Woman who preaches in Church

[stevevw]

No, it's not. If you agree that women who are qualified and fit can preach, then talk of "males being suitable for some roles" is irrelevant to the question.

Ok I understand and its true that this has happened and its wrong. But this doesn't mean we should then deny reality. Deny other factors besides men denying women as to why the outcomes don't end up the same. An example of its importance can be given.

The issue of women in STEM fields. Men considerably outnumber women in STEM. The assumption being this was the result of oppression by men. But most of this was actually the result of natural choices, what each person was more inclined towards.

The evidence also showed that at the extremes males dominated subjects like math and were more logical thinkers. Thought in spatial terms where as women thought in people terms, in faces and social interactions. So by understanding these other factors we better understand ourselves.

We don't know for sure. I've given you one speculative reason. Another is that in fact the men were not so dominant but there are fewer historical records of the women.

I think logically it points to men being dominant. The fact that most of the proposed 70 diciples that went out into the world to spread the gospel and set up the church were the first bishops points to a dominance of men. But also that the church maintained that same tradition they inherited which means it was passed down male to male ever since.

But again, it doesn't matter. If you agree that women who are qualified and fit can preach, then the reasons why men have (apparently) outnumbered women at certain times are irrelevant to the question.

Well it does because it may tell us that men were more suited or were only allowed in certain leadership positions ie Pope, Bishops at least but it also seems deacons. So we can determine certain leadership roles that the church forbid women to hold.

Now the rest as for preachers I am not sure. The official Catholic position is only men can be priests. But preacher seems a different belief. More Protestant maybe. I know some denominations allow women preachers.

I'll give you an unrelated example. In some churches, in particular, there is a far higher proportion of introverts than extroverts in ministry. We're not really sure of the reason why; does our church culture particularly favour introverts? Do introverts find it easier to recognise and respond to God's call? Does God, in fact, call more introverts to ministry?
It's interesting to ponder, but unless people start arguing that this is evidence that in fact, extroverts are less suited to ministry, it doesn't really matter in practice.

I think maybe a lot of people that come are lost, can be on the fringes of society and in that sense yes they are unsure and keep to themselves. But I think they come out of themselves over time. But there is also the other extreme, some that are verly extroverted. Not just the preachers but members become over confident.

If you want to make that argument, I would suggest:
- Setting out a coherent account of how discipline and authority are exercised in the church

I thinking more about the dicipline and authority associated with guarding the church from going astray. I think within the Catholic church for example part of administering the mass represents Christ for which a priest can only perform. This would be following on from the early church as Christ noted in the last supper to His diciples. So this would require strict observance and signified the authority of Christ.

But on a practical note it seems that perhap0s disciple and authority was needed within the social setting of the church as well. There were many squabbles and politics and sinning going on. This requires a strict adherence to rules and acting impartially. I think men are more inclined this way. Thats not to say that women cannot fullfill this role. Only that at the extremes men are more able to put aside emotion and be stoic.

- Setting out an account of the personal traits which allow someone to better exercise such discipline and authority

Research shows based on the big 5 personality traits men are more competitive, assertive, agressive and extroverted. Women on the otherhand are on average agreeable, introverted and neurotic.

- Showing credible evidence that those traits invariably vary by gender, such that no woman can ever be suited for the role.

Until you've done that, this argument lacks any real substance.

You know me Paidiske I have linked that stuff before but you dismiss it. The evidence is there that on average males are more agressive, assertive competitive and, relate to discipline and rule keeping. Women are more agreeable, flexible and people orientated.

This is not a coverall and women can also be leaders in this regard. In fact research as shown that women who do excel in this type of leadership have more male biological markers such as higher seretonin levels and synthesis and testosterone.

No, I'm not. I'm highlighting the question that really matters. Is God calling this person? If not, then there's nothing to discuss. If so, then it's our job as the church to respond constructively to that call.

No the question that really matters is that if the church believes that males should only be bishops and priests based on biblical doctrine then just because someone feels a calling doesn't mean they should break with church doctrine. It doesn't automatically follow. Its like churches that may want to allow SSM. Just because they feel a calling that this is from God doesn't mean it should be accepted as church doctrine or biblical truth.

Thats a matter of interpretation and that is as best we can base this on the examples of the early church. The instructions from the first disciples and how the church developed. Its obvious that the idea that the Pope, Bishops and priests should only be men comes from a very long tradition. So its a matter of determining whether that tradition should still stand or not.

No we don't. We differ from the early church in all kinds of ways; sometimes for pragmatic reasons, and sometimes for theological reasons.

But in the issue of Popes, Bishops and priests they don't differ. Todays position is pretty well based on the early church. On Peter the first Pope and the early bishops who were all male. This was the foundation so the same was passed down Bishop to Bishop who have always been males. This shows that from the beginning the dominance of males was seen as something ordained and not just social.

Like I said, get back to me with a coherent account of how order and authority are exercised in the church, the personal traits needed to do that, and evidence that those traits invariably vary by gender, and we'll have something to talk about.

I sort of already done that. I really don't want to get into an arguement just on science, the biological, genetic and well evolutionary factors. You know my position that there are natural influences. They are factors that need to be taken into consideration.

But once again its a matter of balance and we need to consider all the factors. We went through this before with the social etiological model for measuring determinants of behaviour. We all acknowledge humans are influenced by multilevel factors at the individual, family and social and cultural levels.

So its rediculous to say that our natural tendencies don't have a pretty big influence in outcomes. What you have to to is be open to both before discounting them. Any extreme that either claims all human behaviour is socially constructed or that all behaviour is based on nature are both wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

And I'll tell you something, as someone who's been ordained over a decade now. Men might find it easier to command respect in this culture, because people defer to their size and whatnot; but there are plenty of women with steel in their spines who stand up to bullies, violent people, threatening people, abusers, and all the rest in the church just fine. Often women are more willing to do that hard work of confrontation than men are, because women are more keenly aware of the cost to the church community of not doing so.

Like I said I am not saying there are women that can be as ruthless as men. There are some Samoan League front row women who would smash most blokes.

But I don't think its just about having steel in spines and standing up to bullies either. Its obviously more than what abilities each gender has. Theres some symbolism and belief there and its not all about just physical or personality traits. Though it seemed at least in the early days physical presence was important.

But much will be based on the interpretation of the early church practices and how this relates to the church. That can be seen differently by different churches. Its a matter of determining which one is closest to Gods word.

So don't give me this "men are just naturally better at discipline" rubbish, when I've seen plenty of men who can't even discipline the paperwork on their desks, and plenty of women who have tackled issues that their conflict-averse brothers have let slide for decades.

I think mens general disposition to be more inclined to be disciplinarians or seek dominant positions has a bit to do with it at least. Its not the whole picture of course and I havn't said it was.

But its one aspect of many factors we need to consider that may like STEM fields end up with males dominating due to natural inclinations.

But then we also have the doctrine reasons and each church is different on this. But primarily the rise of women priests is a modern phenomena in a long history of male dominance. So there was obviously a doctrine reason as well.

 

[Truth7t7]

Your holy Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek (and possibly some Aramaic), translated into Latin and then into English. It doesn't need to be re-translated, it needs to be understood.
Or don't you care about what the original says, what the authors meant and what those who heard those words understood them to mean?
(And what's with all the capital letters - are these supposed to be a sign of authority, or something?)

I hope you would also say "no discussion needed" over verses like "do not put a widow under 60 on such a list" (for financial assistance) "..... they get into the habit of being idle ...... and not only idlers, but busybodies", 1 Timothy 5:11-13. I hope your church practices this by telling any young widows with children that they do not deserve financial support from the church.
I hope you would say "no discussion needed" over Paul's teaching that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair, 1 Corinthians 11:14. Though as he doesn't say how long "long" is, how can you be sure that you are not already sinning? Or maybe there is "no discussion needed" over his words forbidding women to wear gold. Think how many people have sinned by exchanging gold wedding rings in church.
Maybe there should be "no discussion needed" over Paul's advice to Timothy about drinking wine and not water, or Jesus' instructions to wash each other's feet - in a day where people wear socks/tights and shoes and do not walk dusty roads. How many women arrive at your church to be met by someone telling them to take their tights off?
I hope you would not be angry with any woman who wanted to divorce her husband - after all, Scripture forbids men from divorcing, but not women.
As you're reading from the KJV, I hope you're not one of these people who says that Easter is a pagan festival, as the KJV uses that very word, Acts 12:4.

I've been reading some fabulous books by Messianic Jews who teach us what we can miss by not understanding Jesus' Jewishness, the Jewish customs and feasts, the Hebrew language and the meaning of various words.
You have no idea how much of the Bible you may misunderstand by insisting it is to be read in English and at face value.

One thing I do know Is The scripture below is clear and easy to understand

Bishops/Deacons Must Be Married Men, And Women Are To Be "Silent" In The Church, Clear, Simple, Easy To Understand

1 Timothy 3:1-7KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One thing I do know Is The scripture below is clear and easy to understand

That's a lark. If only the Bible was clear and super easy to understand. But it's not. Hence, the obvious outcomes among Christians themselves over the past 2,000 years.

Bishops/Deacons Must Be Married Men, And Women Are To Be "Silent" In The Church, Clear, Simple, Easy To Understand

1 Timothy 3:1-7KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.

But I guess apostles didn't have to have a wife??????????????????????????????????????????? That's an odd thing if the qualification for a bishop is "he must married." One would think apostles would too?

 

[Strong in Him]

One thing I do know Is The scripture below is clear and easy to understand

That's why there has been so much written about it, I suppose?
You're the only one who can read English, I suppose?

 

[RamiC]

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.

So all women who attend church must have a husband, otherwise they should not learn anything? Please explain.

 

[Paidiske]

The relevance to the main topic being that, in my opinion, it is a second compromise made as a result of an initial compromise to allow women to lead the church, hence the slippery slope argument.

Your mileage may vary, but in the churches I've had the chance to observe, gay men (even practising ones) have been allowed in ministry long before women. Maybe not by official policy, but certainly by cultural willingness to turn a blind eye.

Ok I understand and its true that this has happened and its wrong. But this doesn't mean we should then deny reality. Deny other factors besides men denying women as to why the outcomes don't end up the same.

But absolutely no one except you, in this thread, is even discussing whether or why the outcomes are "the same." That is your bugbear, not anyone else's.

And you know what, in ministry at least, when barriers are removed, the outcomes do end up about the same. After some time, men and women are ordained in about equal numbers. So whatever your particular issue here is, it's just not relevant to this particular context.

Well it does because it may tell us that men were more suited or were only allowed in certain leadership positions ie Pope, Bishops at least but it also seems deacons.

Phoebe was a deacon; there were women deacons.

This requires a strict adherence to rules and acting impartially. I think men are more inclined this way.

Evidence? I went looking, and what I found suggested that actually women are more likely to adhere strictly to rules. Eg: see here: Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries - PMC

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539523000547

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=intuition

You know me Paidiske I have linked that stuff before but you dismiss it.

Because it doesn't establish what you claim. Already your argument here - that men are better church leaders because their gender-based traits make them better suited to it - looks like it has more holes than Swiss cheese. You haven't even given a coherent account of what makes for good church leadership, let alone how that might be gendered.

No the question that really matters is that if the church believes that males should only be bishops and priests based on biblical doctrine then just because someone feels a calling doesn't mean they should break with church doctrine.

I see. So doing what we've always done is more important than obeying God?

But in the issue of Popes, Bishops and priests they don't differ.

The office of the pope hadn't even developed in the first century. The ministry of bishops and priests - overseers and elders, in NT terms - were not yet even clearly differentiated. It's anachronistic to claim that these things were well-established in ways which provide norms for how they should be viewed today.

I sort of already done that.

You haven't even begun to do that in any sort of coherent or robust way.

You haven't, in your account of what makes for good church leadership, even considered those traits explicitly called for in Scripture. Are men more likely than women to be faithful in their marriages? To be temperate, hospitable, good teachers? To avoid drunkenness, to be gentle, to be irenic rather than quarrelsome?

You cannot reduce good church leadership to one trait, claim that trait is gendered, and that this therefore is a sound basis for restricting women's ministry. You have to, at the very least, look at the whole picture of what the character underpinning good church leadership is.

I really don't want to get into an arguement just on science, the biological, genetic and well evolutionary factors.

Then don't drag it into a thread where it's beside the point.

Theres some symbolism and belief there and its not all about just physical or personality traits.

There are certainly sexist and misogynistic people who see maleness as symbolising authority, and who believe that women cannot serve in these ways. That doesn't make them right.

But primarily the rise of women priests is a modern phenomena in a long history of male dominance. So there was obviously a doctrine reason as well.

For someone who claims they're not arguing against women in ministry, your argument sure comes across that way.

 

[RamiC]

Like I said I am not saying there are women that can be as ruthless as men. There are some Samoan League front row women who would smash most blokes. But I don't think its just about having steel in spines and standing up to bullies either.

Can I just check here, we are talking about preaching right?

 

[Truth7t7]

So all women who attend church must have a husband, otherwise they should not learn anything? Please explain.

No need to explain anything, the scripture is self explanatory "Women/Females" are to be silent in the Church

Many disregard the very clear words written below in rebellion to God's simple words of truth IMHO

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No need to explain anything, the scripture is self explanatory "Women/Females" are to be silent in the Church

Many disregard the very clear words written below in rebellion to God's simple words of truth IMHO

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.

By your method of interpretation and proof texting, I can simply (simply) offer up the following scripture and "undo" your quotations:

1 Peter 2:9

ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς·​

What's interesting to me is that ἱεράτευμα is nominative neuter singular...............................whatever that tells us.

Does anyone here wish to go on record and state they they believe that 1 Peter 2:9 was only written to....................................men?

 

[Truth7t7]

There are certainly sexist and misogynistic people who see maleness as symbolising authority, and who believe that women cannot serve in these ways. That doesn't make them right.

There are many people in the world that are rebellious to God's words of truth and that doesn't make them right

1 Timothy 3:1-7KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.

 

[stevevw]

But absolutely no one except you, in this thread, is even discussing whether or why the outcomes are "the same." That is your bugbear, not anyone else's.

Wait a minute are not people discussing why there are not the same number of women preachers. Is that they bugbear.

And you know what, in ministry at least, when barriers are removed, the outcomes do end up about the same.

So your logic says that Christ and the disciples must have put some barriers up to stop men and women ending up the same as disciples.

After some time, men and women are ordained in about equal numbers. So whatever your particular issue here is, it's just not relevant to this particular context.

So your saying the natural influences are not a factor and yet are a factor for just about every other role in society. If men and women end up the same then there is some manipulation going on. Some socially constructed barrier to ensure the same outcomes because logic tells us because men and women are different on this it cannot end up the same without artifical intervention.

Phoebe was a deacon; there were women deacons.

Ok so not deacons as they are different to priests. But we find no priests or bishops. So by your own logic is women deacons in the bible is evidence that God allowed deacons. Then the same logic applies that because there were no priests God did not allow women priests.

Evidence? I went looking, and what I found suggested that actually women are more likely to adhere strictly to rules. Eg: see here: Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries - PMC

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539523000547

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=intuition

This is a false comparison. Like I said males represent both ends of the extreme. They dominate the top levels of being diciplinarians but they also represernt the bottom levels in crime ect. But if you want the top levels at dicipline and authority you will find the stats are dominated by males.

Because it doesn't establish what you claim.

Not when it comes to the scientific evidence. Its a clear fact in a number of lines of evidence from biology. One simple one. Men have much more seretonin and seretonin is behind why hierarchies are formed from lobsters to humans.

Dominance hierarchies are dominated by males. In fact studies have been done that show that even when women are good leaders that they have higher levels of seretonin. Its not the only factor but an important signifyer. But there are other factors like height, physical strength, competitiveness, agression ect that are all highly associated with leadership.

The simple physical traits though not a single reason but a contributing reason support why men end up in dominant leadership roles. Their height and physical strength are designed to overcome predators and competitors for the top spot. THis is why they are competitive and assertive in getting to the top. When you add all these aspects we see that males are naturally more inclined protect.

Already your argument here - that men are better church leaders because their gender-based traits make them better suited to it - looks like it has more holes than Swiss cheese. You haven't even given a coherent account of what makes for good church leadership, let alone how that might be gendered.

How can you say its full of holes when we have not even gone into exactly what the evidence is. Perhaps after that evidence is presented you may rethink how gender based taits are important factors. The one piece of evidence you have presented is a misrepresentation.

I had already given an account of this. If you remember I made a number of points. First that because males dominated the disciples and early church there must have been some aspect of males that was more suitable. Male dominance was not the result of denying women. It was something about males. So already we have a hint that the church leadership had something to do withy males.

I then deduced that this may not have been about all leadership roles but certain ones associated with protecting the church and keeping it as close as possible to the original teachings. But women could occupy leadership roles in other ways.

So now I am trying to work out what it is about males that suited them to be disciples and the early church leaders such as bishops. I think biology has a bit to do with it as obviously back then but also in reality every church is in a battle which will get physical in the end.

Really its a continual life and death battle but modern society have watered this down. So to some extent biology and males being more suited physical threats to the church is an important factor even today. Perhaps especially today as it seems the threats are rising again.

But I susspect the majority of why males are suited has nothing to to with gender traits but a theological reason. I alluded to this such as males being more representative of Christ within the church. But I think there is more and I am trying to work this out.

I will cut this post short as it may be a good point to end on and really summarises everything so we can go from there.

 

[stevevw]

Can I just check here, we are talking about preaching right?

Yes lol. Believe it or not physical status is a factor in leadership and leadership is a factor of preaching. You only get to rise to the top and preach to others by being dominant in some way.

Physical status is often a factor especially when it comes to leading people in times of threat as physical threat is a natural defnse mechanism humans employ. We want the strongest and most powerful to protect us and will listen to them as we know they will give us the best chance to survive.

Now this is the fundemental drives which underpin behaviour. There are other factors like we also will not allow bullies. If a dominant leader is a bully we will shun them and look for one who is fair and just. So a powerful, strong but fair and just leader will always be the ultimate leader. Its just a fact of life living in a fallen world.

So God used the mighty men of the bible who went to war, stood up against pharoahs, defied all other gods to bring about Gods people and establish his church.

Not because they were better than women as women are designed in ways men are not and are also divinely ordained. But because this ultimately is what is needed in this spiritual battle. Gods creation is always good. He made males different to women as part of his divine plan to bring about HIs kingdom.

 

[stevevw]

By your method of interpretation and proof texting, I can simply (simply) offer up the following scripture and "undo" your quotations:

1 Peter 2:9

ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς·​

What's interesting to me is that ἱεράτευμα is nominative neuter singular...............................whatever that tells us.

Does anyone here wish to go on record and state they they believe that 1 Peter 2:19 was only written to....................................men?

I am intewrested in what you mean. I am not sure how 1 Peter 2:9 and 1 Peter 2:19 relate and how this relates to the OP. I agree that 1 Peter 2:19 relates to anyone but unsure how this fits in.

 

[Rose_bud]

So God used the mighty men of the bible who went to war, stood up against pharoahs, defied all other gods to bring about Gods people and establish his church.

Not because they were better than women as women are designed in ways men are not and are also divinely ordained. But because this ultimately is what is needed in this spiritual battle.

Spiritual battles and victories are not determined by human strength, stature, or appearances, but by God's power and Spirit.

For eg. David's brothers were taller and stronger, but God chose David, the youngest and seemingly weakest, for the Lord looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Saul, the people's choice, was defined by his physical stature, but ultimately failed as king because of disobedience, trying to please the people instead of God. But even his choice was by God, Saul too was a Benjamite from the smallest tribe(1 Samuel 9 -10). Gideon, also the least amongst his tribe, was chosen by God, and his army was reduced to emphasize the supernatural nature of the victory(Judges 7:2) Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts (Zechariah 4:6)
Our strength and victory comes from God's Spirit, not human abilities or appearances, so none can boast.

Even the younger serving the older is a motif that is prevalent throughout Scripture, because God's choice is not dependent on human reasoning. By right the older should inherit first but God's kingdom choice is all knowing and wise. Confounding our tendencies to select based on cultual norms and human standards

 

[Paidiske]

Wait a minute are not people discussing why there are not the same number of women preachers.

No. We were discussing whether women can preach at all. Nobody raised the question of the "same number" until you.

So your logic says that Christ and the disciples must have put some barriers up to stop men and women ending up the same as disciples.

If Christ didn't choose as many men as women, that's a form of barrier, yes. He may have had good reasons for it - and we can only speculate as to why - but we know that today, in churches which don't put barriers in women's way, we do end up in these roles in about the same numbers as men.

So your saying the natural influences are not a factor and yet are a factor for just about every other role in society.

No, I'm not saying that.

But when it comes to ministry, the question that is most important, the one that churches are asking at every point during selection and preparation, is, Is God calling this person to this ministry? That is not a "natural influence."

Ok so not deacons as they are different to priests. But we find no priests or bishops. So by your own logic is women deacons in the bible is evidence that God allowed deacons. Then the same logic applies that because there were no priests God did not allow women priests.

Arguments from silence are shaky, at best. We see evidence of women functioning as elders (priests) in the New Testament church. Eg. read here: Were there women elders in New Testament churches? - Marg Mowczko

This is a false comparison.

How so?

But if you want the top levels at dicipline and authority you will find the stats are dominated by males.

I asked for evidence. Not unsupported statements.

Dominance hierarchies are dominated by males.

The Church is not - or is not supposed to be - a dominance hierarchy.

How can you say its full of holes when we have not even gone into exactly what the evidence is.

I gave you an important starting point you had overlooked; the full spectrum of traits necessary for good, healthy church leadership.

First that because males dominated the disciples and early church there must have been some aspect of males that was more suitable. ...It was something about males.

That's your claim, but I see no basis for it. I think it is more likely to do with the social framework and gender norms of the day.

I think biology has a bit to do with it as obviously back then but also in reality every church is in a battle which will get physical in the end.

This is a ridiculous claim. Most church leaders never face "physical battle" in the role.

Believe it or not physical status is a factor in leadership and leadership is a factor of preaching.

Preaching is not an exercise in using one's physical size or shape to manipulate the congregation. Anyone who thinks it is, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a pulpit.

You only get to rise to the top and preach to others by being dominant in some way.

Preaching is not necessarily about "rising to the top." It is an exercise in influence, but influence doesn't have to come from physical dominance, and again, anyone who thinks it does, shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a pulpit.

There are some very strange ideas about ministry being put forward here, by people who have never actually done it.

 

[stevevw]

I see. So doing what we've always done is more important than obeying God?

Sometimes and probably more often than not obeying God is always doing the same. Thats why they are regarded as doctrine and not opinion.

Your more or less saying that every handing occassion of passing down to the next generation of church heads from male to male was just doing what their predessors did and no other reason. Yet I am sure they often pondered this and came to the conclusion each and every time that is was church doctrine. I don't think this is the case and is moire a modern day ideology. Like we know better than the pioneering Christains.

The office of the pope hadn't even developed in the first century. The ministry of bishops and priests - overseers and elders, in NT terms - were not yet even clearly differentiated. It's anachronistic to claim that these things were well-established in ways which provide norms for how they should be viewed today.

logically of course there was a leadership structure even without the name pope or biship. Peter was made the first head of Christs Church. When he was killed this position would have been passed onto another man and set the standard. The church did not exist without its hierarchy back then. Even in Christs time it was there with His disciples. This same structure was passed on which was dominated by males. This is a fact.

I gave you the list of likely diciples within the 70 Christ choose. For example Cleopas, was the bishop of Jerusalem and one of two who met Jesus. So there were bishops back then. Or Barnabas, bishop of Milan who had went on missions with Paul.

The vast majority of the 70 disciples are said to be bishops of the early church who lived in Christs time, sometimes involved in missions or prominent in Jerusalem churches and movements. They were already doing the work of diciples so it was natural that they go on to set up the church wider afield.

You haven't even begun to do that in any sort of coherent or robust way.

What do you mean by robust way. You have a tendency to be ambigious on this. I mean there is robust evidence that males are more inclined to hold traits suitable for leadership in particular situations like in the military, police, rescue services, and ensuring public safety, law and order.

Thats undeniable and so this is one consideration but not the sole reason. But an important consideration when determining why we have different outcomes in certain roles. So I cannot see how you can say "I haven't even begun' when I have.

You haven't, in your account of what makes for good church leadership, even considered those traits explicitly called for in Scripture. Are men more likely than women to be faithful in their marriages? To be temperate, hospitable, good teachers? To avoid drunkenness, to be gentle, to be irenic rather than quarrelsome?

Leadership can come in many forms and women are more suitable for the things you mention. But there are other leadership roles. Like I said God chose men to establish the promise land as men were more suitable leaders for the task ahead in battles and defeating the evil nations. This required dicipline and authority as it was judging and destroying opposing beliefs and ideologies that stood against God and His people.

There may be a role for males in this was though not as extreme but nevertheless just as important in guarding the church in a continuing spiritual battle that can get threatening to the modern church.

You mention males not being able to control themselves, to be temperate and hospitable and to be faithful in marriage. As I mentioned males occupy both extremes due to their natural differences and the middle is pretty much the same. So at the other extreme men can be the best at maintaining order, being loyal in marriage, defending their family and the church not just physically but authority of the church as Gods representative.

You cannot reduce good church leadership to one trait, claim that trait is gendered, and that this therefore is a sound basis for restricting women's ministry. You have to, at the very least, look at the whole picture of what the character underpinning good church leadership is.

Thats exactly what I have been doing. I just literally told you that your going to the extreme of thinking that simply merntioning the natural differences means banning women. I think you need to adhere to your own advice.

I have constantly clarified that these differences on their own don't fully explain things. But that they are an important piece and when added to all the other pieces like culture, family influence, early church doctrine and experiences and history we can build a better picture as to how men and women differ and how this relates to different leadership roles.

Then don't drag it into a thread where it's beside the point.

Just because I say I don't want to be bothered with that rabbit hole doesn't mean I should not mention the natural influences. These are important factors than cannot be denied. I just thought you would be more open to them rather than in obvious denial from past experiences.

As I know where this leads. You can only lead a person to water but you can't make them drink. You have your ideological beliefs which are more progressive and I can't change that. But ideological beliefs are not based on reality if your ideology causes you to deny objective reality.

There are certainly sexist and misogynistic people who see maleness as symbolising authority, and who believe that women cannot serve in these ways. That doesn't make them right.

Yes I agree and these males are abusing their natural God given inclinations. They are abusing their natural inclination for authority and leadership under God. The great men of old though sometimes overstepped the mark had great authority and power to crush entire nations of evil doers in the name of God. They were not abusive in the sense modern day politics think.

For someone who claims they're not arguing against women in ministry, your argument sure comes across that way.

Only to you as you already have a sensitivity to anything that even suggest male difference in leadership. But that is your own belief and opinion and not necessarily the truth. I have been careful in ensuring I am clear that this is not about which gender is better. But rather than this is just nature and facts and theres no feelings in facts when it comes to the natural differences and how we live in reality.

To me if it was the other way around which it is with certain leadership roles where women are more inclined and suited I honestly don't care. As humans we want stability and safety and whoever can achieve that as leaders does not matter because for me if it brings stability and safety its good fullstop.

I think most people intuitively thing this way. Its only the politicisation of these issues that causes the conflicts. Which seems to be a modern phenomena due to progressive politics.

 

[Rose_bud]

Yes lol. Believe it or not physical status is a factor in leadership and leadership is a factor of preaching.

I've seen some pretty short, skinny male pastors.

 

[stevevw]

Spiritual battles and victories are not determined by human strength, stature, or appearances, but by God's power and Spirit.

But God uses our natural traits in harmoney with His spirital aspect. You see the might male warriors of Gods army destroy evil nations. THis job required a lot of human traits, agression, ruthlessness, power, authority to get the job done which make more sense to us coming from males. God does not deny our human natures but works in harmony with them.

For eg. David's brothers were taller and stronger, but God chose David, the youngest and seemingly weakest, for the Lord looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Saul, the people's choice, was defined by his physical stature, but ultimately failed as king because of disobedience, trying to please the people instead of God. But even his choice was by God, Saul too was a Benjamite from the smallest tribe(1 Samuel 9 -10). Gideon, also the least amongst his tribe, was chosen by God, and his army was reduced to emphasize the supernatural nature of the victory(Judges 7:2) Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts (Zechariah 4:6)
Our strength and victory comes from God's Spirit, not human abilities or appearances, so none can boast.

Yes its all God even when we use our natural abilities in that sense. I would imagine the already powerful army of Josuah was embolden to supernatural heights with God behind them. But it was still their physical presence and power of men swing the swords, physically pulling down the walls and fighting that got the job done.

Even the younger serving the older is a motif that is prevalent throughout Scripture, because God's choice is not dependent on human reasoning. By right the older should inherit first but God's kingdom choice is all knowing and wise. Confounding our tendencies to select based on cultual norms and human standards

Yes the idea of who is first and last, who the the greatest and least is underpinned by CHrist becoming a servant to humankind. The greates leaders are actually servants to God and His people. They will lay down their life to keep their sheep safe.

So even though the great men of the bible were powerful, and commanded great armies or lead the early church with authority they were servants themselves and no greater than the people they lead. THis shows that the roles chosen by God for specific positions or events were fundementally not about gender but rather utilising the natural differences of gender for roles that were most suited in Gods plan.

 

[Paidiske]

Your more or less saying that every handing occassion of passing down to the next generation of church heads from male to male was just doing what their predessors did and no other reason.

I am saying that obedience to what God is calling us to do, ought to be our concern now.

logically of course there was a leadership structure even without the name pope or biship. Peter was made the first head of Christs Church. When he was killed this position would have been passed onto another man and set the standard.

That's a view, but it's not the only way to read the historical evidence. There is a lot of evidence in early church documents that the church, especially in Rome, exercised a form of shared oversight; something like a committee of elders. (Eg. this is what we see reflected in the Shepherd, a very early church document).

I gave you the list of likely diciples within the 70 Christ choose.

And it didn't even list Junia along with Andronicus, so it was a list, but not necessarily a definitive list.

What do you mean by robust way.

I pointed out to you that if you want to argue that men are better church leaders, you need to first set out a clear account of what it takes to be a good church leader. You can't reduce that to dominance; you need to take into account all of the traits needed. Your argument so far has failed to do this; it lacks robustness.

Leadership can come in many forms and women are more suitable for the things you mention.

Well, I wouldn't say that. I would just say, when we take a comprehensive view of what it takes to be good church leaders, it is hard to sustain an argument that men excel in a way which should exclude women.

I would also say that it is wrong-headed to ignore these traits, put forward by us for Scripture, in favour of a single trait (dominance) not mentioned positively in relation to church leadership in Scripture.

Thats exactly what I have been doing.

No, you really haven't. I had to point out to you that there are traits commended in Scripture for church leaders which you had not even considered.

Yes I agree and these males are abusing their natural God given inclinations.

But isn't that the position you were just arguing for? That maleness in some sense symbolises authority?

Your arguments are coming across as incoherent and inconsistent.

 

[Strong in Him]

No need to explain anything, the scripture is self explanatory "Women/Females" are to be silent in the Church

Many disregard the very clear words written below in rebellion to God's simple words of truth IMHO

Some take words of Scripture out of context to suit their own agenda.

IF Paul was insisting that women could not speak in church, why didn't he say so earlier in the chapter when he was talking about speaking in tongues and prophesying - i.e. "Speak in tongues one at a time - except women who can't do it at all because they are not allowed to speak".
Why has he already said, in chapter 11, that women CAN prophesy - in fact, he told them how to do it?
Why have you quoted only a couple of verses from this chapter and chosen to ignore the rest of it?

I suspect I won't get an answer to these questions beyond, "it's obvious/very clear" and a repetition of the same verses.