After all, if I were to die tomorrow from a worldwide biotoxin, I couldn't imagine Christ's body without Pastors. I just can't bring myself to think that God would look down on us and sit with his arms crossed saying "I said NO! No women Pastors! Too bad, sheperdless ones! Wait for the Rapture and Jesus' return!" That's just plain silly...but then again...so was my example.

Enjoy debating this!

Robb

[ByzantineDixie]

Now, the biotoxin spread worldwide, wiping out every last man.

Oh man, there are times when that makes for quite an appealing thought!!! ;) j/k But as a woman who lives in a house of men only...it would get lonely, fast.

Paul's letter to Titus makes it clear to me that women can and should teach women and hold positions of authority over other women in the church so I am comfortable that God's church would survive with women, correctly and biblically, shepherding women. Titus 2:3 - 5, Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

I really think there is an opportunity to expand on this instruction and create ministry roles for women to serve women and train up other women in the church. I know ELCA allows women to be pastors with no restrictions but specifically for LCMS and WELS this concept would open opportunities, at least for the largest parishes.

Theo touched on something that I have personally experienced...that being the proper order of things and impact on society. The first fifteen years of our marriage were not so great in that I did battle for "head of household" status and we are dealing with the fallout of that sin even today. It has affected my husband and my oldest son and their abilities to assume their proper leadership roles. God knows what he is doing...we just have to fight him to our detriment. :(

Y'all have a GREAT day in HIM!

Rose

[Phoebe]

Not too bad, Rob. Of course, if the men are all gone, it would be okay for women to lead women. :P The problem would lie in who would give last rights to the last standing Catholic guy. :D
I can't believe that came from a fellow ELCA-er.(Me.)

[Phoebe]

Feesha? What's your friend's name? :P

[SPALATIN]

Well this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. I started to draft this long essay on my conversion (with regard to this particular subject) but I'll refrain. Suffice it to say I was once a feminist but God has changed my heart. Let me just share with you what I have learned.

The letters to Timothy and to the church at Corinth which speak to women being silent are not simply a reflection of those specific churches at that specific time. (Scott, I agree with you...it is too easy to bend Scripture to tickle one's ears if proper biblical hermeneutics are not practiced. The historical critical method can be dangerous).

The order of things was established way back in Genesis. Women are not to have authority over men in the church (or at home, but that is another subject though same origin). What are authoritative positions? The LCMS has defined these as the roles associated with the means of Grace, Word and Sacrament, the pastor and those elders who by the church constitution would be eligible to administer the Word and Sacrament. WELS goes a little further--I believe they do not allow women to vote in their congregation nor to hold office (but Recht, please correct me if I am wrong.)

Now...here is an interesting tidbit I discovered recently. Luther was of the same opinion as Lotar (imagine that!!! :P ) God will appoint women into certain leadership roles to shame the men who are not doing their part.

I think the reason the scriptural role of women is so difficult for many of us to accept today is cultural. Hey...I grew up when women thought they needed to be equal. I was one of those women and to be fair there were some societal things that needed to be corrected, equal pay for equal work is a specific issue that comes to mind. The reality is that women and men are equal, our roles, as defined by Scripture, are simply different.

Flipper, despite my certainty regarding women's roles in the church...I also agree with you. Some women are called to ministerial leadership. Scripture is clear that woman can and should teach and train up women. To have a female in charge of a womens ministry is completely appropriate. I do not think the LCMS has fully taken advantage of this.

Peace

Rose
So let's look at why men are not getting involved. What could be some of the reasons? Are they not being encouraged to get involved or are they just a bunch of spineless wimps? Or is it because they figure "why serve the women have it covered?"

Let's explore this issue in this direction for a few posts.

:pray: Scott

[Rechtgläubig]

Now, the biotoxin spread worldwide, wiping out every last man. Are you to tell me that Christ's Church here on Earth as we know it should stop having Pastoral Leaders since women aren't allowed? Is that what God would want?
No more Bishops, Pastors, etc because some believe women cannot hold these positions? While its a completely exaggerated story, could we say that our structure of Christianity is weak enough to fall to a simple manmade virus? No more Pastors to sheperd Christ's sheep?



I believe the WELS response would be, that it would be OK if there were no men to "exercise authority over".

[Flipper]

Not too bad, Rob. Of course, if the men are all gone, it would be okay for women to lead women. :P The problem would lie in who would give last rights to the last standing Catholic guy. :D
I can't believe that came from a fellow ELCA-er.(Me.)
I do remember this from confirmation way back. If there is no priest, any Catholic can give the Annointing of the Sick Sacrament.

[Flipper]

Feesha? What's your friend's name? :P
LOL! I love you Kimmy! :hug:

[Flipper]

So let's look at why men are not getting involved. What could be some of the reasons? Are they not being encouraged to get involved or are they just a bunch of spineless wimps? Or is it because they figure "why serve the women have it covered?"

Let's explore this issue in this direction for a few posts.

:pray: Scott
I think they just don't think it's "manly." It doesn't get your hands dirty, and you have to be a bit emotional to be able to do a good job. It's hard for some men.

[Phoebe]

I believe the WELS response would be, that it would be OK if there were no men to "exercise authority over".
I see a woman beat you to that response. :P
LOL

[Flipper]

Again, thank you for keeping this a good deep civil discussion.

Here's something else I want to throw into the mix. We have determined that it is ok for Women to teach and lead Women. I agree that Women should not lead and teach just men, ESPECIALLY when it comes to men issues.

How about general biblical stuff, like biblical history or theology? Should this just be a man's world? The reason I'm asking: The best biblical teacher I've ever had was the first female in the LCMS to get a doctorate in Biblical Studies (she's also a Deaconess). She taught a 6 week accelerated semester class on Messianic Prophesy - and it happened to be over the time that 9/11 happened. She's my age, and she was absolutely brilliant, and I can tell you that even the manly men in her class thought the same. Is this wrong? Is she being misled?

[Phoebe]

Many men are more interested in "worldly" affairs, maybe.
This town is having a breakdown of it's moral fibers. Our ball teams now play on Sundays. The Christians complain, but they let their kids stay involved anyway.

This woman is a little tired of the men not getting involved. Even when asked point blank to help out! They are even asked to help out by the male clergymen!

I've never been a member of another denomination, so I don't have a clue as to how we stack up against the others on this topic. When I was a kid, in another town, it seems like the women still outworked the men in church affairs. (ALC or LCA, don't remember now)

When it comes right down to it, the men seem to be dropping the ball. Why are the Christian men willing to let the women lead?

[Flipper]

Many men are more interested in "worldly" affairs, maybe.
This town is having a breakdown of it's moral fibers. Our ball teams now play on Sundays. The Christians complain, but they let their kids stay involved anyway.


LOL, it was commonplace when I was Catholic to see the kids in their softball or soccer uniforms at church. I had nothing against it, but I didn't understand then either. I don't know, Sunday is a day of rest, and to some people, this is resting.

[Phoebe]

LOL, it was commonplace when I was Catholic to see the kids in their softball or soccer uniforms at church. I had nothing against it, but I didn't understand then either. I don't know, Sunday is a day of rest, and to some people, this is resting.I think it comes down to our society being overworked and over -involved. Especially our children.
If we want our kids to stay out of trouble, church is a better answer than athletics. I'm not saying athletics don't teach us something. I just think it has a time and place. The city leagues might get the hint if the Christians refused to be a part of it on Sundays.

[Rechtgläubig]

I see a woman beat you to that response. :P
LOL
Drat! beaten by a girl! :blush: I need to go now... overwhelming urge to drink beer and rewire stuff... ::grunt grunt::

LOL!

j/k :P

[Phoebe]

Recht, you are too funny sometimes.

I've got the coals hot. Maybe you should go throw some red meat on the grill. (after you slay the beast, of course)

[Flipper]

I think it comes down to our society being overworked and over -involved. Especially our children.
If we want our kids to stay out of trouble, church is a better answer than athletics. I'm not saying athletics don't teach us something. I just think it has a time and place. The city leagues might get the hint if the Christians refused to be a part of it on Sundays.
They were CYC uniforms (Catholic Youth Conference - the name of the league). LOL!

[Flipper]

Drat! beaten by a girl! :blush: I need to go now... overwhelming urge to drink beer and rewire stuff... ::grunt grunt::

LOL!

j/k :P
You ought to try getting on the computer and killing things. It has a calming effect on my husband - gets out his pent up aggressions.

[Rechtgläubig]

You ought to try getting on the computer and killing things. It has a calming effect on my husband - gets out his pent up aggressions.
Maybe when I get home. :D LOL!

MG-Schütze Gefreiter Heiliger will just have to wait until he gets out of work to defend the Normandy beaches with his trusty MG-42. :(

[ChiRho]

Maybe when I get home. :D LOL!

MG-Schütze Gefreiter Heiliger will just have to wait until he gets out of work to defend the Normandy beaches with his trusty MG-42. :(

defend the Normandy beaches...or invade? Are you a Nazi? ;)

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

Coffee'd up, awake, at work...and back :)


Anyway, I'm gonna throw out there a REALLY strange hypothetical situation for ya's to discuss. I'm not gonna share my personal views on this matter, as me being ELCA should be enough...but anyway, here is the crazy hypothetical for ya's...

Let's say mankind creates a biotoxin and it gets axccidently introduced into the world. Its extrememly deadly, but for some reason, it only affects men. Its something that was designed by man in labs, and accidently released by man. (Told ya I was going WAY out here to get some folks thinking)

Now, the biotoxin spread worldwide, wiping out every last man. Are you to tell me that Christ's Church here on Earth as we know it should stop having Pastoral Leaders since women aren't allowed? Is that what God would want?
No more Bishops, Pastors, etc because some believe women cannot hold these positions? While its a completely exaggerated story, could we say that our structure of Christianity is weak enough to fall to a simple manmade virus? No more Pastors to sheperd Christ's sheep?

While the idea I have given is completely perposterous, you get my point when I say "I just can't see Paul talking to all women, for all of time". But then again, thats why I'm ELCA. We truly don't believe Paul meant for all time. We believe he was talking to a fledgling Christian movement who, at the time, needed strong male leadership roles, as those women of that day were shunned, looked down on, traded like trash slaves etc. I mean, could you imagine how fast a message would die if folks of the time heard it from a women? We believe Paul didn't bother to elaborate on exactly how long or what (that goes both ways for the arguement) he indeed meant, as he most likely felt as though, living during those times, the idea of those women sheperding a flock of fledgling sheep was ridiculous and assumed. He probably didn't envision 2000 years later where women are held in much higher regard, educated and asteamed as any man can be.
But alas, he never clarified this either way, so we will forever battle this out in indecision.
Anyway, my last point is, ELCA does NOT claim that Paul was wrong, but rather Paul never elaborated as to "How long" a women was not to lead, and why. For those that say "Well, it didn't say, so we assume "forever", thats just as bad as us saying "Well, he didn't specify so we can assume he was talking for the times he lived in". Either way, its making an assumption on something that does seem to have a few question marks attached to it. After all, if I were to die tomorrow from a worldwide biotoxin, I couldn't imagine Christ's body without Pastors. I just can't bring myself to think that God would look down on us and sit with his arms crossed saying "I said NO! No women Pastors! Too bad, sheperdless ones! Wait for the Rapture and Jesus' return!" That's just plain silly...but then again...so was my example.

Enjoy debating this!

Robb

Robb,

How is this different than homosexuals making their case that homosexuality has evolved and is different than the homosexuality at the time of Paul? If we believe that this only was meant for the people of Paul's time an culture, then how do we know that Salvation extends to us?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Flipper]

Maybe when I get home. :D LOL!

MG-Schütze Gefreiter Heiliger will just have to wait until he gets out of work to defend the Normandy beaches with his trusty MG-42. :(
That's not for a couple of days, is it?

[SPALATIN]

Many men are more interested in "worldly" affairs, maybe.
This town is having a breakdown of it's moral fibers. Our ball teams now play on Sundays. The Christians complain, but they let their kids stay involved anyway.

This woman is a little tired of the men not getting involved. Even when asked point blank to help out! They are even asked to help out by the male clergymen!

I've never been a member of another denomination, so I don't have a clue as to how we stack up against the others on this topic. When I was a kid, in another town, it seems like the women still outworked the men in church affairs. (ALC or LCA, don't remember now)

When it comes right down to it, the men seem to be dropping the ball. Why are the Christian men willing to let the women lead?
On a moralist level, I think that stores should be closed and restaurants. I don't mind athletics as long as it is kept to the afternoon and everning and not the morning hours. When was the last time any of us truly kept the Sabbath?

But then again I am not a moralist/Pietist. I don't have a list of "to do's or not to do's"

[LuxPerpetua]

I completely agree with Rose (no surprise there!) that men and women have different gender roles in both the church and family life. This is rather profound for me to type because for the past 10 years or so I have been a strong feminist supporter. I still consider myself feminist in that I believe in the integrity of both sexes before God but I now understand that God created the sexes to complement each other rather than to compete against each other (which inevitably happens when you are both asserting authority). I like to think of this analogy: Both the sun and moon are equally important but each has a specific function to fulfill. Without the sun the earth would be frigid and there would be no moon (the moon reflects sunlight) and without the moon the night would be horribly dark and scary. Each was created by God for a different purpose and together they work beautifully.

Personally I am very thankful to have been born female because I have truly come to appreciate the beauty of being a help-mate to my husband and to the church. Service is such a blessing and, usually, it does not carry with it the temptation of arrogance and pride--something that I am glad to be spared. I think that this may be one reason that church/Christianity appeals more to women than men: Men, as business CEOs and community leaders, have a tendency to feel they have no need for God, whereas women (traditionally speaking) are much more culturally vulnerable to poverty and oppression and so God has often been their main source of strength (yes, I know that I'm overgeneralizing here, but I do think there is a bit of truth in what I've said). <--Kind of reminds me of the Sermon on the Mount ;)

For the church's sake I do approve of women in pastoral roles only when men have shirked their duty and obligation to fill these roles or when it would be inappropriate for a man to do so (such as in a women's fellowship group or a life application group, etc. --I absolutely cannot stand a man trying to explain a woman's point-of-view to me!). I do think that women should have a say/vote in church affairs, but perhaps not the final say-so, and that they should also be leaders in the church in sex-appropriate roles (especially over women's and children's activities, or as a co-leader in a marriage counseling group,etc.).

I haven't added much to this discussion but I am glad to get these thoughts out! :P

[JMRE5150]

Robb,

How is this different than homosexuals making their case that homosexuality has evolved and is different than the homosexuality at the time of Paul? If we believe that this only was meant for the people of Paul's time an culture, then how do we know that Salvation extends to us?

Pax Christi,

ChiRhoThere is easily a difference, and the problem with some Christian ideals on this is that they lump it all together into a generalized static group. Thats exactly what the homosexual movement does to fight its case against Christianity and its laws of God.

What do I mean by that?

Well, the movement tries and convince fringe christians and unknowledgable spiritual folks that the times have changed, therefore homosexuality should be allowed, accepted and justified. They do this by generalizing all Bible issues related to "changing of the times". This is a sneaky and sly tactic, which does work against the moral majority, unfortunately.

The two issues are completely different. Let me explain.

Homosexuality cannot steal from the "sign of the times" arguement, because it serves no purpose other than lustful pleasure. God gave us the pleasures of sex with the opposite sex to allow us the wonderful gift of reproduction. To engage in the primary activity out of love that will spawn another of his blessed creations.

How is having homosexual/lesbian sexual relations an activity blessed by God if its only purpose is self gratification? Simply...it isn't from God. Many will agrue that you can love another person so much (also a gift from God) that sexual urges can result in sex, without reproduction simply out of love...which is true. HOWEVER, God did not intend your sexual organs primarily for this. How do I know? Can't we all agree that God has already created euphoric feelings of bliss and glee towards a loved one without the need for sex? While we (heterosexuals) do sometimes have sex for pleasure, isn't there always the possiblity for reproduction present?

So how can a homosexual justify this "changing of the times" when clearly it isn't a "changing of the times" issue? Its a violation and abuse of the gifts God gave us for reproduction.

I get furious when I see them try to latch this onto another issue that might indeed truly be a "times" issue.

As for women Pastors, we can't honestly tell ourselves that this issue is like the homosexual issue. If we try a comparison, we can see that by having a female Pastor who does God's will, Jesus' works and spreads the goodness and Good News of the Gospels by leading a flock of Christians can't be a bad thing. Even for a moment if we assume that it goes against a biblical teaching (Which I've stated I personally dont believe it does) and may not be "favorable" in God's eyes, it certainly does not abuse the priviledges of God's gifts, or pervert the message of God in anyway that I can see, like homosexual/lesbian sexual relations does.

Naturally we could get into the age old discussion of "but is all sin created equal?", but I don't want to have to split another thread. :P

Robb

[SPALATIN]

Here is something to think about here. Why didn't Jesus include a woman in his closest 12 disciples? Though women are mentioned in the New Testament not one wrote a book that is canonical in the New Testament. These questions must be pondered with respect to the issue of Women pastors.

Scott Strohkirch

[Flipper]

Here is something to think about here. Why didn't Jesus include a woman in his closest 12 disciples? Though women are mentioned in the New Testament not one wrote a book that is canonical in the New Testament. These questions must be pondered with respect to the issue of Women pastors.

Scott Strohkirch
So, because women are not mentioned in leadership positions in the Bible, that means it didn't happen? That's a stretch.

[SPALATIN]

So, because women are not mentioned in leadership positions in the Bible, that means it didn't happen? That's a stretch.
No, but I believe it is another reason why in the LCMS and even WELS that Women are not allowed to be Pastors. He may have elevated women in certain areas but he did not include them in his closest circle and did not reveal the same things to them that he did his 12.

[Phoebe]

*never mind :)

[Flipper]

Some scholars have speculated that Mary Magdeline was in the inner circle. She was there, with the disciples, at many different happenings in the Gospels. Further, she was there when Jesus arose from the dead and was trusted with His message to that effect.

[ByzantineDixie]

Ya, I would be real careful in interpreting scripture solely on the basis of omission. That Jesus did not have a woman in his group of 12 men does not make a good case for male only pastors. That case is better made with the Genesis reference regarding the order of things and with Pauls letter to the Corinthians and to Tim (which also references the order of things as established in Genesis).

Phoebe...sometimes you just have to let it out or you'll explode!!! Come on, girl! ------R

[Phoebe]

I must say the omission thing is not a good argument. Think about our argument for infant baptism...

Usually, before I post something, I play Devil's advocate. I look to see how my reply might be decimated. ;)

[Protoevangel]

I agree that argument by omission is not valid. That is the exact argument used by the COC, stating that the New Testament Church must not use musical instruments in worship. Sorry Scott, it looks like you are being beat up on this one. I know that this was not the main thrust of your argument, though.

As far as the OP, re: "Paul was speaking to specific women about a specific church problem, and wasn't meant to mean all women." Another principle should be considered. We have an obvious, direct instruction. We should not seek to either narrow or broaden the scope of that instruction without clarification. In 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul refers directly to Adam and Eve, indicating that this is a principle that extends way beyond one individual church problem. Now, does this mean that women should never be Pastors? I don't think that was truly Paul's intent; I have not studied this topic enough to answer that question in earnest, though.

[SPALATIN]

I agree that argument by omission is not valid. That is the exact argument used by the COC, stating that the New Testament Church must not use musical instruments in worship. Sorry Scott, it looks like you are being beat up on this one. I know that this was not the main thrust of your argument, though.

As far as the OP, re: "Paul was speaking to specific women about a specific church problem, and wasn't meant to mean all women." Another principle should be considered. We have an obvious, direct instruction. We should not seek to either narrow or broaden the scope of that instruction without clarification. In 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul refers directly to Adam and Eve, indicating that this is a principle that extends way beyond one individual church problem. Now, does this mean that women should never be Pastors? I don't think that was truly Paul's intent; I have not studied this topic enough to answer that question in earnest, though.
I don't look at it as being beat up so much as showing why the LCMS posits itself here. Your are correct though in that he was speaking to Timothy regarding a specific church in which the women were basically henpecking the men on scripture and not being submissive as the church is submissive to Christ. However, Paul than justifies his position based on God's word to Adam and Eve at the Fall of man. To merely say that he doesn't allow women to have authority wouldn't have carried any weight had he not used the OT scripture to back up his word.

My mother was a teaching leader in BSF for many years and during that time she received a lot of flack from her pastor because of this. LCMS churches by and large do not allow BSF to be taught in their buildings because of teaching that is outside of LCMS doctrinal teaching.

[ByzantineDixie]

My mother was a teaching leader in BSF for many years and during that time she received a lot of flack from her pastor because of this. LCMS churches by and large do not allow BSF to be taught in their buildings because of teaching that is outside of LCMS doctrinal teaching.

Scott, what's BSF? Thanks-----R

[Flipper]

However, Paul than justifies his position based on God's word to Adam and Eve at the Fall of man. To merely say that he doesn't allow women to have authority wouldn't have carried any weight had he not used the OT scripture to back up his word.
So it's back to us gals getting the flack for what one woman did at the start of time. ;)

[ByzantineDixie]

So it's back to us gals getting the flack for what one woman did at the start of time. ;)

Really...can we help it that we are so enticing that men can not help but listen to us and do what we say? ;) LOL!!!

Here is something interesting that smacked me in the face when I first studied it.

Reference Gen 3:16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

And Gen 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

Many will interpret the desire in 3:16 is a sexual type of desire. But in actuality this desire is more akin to the desire as used in Gen 4:7. This desire is one of control.

Look around...watch couples. See how many women tell their husbands what to do, how to do it, where to go, how to go there and on and on and on. Once I became aware of this I can't tell you how frequently I notice it an how it upsets me. I didn't know before that it was inappropriate and surely couldn't have imagined that it was linked to the fall.

Peace

Rose

[Flipper]

Yea...nagging wives...I spent the afternoon with one today (yuck). That does make sense. I never could see what that accomplishes.

I still don't see how this still allows men to blame us even today for the Fall of Man. He didn't have to eat that apple either.

[JMRE5150]

Edited my own post. I completely veered off topic, and it wasn't necessary. I apologize. I was in a rough place lastnight.


All better now :)

Back to your regularly scheduled program. ;)

Robb

[SPALATIN]

Scott, what's BSF? Thanks-----R
Bible Study Fellowship or BSF as it is known to many, is a worldwide Bible Study program that began in the 50s by a group of women in San Bernardino, CA that wanted to study the Bible so they asked this woman named A. Wetherall Johnson who was a missionary in China to lead them.

The original study was 5 years and Each year was a different focus. They had studies on Genesis, Matthew, John, Life and Letters of Paul and Minor Prophets. They have since added a couple of years to the study with Romans, and Moses.

They don't claim to be from any one particular denomination and they encourage belonging to a church body.

I have gone through a few years with the program, but I won't go through anymore because some of the teaching goes somewhat contrary to the Lutheran teaching of the Bible.



Scott

[wonder111]

about the male apostles, I was taught that the twelve apostles represented the twelve tribes of Israel. This tribal heritage came from the 12 sons of Jacob, so for the analogy to be unmistakable, the leaders of God's new Kingdom had to be Jewish men.

[ChiRho]

Yea...nagging wives...I spent the afternoon with one today (yuck). That does make sense. I never could see what that accomplishes.

I still don't see how this still allows men to blame us even today for the Fall of Man. He didn't have to eat that apple either.

I dont blame you Flipper...well just not anymore than I blame myself.

"From our very existence, we cast a shadow upon the earth. From our father's tainted seed to our mother’s tainted womb, we share our parent's darkened form. With each additional day that our mother’s bloated belly begins to show, our vain desire to announce our shadow becomes more pronounced. And on the day the knife separates us from our mother’s body, our sinful condition is revealed in it’s fullest. Hanging from our lips, splattered on our tongues, and dripping from our fangs lie the remnants of the cursed fruit and it’s vile nectar. Loud and obvious, are the signs of our chosen slavery to the serpent and his deceitful fork-tongued hissings...crying for more, our carnal desire is continual, and our passion is for the fruit forbidden. As we gasp and lust for the thick diseased air of a dying world…inhale…and release our foul breath reeking of forbidden fruit, we are exposed and guilty. Shameful servants of Death we are, and if left to our own, not only do we yearn for our death, but also to devour the life that surrounds us...

...According to your Promise, my Lord, my Savior, Christ Jesus…
Pardon my Shadow. Amen."

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

There is easily a difference, and the problem with some Christian ideals on this is that they lump it all together into a generalized static group. Thats exactly what the homosexual movement does to fight its case against Christianity and its laws of God.

What do I mean by that?

Well, the movement tries and convince fringe christians and unknowledgable spiritual folks that the times have changed, therefore homosexuality should be allowed, accepted and justified. They do this by generalizing all Bible issues related to "changing of the times". This is a sneaky and sly tactic, which does work against the moral majority, unfortunately.

The two issues are completely different. Let me explain.

Homosexuality cannot steal from the "sign of the times" arguement, because it serves no purpose other than lustful pleasure. God gave us the pleasures of sex with the opposite sex to allow us the wonderful gift of reproduction. To engage in the primary activity out of love that will spawn another of his blessed creations.

How is having homosexual/lesbian sexual relations an activity blessed by God if its only purpose is self gratification? Simply...it isn't from God. Many will agrue that you can love another person so much (also a gift from God) that sexual urges can result in sex, without reproduction simply out of love...which is true. HOWEVER, God did not intend your sexual organs primarily for this. How do I know? Can't we all agree that God has already created euphoric feelings of bliss and glee towards a loved one without the need for sex? While we (heterosexuals) do sometimes have sex for pleasure, isn't there always the possiblity for reproduction present?

So how can a homosexual justify this "changing of the times" when clearly it isn't a "changing of the times" issue? Its a violation and abuse of the gifts God gave us for reproduction.

I get furious when I see them try to latch this onto another issue that might indeed truly be a "times" issue.

As for women Pastors, we can't honestly tell ourselves that this issue is like the homosexual issue. If we try a comparison, we can see that by having a female Pastor who does God's will, Jesus' works and spreads the goodness and Good News of the Gospels by leading a flock of Christians can't be a bad thing. Even for a moment if we assume that it goes against a biblical teaching (Which I've stated I personally dont believe it does) and may not be "favorable" in God's eyes, it certainly does not abuse the priviledges of God's gifts, or pervert the message of God in anyway that I can see, like homosexual/lesbian sexual relations does.

Naturally we could get into the age old discussion of "but is all sin created equal?", but I don't want to have to split another thread. :P

Robb

JM,

I had totally forgotten about this thread....after searching for a while I finally found it! O friend, before we begin the literary exhange...

How are ya? Hopefully things are great...a new sales promotion has claimed most of my time lately. Looking forward to getting on more frequently...

Irrelevant Question of the Day:

Why do people spend a millionth of a second deciding to supersize their Mcfries, to triple their scoop of chocolate ice cream, to light up a cigarette, but insist on taking six hours to decide whether they should "commit" to something that is actually benefiting their bodies? I dont care what you eat, smoke, or drink...I do all of the above...I am just wondering why it takes so long to decide? I sit with couples sometimes for thirty minutes as they weigh the pros and cons....listen...this is what our gym has to offer...yes, if you stay even slightly committed to a routine you will see improvement...no, there is not a magic pill that will burn fat and add muscle while you sit on your ***! Look, sign up or walk...I really dont care...just hurry up!!!

Back to the matter at hand:

1)Are you suggesting that a thought, an act, or our words are sinful only when they lack "moral" purpose? Reagardless of our individual moral compasses, the Law, is objectively defined as everything that God has commanded or forbidden by Holy Scripture. Why did God give the responsibility of shepherding a flock to a man....I have no idea of the purpose, but I am bound to what Holy Scripture says. I know you disagree, but I still feel that if you start to question the relevancy of Timothy, then why not Romans....I dont think that determining proper "purposes" is a good defense....we are blind to "purpose" as we are dull and evil at heart.

2) If we try a comparison, we can see that by having a female Pastor who does God's will], Jesus' works and spreads the goodness and Good News of the Gospels by leading a flock of Christians can't be a bad thing.

I would say that this is assumed not from Holy Scripture, but from modern enlightenment to raise the level of "tolerance," and to explain away the "hate" speech found in the Bible. Who's system of fair are we appealing to?

3) Even for a moment if we assume that it goes against a biblical teaching (Which I've stated I personally dont believe it does) and may not be "favorable" in God's eyes,

Well, there is Scriptural evidence that this is true. There is none to support the argument that women should be Pastors. Again, it should not be looked at that women are second rate humans or less than a man...but there are certain responsibilities that have been given to men and different responsibilities given to women.

it certainly does not abuse the priviledges of God's gifts, or pervert the message of God in anyway that I can see, like homosexual/lesbian sexual relations does.

Romans 3

All the World Guilty

5 But if our unrighteousness (7) demonstrates the righteousness of God, (8) what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? ((9) I am speaking in human terms.)
6 (10) May it never be! For otherwise, how will (11) God judge the world?
7 But if through my lie (12) the truth of God abounded to His glory, (13) why am I also still being judged as a sinner?
8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "(14) Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.




Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Flipper]

Congratulations on your promotion!

[ChiRho]

Congratulations on your promotion!

Nah Flipper...a sales promotion....like huge sale or discount on memberships for a month only kinda thing...sorry about the confusion! ^_^

We have been having a flood of "potential" members checking out the gym.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Flipper]

You work at a gym? I need to use the gym more - maybe if I worked at one, and the one I go to is hiring... Hmmmm...