Are women human?
Quiz:
- It is not a sin to be a woman, but it is if she is a pastor. (T or F)
- Scripture is very clear on that issue that to deny it is to deny the Bible. (T or F)
- A woman pastor is in direct opposition to godliness. (T or F)
- A woman pastor is in direct opposition to what the gospel teaches or is about. (T or F)
- A church led by a woman pastor is not a real Christian church and is, instead, the synagogue of Satan. (T or F)
- A woman pastor is in clear defiance of Christ’s commands and anyone supporting her can hardly call themselves a Christian anymore. (T or F)
———-
In support of these statements, Chad, an apparently sincere writer at Old Truth, uses the story of Adam and Eve to prove that Eve was deceived, not Adam. He neglects to point out Genesis 3:6 where it notes that Adam was standing there with Eve when it all went down, never saying a word. I wonder what, then, that says about the character of all men in general if the character of Eve speaks for all women?
Chad’s use of the order of creation to support his idea that men are in some way superior, (though he is careful to not state that implicitly) is problematic. Genesis 1:27 is a bit of a monkey wrench, in that case. I would also note that, if we are going to take the order of creation into consideration, it is important to remember that God started with the basics and ended with the pinnacle. From nothing, to water, to animals. I would say to Chad, then, that woman was the final creation.
Actually, I wouldn’t say that to Chad, because I think feuding over the order of creation and what it means to either gender is foolish. It is unnecessary to make one gender higher in the hierarchy than the other; we are both in the image of God.
Women seem to have the burden of an extra sin to be wary of that men do not have, according to Chad. For a woman to be a pastor — no matter the situation, the culture, or the setting — is a sin.
I prefer to call it obedience, often in the face of adversity from both the world and supposedly fellow brothers in Christ. Women are too often left with this “additional” sex-based sin unique to us and not men, as well as having the double burden of forms of persecution and verbal assaults from within our own family, the family of God.
Adam ate the fruit, too, and it was never more evident than in comments like Chad’s.
(The true or false statements above came directly from Chad’s comments.)
November 16th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
First of all, it DOES NOT SAY that Adam was standing next to Eve when she ate the forbidden fruit. Secondly, you have to make implications that Chad is a male chauvenist. It’s your modus operandi to berate those you disagree with. Thirdly, women are not to be pastors of the church. The qualifications for pastors listed in 1 Timothy 3 are only met by men (unless YOU are talking about lesbian pastors). God is a God of order and He sets the standard of that order in family, church and all other areas of authorities. Like it or not, women are not to be pastors. God has blessed women with their own set of responsibilities where they can glorify Him. Being in disobedience does not glorify God and is not overlooked by Him either.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Julie,
If you want some harsh statements about women, look up 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. These are Bible verses that no one ever talks about and leave me scratching my head!
November 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Modus Operandi to berate? Please explain. Provide me links showing me berating… I’m not even really berating Chad. I’m pointing to something he said that I disagree with and explained why I disagree.
Sincerely, Sherry, provide further evidence that you are familiar with a berating modus operandi. Without berating me.
Note on Gen. 3:6 - “…and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”
With her. Right there. With her. As in, with her. Right there. She didn’t have to go looking for him because he was not with her. He was with her. And so she handed him the fruit. And he ate it.
Was that berating? It wasn’t meant to be.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Merry - how can you scratch your head? It should be covered.
In fact, none of us three — Sherry, me or you — should even be talking! If I had a husband, I would ask him about it when he got home.
(I also wear mixed fiber garments and do not greet people with a holy kiss.)
November 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I would never be in a position to support Chad (whoever he is) from Old Truth. But some have legitimate views about gender authority in the church as well as the family. Genesis is irrelevant concerning church offices, only the New Testament is authoritative.
I refuse the “women are human” implication that if I hold to a certain view I am “de-humanizing” women. Men have sins that are masculine, providing for the family and having a job, that women do not deal with Biblically. I do agree that many times men treat their office with fleshly authority and not humble sheep caring.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Single moms.
If they don’t do take care of their families, it isn’t a sin? No, it would be. They are to do that. Whatever the reason for them being a single mom is not the issue — they are to take care of their families as the parent. So, in that case, I would say “an exception to be made!”
Exceptions.
There are exceptions to the “woman as pastor” concept. I can think of several instances in Nicaragua where this was the case. Several to be found in the history of missions work around the world. If there can be an exception in some cases…
Of course, the “woman as pastor” issue is the big one, which is why I went for that as my first post here at CRN.info, rather than cozy up with something like “why women should be able to teach men in Sunday school and not just bake cookies for potluck dinners.”
Why do we treat some of Paul’s writing (the holy kiss, the head covering, wearing of gold adornments and what that does to the wedding ring industry, etc. etc.) as no longer necessary but really, really, really keep it literal in this area?
November 16th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
The church is supposed to take care of single moms. You seem to have an emotional edge to this subject which many times results in a subjective element in our views.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Welcome Julie! I see you jumped in with both feet
I see where you are going, and see that there is a difference between obedience and second-class citizenship due to some “extra” burden of sin.
Well done!
November 16th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Here we are again…
I remember serving in a hierarchalist church…ooops! sorry! I mean complementarian…
anyway…
I’m egalitarian. I wasn’t campaigning for the issue. I wasn’t bringing it up. The church just happened to be where God had placed me.
I was asked my opinion. I was honest. But I said that godly people disagree. It’s not a distinctive issue or first order doctrine.
I was told that my position put me beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
Wow. I guess I missed that part of the Nicene Creed…
Oh, well.
Here we go…around and around…
November 16th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Um, Rick, that comment right there is what men often do when women try to discuss an issue, such as this, that matters to them. I’m not “emotional” but merely discussing. Why would you assume I’m emotional? Do you make comments such as that just a few comments into a post’s discussion with others (guys)?
Good grief.
There is such an interesting connection between the men who hold dearly to this belief of the proper place for women, the way they react/treat women, and the continual way that they swear up and down that they just absolutely “cherish their women.”
It is very interesting indeed.
I did try to add some further discussion on this over on the post I linked to, including a comment responding to anonymous in which he made a bizarre leap as to “female nature” which, I think, ties into the idea that you think I am “emotional.”
Really weird conclusion, Rick.
(Thanks, Chris L. Took me a while to post, but I just think you should choose the high diving board, you know?)
November 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Julie, you are correct. Your comments are more emotional than rational. You, me, merry and anyone can have comments on this subject without us girls running to our husbands or fathers about it. This is called conversation, not preaching or teaching men. Why is it O.K. to disobey God’s mandate in this? Wearing head scarves was a cultural issue (prostitutes didn’t wear any head covering, so this was the way to distinguish christian women from them in Paul’s day) and has nothing to do with the stewardship of God’s Word. Women are more prone to being deceived because of our emotional, psychological make up. Since God created us and knows our frame after the fall, I think He knows best in the matter. And I will go another step here, women are not to teach men (don’t say, “but what about the sons of these women?). Do you have scriptures, NT please, to change my mind on this?
November 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Julie,that you bring in this idea of women being second class citizens if they can’t be pastors is an emotional response. There are many other topics that you could bring that one up on, like the old Baptist mentality of the 60’s and 70’s that NOW used against men to make their point. Whatever happened to NOW? With Hilary Clinton running for President I figured they’d show up in the news again!
November 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Wha..?
No. I don’t think I could actually provide you with any scripture (or other commentary) that would change your mind. I don’t get the sense that you are interested in having your mind changed.
Why must it be NT only? Curious.
(I say that in a non-berating, non-emotional manner. Really, I do. I don’t know how else to express that at the computer keyboard.)
November 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Um.
I can’t really respond here. I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. At all…
November 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Yeah Julie!
I am so glad you are posting… but i am not taking the test… it seems rather… silly.
iggy
November 17th, 2007 at 12:07 am
As a died-in-the-wool-liberal-surely-going-to-hell United Methodist, all I can say on this topic is that two of the most godly pastors I have ever known were women. Nancy Pierson, an associate pastor at St. Marks UMC in Hamilton Square, NJ was a mentor to me for a little over a year. Her kindness, humility and love was evident for all to see, and her support of my ministry there during a difficult year of transition helped me to stay in seminary and continue my journey into ordained ministry.
Sister Ruby Richardson was the pastor of my hometown church in Bloomfield, Kentucky for my entire time there, and served in that capacity for over 35 years. I grew up in the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee - the original holy rollers), and though by no means a paragon of liberalism, the Church of God recognized that women might also expereince the call of God to teach and preach and even (oh my God!!!) pastor a Church. Everything I know of the Bible, I learned from her teaching and preaching. She was the very definition of a Godly woman.
Of course, seeing as I was actually (and no doubt heretically)ordained a Deacon and then an Elder by a WOMAN Bishop, anything I say is surely suspect.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Julie,
a) I’m sorry if my comment offended you!
b) My comment had absolutely nothing to do with Sherry’s comment.
c) I do not support Chad’s point of view.
e) I only listed those references because they were on the topic of women and I thought they were interesting and confusing. I personally don’t practice covering my head or not speaking in church.
f) your last statement about mixed fiber garments and holy kisses was random, but I do agree!
g) It seems like we agree on everything so far so I think it’s safe for us to talk! LOL!
November 17th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Julie,
I would have to agree that your comments seem very emotional and stem from some sort of feminist agenda.
Sherry specifically asked you for Scriptures which support your view and you retorted that you wouldn’t provide them because you felt she wasn’t open minded anyway. First off, this is reading into Sherry’s heart, motives, and intentions, which you really have no way of knowing. After reading her posts, I do not sense any sarcasm or close-mindedness…I cannot say the same about you, however. Also, this “reason” you gave for not providing Scriptures is a cop out because you know that none exist to support your view.
This is very poor discussion etiquette and even poorer Biblical interpretation. I suggest that you rid yourself of your preconceived, feminist notions and take a look at what the Bible has to say. Apparently, as previously stated, your problem is not with Sherry, but with God and His revealed Word.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Oh, my, no. I’m not offended by your comment, Merry, nor anyone’s comment so far.
I was joking in my reply. I didn’t want to use an emoticon to show that I was joking because I didn’t want anyone to think I was getting….emotional.
No worries.
Those are difficult passages, particularly when those get written off as “cultural” and the others are not. It’s quite a dance of interpretations that people will do to make the Bible fit their understanding. “Only NT! “No, only OT!” “That was cultural, but that wasn’t!” “No, it’s the other way around!”
November 17th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Also, I would like for you to provide me with Scripture that supports the idea of women teaching men in spiritual matters. From my reading of Scripture, I have never found a verse in support of this from New or Old Testament.
I would appreciate a response, unless you’re going to write me off as being “not interested” as well.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Okay, thanks Julie.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:52 am
A woman’s hair is her ‘covering’, if you keep reading further. Just though I’d add that. Solves that problem. Unless you shave your head.
I grew up in Liberal Boston MA, so did my wife. I say that so you understand where I’m coming from, if you know anything about New England that is. At our Bible Study that I do here in OK, we have another woman there, a close sister of ours, who used to be a hardcore feminist/atheist. Keep these things in mind. Why can’t anyone actually take the T/F quiz? It’ll be fun.
They (and I) would answer to your quiz like this….(I’m going to be silly here Iggy, I suppose)
True, True, False, False, False, False.
You know, I like to justify playing bloody video games to myself with my other brothers in Christ, occasionally. Now whether or not that is a sin, I do not know, as it’s not laid out with absolute clarity (”it’s not what a man puts in to his body that makes him unclean…”), and we don’t feel convicted about it, because there are much more important things to do, that we do do, that God has given us to do and allows us to do. Like making disciples.. However, even though I justify this to myself, some day, whether on earth, at the Throne, God will either sit down and tell me I’m wrong, or that it was ok.
Does that make me not Christian? Some would say no, some would say yes. Some would insinuate that unless I followed everything correctly, or saw things a ‘clearly’ as they did, and accepted it, I can’t possibly be Christian. Some would say…”Hey, what’s you Xbox Live name???”
How are we saved?
The thing about the woman teacher thing, pastor, speaking in church or what have you is this: It’s a much clearer teaching in Scripture, as it has specific verses addressing the topic, otherwise why do so many believe it, including many godly women, such as my wife, and my friend. I didn’t have to teach them this, they figured it out by reasoning of the Holy Spirit and studying Scripture, my wife told ME (lol think about that). But other godly men and women, study and have the Holy Spirit, and reach the opposite conclusion, and justify that conclusion, like I would mine. Christian? You betcha, I think at least.
Also, it’s been the view held by the majority of Churches for the majority of the past 2000 years. It’s become a recent, last 200-300 years issue. I’m not saying that has much bearing, because it is clear in Scripture, but surely that says something?
If you agree, great, you’re a Christian.
However, if you want to justify yourself, then fine, you’re still a Christian. But I believe God, as in many things with us, will correct us at one time or another. And a lot of our long held beliefs will be shown silly or incomplete.
So there’s my 2 cents. Can I have change?
Love
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Concerning Sherry C’s question: ” Do you have scriptures, NT please, to change my mind on this?” How about this one?
Rom 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant* of the church at Cenchreae (ESV).
*from Strongs: διαÌκονος diakonos (dee-ak’-on-os).
Probably from διαÌκω diakoÌ„ (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.
Why most conservative translations of the Bible refuse to use the word “Deacon” here when that is clearly what Paul meant is beyond me.
See this interesting article here for more on this on and on the qualifications of all ministers in Timothy:
http://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/questions-concerning-women-in-ministry-2/
November 17th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Depends on context, Will. Too bad it’s no where else in reference to a woman. I’ve seen this argument, but I don’t find it convincing. And this would make the Bible pathetically contradictory, I feel, considering the verses on women teaching. Thanks for that though Will.
Love,
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Prove your point that women can be pastors through any scriptures you like! God’s Word, not yours, is what will change my mind. Don’t presume that I won’t change my mind. And what’s up with the presumptuous title “Are Women Human?” And you are not being emotional?! You also presume that those opposed to women pastors consider women to be second class citizens. The Southern Baptists were besmirched by NOW for treating women as inferior because they went by the Book on male/female responsibilities in the home and church. Some SBCers did take it a bit too far and did just that. However God is a God of order. Women came from the side of man. Man was created from the dust of the ground. Man came first, then the woman. God has given men the headship over a woman. That is for our protection and security. It has nothing to do with men’s superiority or women being inferior. All it is is the order. Face it, God saw that it was not good for man to be alone- man needed woman and still do to this day. And my mention of the woman’s head covering in the church is a teaching I have heard many, many times. I used to belong to a church that ministered to prostitutes. We also had a few women who would come to church with a lace hanky on their head. Our pastor had to address it. It is the only teaching I have ever heard on it, Joe. Until your dissertation. Thanks.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Curious. Do you think that the Bible isn’t contradictory? What would it mean if it was?
I mean, really. I’m not saying that any contradictions would negate the Bible as authority and truth — I often find that contradictions and paradoxes are only seen that way to humans with our limited viewpoint, but that paradoxes and contradictions actually create a deeper picture. You know, like death being life, the strong being weak…
I often wonder why people run from any hint that there might be contradictions in the Bible, as if that makes it untrue. I believe the Bible is wholly true and the inspired word of God and also contains what appear to us humans as “contradictions.” That’s a living, breathing book, the Bible. It exists in history and through time and out of time, being from the past now in the present and already mapping out the future in a sense — it’s the Word. Of course it is going to seem to contradict and confuse — we are trapped in some kind of limited view in linear time.
I find the contradictions and impossibilities of agreement on interpretation exciting. You know, Joe, what you said about some Christians coming to one conclusion and others coming to a different conclusion, but both being Christians nonetheless… that would seem to be a contradiction. An impossibility. How could God tell his people different things? Oh, but we just don’t know what God is doing, his larger plan, and why he could possibly want “soldiers” that aren’t all marching the same way when that’s how we think it should be. I think the contradictions strengthen the “truthiness” of the Bible, not weaken it.
(Do I still sound emotional? Because I’m not.)
November 17th, 2007 at 1:40 am
While I sit somewhere between egalatarianism and complementarianism, I would agree with a number of theologians regarding Paul’s comments being highly contextual to where they were written. Ephesus, for instance, was a matriarchal city, where the ruling goddess was Diana/Artemis and where issues of sex, politics and power were a bit different than our society.
As one example, Paul forbids braided hair, which was a “calling card” of Artemis temple prostitutes. So - was he forever forbidding the braiding of hair, or was he forbidding church members from dressing up like whores? In the same way, there are arguments to be made that Paul’s admonitions about women were contextual - in that they were not directly derived from the Hebrew scriptures and Torah - unlike his stances on homosexual practice and other topics which were addressed consistently in Hebrew scripture. It really does come down to a method of interpretation on the issue of women as teachers, and whether or not Paul’s admonition was a blanket one or a culturally specific one…
November 17th, 2007 at 1:43 am
OK, Sherry. I will answer you as if you were serious.
Your first two sentences in the above quote don’t make any sense. The presumptuous title comes from a book by Dorothy L. Sayers who was recently quote on the Pyromaniacs blog today, all of which is explained by the “read more” link at the bottom of the post.
And no. I am not being emotional, though I’m getting mildly miffed. I am not the one using excessive exclamation points and capital letters, which are common ways of expressing emotion via typed words on the internet. You are.
I am aware of Genesis, what happened, and of the order of creation, seeing as how I mentioned some of it in the original post. All well and good, the protection of women by men and such, unless you are a single woman with no man around.
This is not a side point or an effort to distract. That is a reality.
Not how God intended? I agree. That would then be part of my effort to point out “exceptions”, situations that are not how we think God intended them to be, but end up requiring something that shows maybe we don’t have God so figured out as to what he absolutely will and will not do.
An example? Glad you asked. Perhaps there is a rural church in Nicaragua in need of a pastor but a woman happens to be the only one who can read, therefore the only one to read the Bible. Perhaps not part of that perfect “order” God intended, but remember, we are part of a cursed world now and not back in the glory days of pre-fall Eden. So whatever God intended at the beginning is changed. I’m pretty sure God is aware of this and therefore uses women even if, in a pre-fall world, that was not the “order.”
This is illustrated in the history of missions, in particular, with women often forging into areas and planting and leading churches when men did not want to do it. Or even the OT with women such as Deborah, et. al. who had leadership over men).
About all that SBC and NOW stuff, I have no idea. It doesn’t pertain to this conversation so I don’t know why you even brought it in. Period.
Again, I am not being emotional. You asked for a response and I gave you one.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Julie,
I continue to see a lack of Scripture after I have requested this of you and Sherry has repeatedly requested this of you.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Joe,
What I find interesting is that every time Paul uses the word diakonos, it is translated as either minister, ministers, or deacon, except for this one time. That says something to me about the possible bias of biblical translators.
diakonos
Total KJV Occurrences: 30
minister, 14
Mat_20:26, Mar_10:43, Rom_13:4 (2), Rom_15:8, Gal_2:17, Eph_3:7, Eph_6:21, Col_1:7, Col_1:23, Col_1:25, Col_4:7, 1Th_3:2, 1Ti_4:6
ministers, 6
1Co_3:5, 2Co_3:6, 2Co_6:4, 2Co_11:15 (2), 2Co_11:23
servant, 4
Mat_23:11, Mar_9:35, Joh_12:26, Rom_16:1
deacons, 3
Phi_1:1 (2), 1Ti_3:8, 1Ti_3:12
servants, 3
Mat_22:12-13 (2), Joh_2:5, Joh_2:9
November 17th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Rachel and Sherry:
I have given you one passage to consider.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Hello Julie,
1 Timothy 2:14 is quite explicit actually. If you read ahead, it mentions quite clearly that the reason for only allowing men to be leaders of the flock (pastors, elders etc etc) has nothing to do with [male] superiority.
It has to do with what God defines, what God decides. Even if women are a billion times more superior (ok some men are really lousy) , the answer is still no.
Since the verses straight after 1Tim2:14 quote the story of eve being deceived first, its straightaway telling us that the social context i.e. (’women are less socially accepted at that tim’) or education (”women are not as well educated’) has absolutely nothing to do with why women cannot take up pastorial roles, even if such a social situation exists.
Rather, its a universal concept that God has decided this arrangement and we should not question it. Men was created first so the first created shall lead. Thats all.
Women were created (i quote genesis) as helpers. Not that women are inferior in anyway, but the term itself means helpers don’t lead.
Same thing. Men can’t give birth. [biblically, god has instituited child bearing as a form of sanctification - which we men can't do] Men can’t carry babies in womb. Most men are insensitive vs women in some way. Men can’t nurse from the bosom. I don’t see men complaning.
As for the headgear, Joe C was correct. Covering is the hair. I’m sure no society actually allows the shaving of the hair of a woman and finds it appealing. No woman would find it appealing anyway. So theres not much problem there.
Not to mention that women were cursed in Genesis 3 to follow after their husbands. NIV: “rule over you”. I don’t think God changes or speaks a double talk.
If women were created first, and men first decieved, then all men would be helpers and women leaders. I would not question that.
Thank you for listening. Its appreciated.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Will:
I have absolutely no objection to Phoebe being a servant of the church. She was obviously a beloved sister in Christ who was devoted to duties of the church. Paul commanded the older women to train the younger women. In keeping with any proper Biblical hermeneutics and interpretation, you must interpret Scripture in light of Scripture. I am in agreement with Joe that this unconvincing argument does not stand against numerous other passages. In all of the qualifications for overseers, Paul is addressing men, as made clear by his instructions they must be the “husband of one wife”. He never says that women must be the wife of one husband.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Sherry,
If we took Genesis 2 literally, we are left with a picture of God that is not very divine. In fact a literal reading of this passage makes God look like an idiot in that God tries to make a helpmate for Adam by first creating all of the animals for him. Read this:
Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Is God so stupid as to think for a moment that an animal might be a sutiable helpmate to Adam?
And then there are the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as concerns the order of creation. In Genesis 1 human beings are created last. In Genesis 2, it is the animals. What we have in these two chapters are two different stories of creation that do, in fact contradict themselves.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Can someone please explain why the comments section of this post has become some sort of emotional Rorschach test for me? Why are my supposed emotions of any concern to anyone else? Are the comments I’ve left not been sufficient, coherent, or on-topic?
Of what benefit is it for Rick, Sherry, or Rachel to debate the level or quality of my emotion? Am I to write in some form of deadpan or apathy?
I’ve never seen this on this blog before.
Anyway, Rachel:
Will and others have provided scripture. Was the response open-minded? Was I off in my guess as to the response? My apologies. This seemed a bit like a Mobius strip of an argument. That is what I sensed.
Now really. This is silly — you are doing the same thing to me. You certainly can’t read my heart, motives and intentions, either, but you just did. As well as estimated my emotional level of involvement.
No, I don’t know that. If I believe that there was no basis for what I wrote, I would be a liar. I think some examples have been given so far by a few of the others. Jim, at Old Truth, linked to a web site that interpreted the issue far differently than I. I will just throw in a quick link with the same intention, a kind of “read this.”
You know, it takes a lot for a person who has just done to me all the things I’ve supposedly done wrong to tell me I have poor discussion etiquette and poor Biblical interpretation. I’m not really a feminist; women who don’t agree with you are not necessarily full of wily feminist notions. No. Sometimes we’re just normal, everyday women with no devious plots. Do you know what I am? I am an artist. I just read the Bible every day like any other normal person, and pray that it be revealed to me. So maybe I can’t hold my own with a Bible scholar. We don’t have to be Bible scholars. I just read my Bible. That’s it.
I take it you came over from Old Truth. Yes, I got quite an earful of this directed at me from over there. My problem is with God and his Word and not an interest in discussing an issue with people who disagree with me.
My problem, actually, is with carpal tunnel syndrome and I really need to stop responding to personal, ridiculous attacks directed not at the topic but at me.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Rachel:
Paul doesn’t say anything about a woman being the wife of one husband because women in that culture could not have more than one husband. Men on the other hand could have many wives and Paul is restricting men in leadership in the church to one wife.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Hmm
As for setting up churches etc etc etc… should women allowed to do it alone? Well if they by doing so violate any of God’s commands, the answer is no - even if it means getting a million people saved by one person’s disobedience. God has made everything Good in His time.
Commands include 1Tim2:14 et al.
Obedience is better than sacrifice. God would rather more people be obedient than have more ministries but having people inside disobeying God. There is nothing more important than that. You can refer to 2samuel.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Lance,
I read an interesting book which touched on that passage (I think you’re talking about the one where the word often gets translated as “helpmeet” or something similar?). I wish I could remember it in greater detail… the book had a blue cover…
(pause - I’ll go look through my books)
Hmm.
I can’t find the book, nor can I find my notes that I jotted down.
Essentially, it said that the traditional interpretation of the woman as a “helper” was not exactly accurate in the way we think of a helper, but that it was more like a equal level where one needed the other as much - basically, both were as essential as the other to each other. Our view of helpers in our language is a kind of secondary thing, i.e. “Here’s the Lone Ranger and here’s his helper, Tonto.” Or, “the main guy, plus his helper.”
I sure wish I could find that book. The author did a better job.
(Before someone says “all you need to use is the Bible!”, the reason I read such a book was that I do not read Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew, nor do I have the training that many do to dig into passages on that level. So, I use commentaries and such to figure it out.)
November 17th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Lance, many of North Dakota’s churches were started by women missionaries. It’s an interesting history — many of the churches back east where they were from did not want to bother starting churches on the plains for the Native Americans and Homesteaders. These would be traditional churches, led by men. So, the women, feeling the burden to be missionaries, came up and did it. Many died, but there were also many successes. Of course, once the church was firmly established and growing…the churches back east sent men to take over.
But, without these women who were willing to do that very hard work (and it was extremely hard) — North Dakota has a rich spiritual heritage now. That would be so different had they not obeyed.
It’s too easy to say “God surely desires the women do this instead of contradicting these five Bible verses.”
November 17th, 2007 at 2:18 am
The reason that the issue of having women in leadership has only been an issue for the last 100-200 years or so is that there really weren’t any opportunities to speak of for the vast majority of women up until recent times. I have known a lot of women pastors, and I would be be more willing to serve under many of them compared to a lot of men I know. That may be an emotion-based argument, but so be it.
I believe that the Bible is clear that in Christ there is no distinction based on race, gender, or social status. Christ broke the chains that the demonic powers placed on different people groups, and because of that we are all free to follow Him in whatever calling He places on our lives. I see no directive in Scripture that forbids women from serving in any ministry in the Church.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Will I gotta jump in on your cut at Genesis 1 and 2.
Are you serious. You know the Atheists use this argument against us right…and every time…the Christians give the answer we’ve been giving for 2000 years. And it demolishes your argument. LoL, come on willlll come onnnnn. I won’t list it here, because it’s so prevelant, and I think obvious, how to answer this ‘problem’. You can find it on any Creation ministry website.
Oh, and with the animals to help Adam…perhaps a bigger picture huh? Maybe a lesson to be taught. Perhaps God had to say that line to teach the lesson. Come on, be reasonable. Genesis is literal history, it’s written that way in Hebrew, and it’s absolutely undeniable, completely different style than metaphorical or hebraic poetry. I won’t argue any more Creation debates on this site, unless it’s one of the writers does an article. Since it’s not really pertinent to the discussion at hand right now, that is.
I guess I’m one of those weird 6 24 hour day 6000 year old earth no evolution Christians. I’m fine with that. I mean we’re all about super duper historical and cultural context here right? How would have Paul or Timothy understood Genesis? Or Peter? Or Jesus? Seems they took it pretty literally as history in the Bible. And I’m fine with you completely disagreeing (maybe you don’t…but usually when people bring up Gen. 1 and 2 being contradictory, there isn’t much hope for a literal Genesis 1-11 lol.)
To each his own!
Love,
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 2:24 am
The question I’ve always had on this has to do with the culture: would Paul even consider not addressing men?
Jesus so often directly addressed women and it was very unusual. Women were like property, hoping to have sons in order to have some sort of social status whatever — why would Paul address “property”? Would not the natural assumption in that culture just be male-oriented, since it was a male-oriented culture? Paul, though his words are letters are inspired by God, was not God; he was not like Jesus.
That’s taking it a bit far, but we can’t totally rule out Paul’s human-ness, can we? What part does the male-dominated culture with the letters written by a male play into this? Any?
November 17th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Julie,
Will provided one verse that whose case is unconvincable and doesn’t align with other portions of Scripture.
You judged Sherry’s intentions by assumption. She asked for you to provide Scripture to change her mind and you retorted that you wouldn’t do that because you didn’t believe her mind wanted to be changed. I never insinuated such to you. I based my judgment on the contexts of your posts, which were clearly filled with sarcasm.
I did read the post which you referenced (and am not surprised the author was from Charisma magazine, but that’s an entirely different conversation). I have never argued that women do not have their places in the church, church service, and ministry. I don’t believe that anyone here, or at OldTruth, have denied that. The subject at hand is a pastoral ministry of women and their spiritual leadership over men. In your own words you said that you aren’t a Biblical scholar, you just read the Bible. For someone who just admitted that, I don’t understand how “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted tos peak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35).
As to your references to Jim and Chad, both of them are godly men who take rightly dividing the Word of Truth very seriously. They are an encouragement to many and believe the Bible is the only source of truth and instruction. They would debate Scripture with you until kingdom come, but will not tolerate “cultural” or “feelings” argumentation without adequate Scriptural support.
As for me, I am going to gracefully back out of this debate. I have said my peace and any further comments would just lead to further dissension and frustration on my end. I pray that God would convict your heart through His Word and that He would grant you grace and mercy.
God Bless.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:28 am
I heartily disagree Phil. Please address some of the Scriptures brought up here about women teaching/leading then and correct those of us under ‘demonic powers’ (lol come on Phil…come on….really???) who obviously do not know how to interpret these verses. Because so far I’ve seen nothing convincing to debug those verses to mean anything other than what they mean.
Let it be known, I am fully open to correction, by God’s grace. Thanks guys.
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Okay, I know I said I was going to go to bed and back out of this debate, but I am curious as to how you would contort this passage to fit your notions about the equality of male and female authority.
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as CHrist is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”
One of God’s purposes for instituting marriage is that it would reflect the relationship the church has with Christ. Just as Christ is the head over the church, so is the husband head over the wife. Just as Christ will present the church to himself holy and without blemish, the husband is supposed to be the spiritual head over the wife and nurture and cherish her as Christ does the church.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:35 am
I forgot to include the reference for that passage. It is Ephesians 5:22-27.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:39 am
I think Phil has a point, as per Galatians 3:28 . . . There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Rachel,
They got an explanation for that one too. I’ve seen it. I’ll let them say it though. It almost had me…but I’ll post the rebuttle (maybe…it is almost 2 am….lol) when they post theirs.
And you know, we’ll all sing kumbaya and eat smores.
I love you guys, lol
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Julie,
I wonder if you took this from a different angle…
1. If there is a man to oversee the woman, can she then pastor a church?
2. If scripture is so very clear, then why is there this debate. I think there are passages that state things that back up both sides. Paul states that “I do not permit” which seems good advise in that culture… but does it mandate across the board? As Paul also speaks of married couples in leadership roles…
3. If a woman teaches a man, is that ungodliness? I think there is an issue of misunderstanding that many scripture such as Ephesian 5 are about relationship and not authority… the relationship of man and woman… is like Jesus being the head of his body… the Head is not some separate dictator in authority, but is in relationship to it’s body…
4. I do not see a woman pastor as in direct opposition against the gospel, as the gospel is that Jesus came to proclaim the Kingdom and by his death burial and resurrection all men and woman are equal as there is no “male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ”
5. Again, if the leadership had a male overseer… is it still a synagogue of Satan? Actually this would be harder to prove as biblical to say it is than to point out that it is not.
6. To say that anyone supporting a female pastor is not a true Christian misses what makes us a true Christian… and that by stating that what we do makes or unmakes us a Christian, misses that it is only by grace through faith alone… so this negates its own argument.
iggy
November 17th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Will and Phil,
Total Biblical Context is the key with that one. That’s talking about SALVATION. Isn’t that obvious from context, even just in the book of Galatians?
I want to go back to talking about the ‘devil bear’ from The Golden Compass…that was easier….
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Rachel,
You forgot to add these verses before the ones you referenced:
giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:20-21 ESV)
November 17th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Joe,
Somehow I highly doubt this group will be holding hands singing kumbaya, lol. A little too much negative energy for that.
I don’t know where you live, but where I live it’s almost 3 a.m. This eighteen year old college student is telling herself she needs to go to bed….as much fun as blogging is, she’s got a term paper to write tomorrow!
But what the heck….I’ll stay up just a wee bit longer for the sake of the argument. I have to admit I’m curious to see how Ephesians 5 will be “interpreted”.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Gracefully, Rachel?
No. I tell you the truth: I wrote them all straight! I obviously can’t convince you otherwise, but it is the truth. I don’t know what else I could say.
It’s 1:30 a.m. By the time I finish one response to you or someone else, there’s another up demanding I respond. I simply can’t keep up and the lag time between writing a comment and posting it makes a nice continuum impossible. Also, I noticed as I posted comments that others were providing scripture in the meantime, which didn’t seem to take for Sherry, so what could I possibly add?
I did say it was just a quick link; you wanted something and I tried to find something in a hurry before another comment demanded something in a hurry. Note: I am a Pentecostal Christian. I imagine I already know your “different conversation” by heart. That’s OK. We will disagree on a couple of things, then.
I am not married. Shall I live as a mute and without learning until, or if ever, that should occur? There would be a case where an “exception” or a strict adherence to your interpretation is actually impossible for me.
I’ve no doubt you’re right, though I do wish I hadn’t been called or implied, by Chad et. al. to be a fool, blind, dog, pig, unredeemed, an adversary (and not sister in Christ), and unworthy of being extended the hand of fellowship. All within a few short hours and all from a fairly mild disagreement. That all seems acceptable to you because you identify this web site and those who write on it with a particular kind of person who seemingly deserves such treatment and do not take prayerfully consider you may be incorrect.
I pray the same for you. This is not said in sarcasm or mean-spiritedness. I also pray this for Chad, over at Old Truth, who caught me off-guard completely with his reaction and words to me. This was all meant to be a topic of discussion, not attack.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Good grief.
As Joe stated: context is key!
The first 21 verses of chapter five are referring to how Christians (brothers and sisters in Christ) should relate to each other. (Walk in love, giving thanks, etc.) Later in the chapters we are more specifically instructed how we should relate to authority figures in our lives, i.e. husbands, parents, masters, etc. If we followed your thought process, you would soon be saying that because of verses 20-21 parents are required to submit to their children. Come on now.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Yeah good point Rachel. Bring out the perspective and logic.
Oh my gosh…you taught me…is that allowed though?
Hey, we can’t be all serious all the time. I don’t think salvation is at risk here in this conversation.
Now, if we were talking about Salvation by Grace, I might not be crackin jokes. LoL.
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 2:51 am
After reading comments here and on the blog Old Truth, I have gotten a little fiesty I guess. Joe said, “A woman’s hair is her ‘covering’, if you keep reading further. Just though I’d add that. Solves that problem. Unless you shave your head.”
That seems to me to completely ignore what Paul says in first verse of the passage in question. If he had meant that the cover he was talking about in verse 6 was merely a woman’s hair, then why doesn’t he just say that.
I believe Joe’s interpretation is an attempt to justify the modern idea that women should not wear head coverings.
This is clearly anti-biblical : )
1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:53 am
I think, after getting after me for my supposed treatment of Sherry and others, and my supposed sarcasm, this little comment to the person you agree with shows you to be a little more than disingenuous.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:55 am
So Rachel,
Then you bow to all of your husbands demands and his authority?
I bet you have some say on that… and that is called a relationship… where there is give and take.
If you hold to your view then whatever your husband or pastor states is authoritative as if from God as “God set all authority over us” as Romans states.
So context is important… but we cannot make it fit just our own view of what we think the context is… it is relational… not to mention that supposed that brother and sister in Christ might be you husband.
Out of respect i sometimes submit to my wife’s wishes… and sometimes it benefits me more… so to stay with your stick interpretation I just bet in reality you do not hold that stick of view when you disagree with your husband.
iggy
November 17th, 2007 at 2:56 am
I almost let that last post go with “wives wishes” but I do not want that secret out! LOL!
ooops!
iggy
November 17th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Julie,
I sincerely apologize if I have misrepresented any of your words. Such was not my intention. Neither was attack or malice. I, however, believe you are in serious error in your interpretation of Scripture regarding the spiritual authority of males over females.
Honestly, I’m not sure how to address the issue of you being unmarried. My first inclination is to say that you should approach and elder of your church for spiritual guidance if it is needed.
As to you being Pentacostal, I have no problem with the Biblical use of tongues and other typically Pentacostal activities, but do have many doctrinal issues with the majority of Pentacostals and charismatics in general. I understand this is a generalization, being I do not know where you stand theologically.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Julie,
I hope you do go to bed and tomorrow as you have time, take the time to post the scriptures and your views. I for one would love to know them.
Blessings,
iggy
November 17th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Paul was just illustrating a point.
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
Sums it up. It’s really that simple. The hair is the covering. 1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
…For her hair is given to her FOR A COVERING”
Clear enough?
Besides….
You heard the man….it’s ‘because of the ANGELS’.
Obviously, that means…well…I have no idea. But angels are pretty important ‘peoples’. So it’s not a human thing then, that women have to have a symbol of authority on them. It’s because of them angels. So they do some weird stuff. Apparently they argue over dead bodies too…(Jude 9)
Angels, not devil bears.
Joe (it’s 2 am)
November 17th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Rachel,
As you know, chapter and verse divisions are not found in the original texts, neither are the arbitrary divisions of thoughts and paragraphs and sections that are found in modern translations. Who decides whether verse 21 goes with the previous verses or with the later verses? The use of the word submission in both 21 and 22 would seem to tie those verses together to me (and to some other biblical translators as well.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:07 am
The irony, here, is that my intention with this post was not to say that women should be pastors. It was to discuss what Chad had stated and/or implied in the fake true and false quiz. As Chris L. commented on much earlier, it was this concept of an “additional” sex-based sin that seems to be the result when women are thought of as having a place that, once left, is a sin.
A note: I do teach a Sunday school class. It has adult men in it. The church I attend is very, very, very small. This is a case where, if I didn’t do it, there would be many Sunday’s with no teacher. Another man also teaches; we take turns. Out of necessity, this is so. Whether or not it is ideal is not relevant, because it is this way out of necessity. There is no one else to do it.
Being unmarried is not a spiritual disease that requires guidance. This is a rural area, a small church — to each person there is a story and situation that is unique and so it shouldn’t be assumed that there are appropriate elders to go to to spiritually guide me in this problem, if it is even a problem.
Now, regarding being single, this is not a case of me being feminist and going to be my own person and not needing a man and all of that nonsense. No. I recently wrote a blog post that would tell you otherwise.
I see that you are 18 years old. I am almost 34. You can rest assured that despite your disagreement with me and what you think I am saying that is wrong, that I have lived a few more years and have had ideas and opinions change in this time. Once, I was you, 18 and sure and passionate on many things. Please allow that I am not flippant or ignorantly stumbling around and saying the things I said on this post. I am no less passionate, but I am also more aware of what I do not know.
Again, I appreciate your prayers for grace and mercy and yes, even conviction, and I pray the same for you.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Actually iggy, I would not know being that I am newly eighteen and not yet married, although I will hopefully be engaged soon.
I do not pretend that I will always fulfill the duties of a godly and submissive wife. I have a bit of a temper and am sure I will “spout off” on occasion.
In a Biblical marriage, there is “give and take”. If both husband and wife are fulfilling their duties, the will live together in harmony. The wife is called to submit to her husband and the husband is called to love his wife as he loves himself. Clearly the Bible does not promote a chauvanistic type marriage in which the husband is a tyrant and the wife is a slave.
If this were the case however, and the husband was not fulfilling his role, the Bible is clear on how the wife should respond.
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external - the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing - but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.”
- 1 Peter 3:1-6
November 17th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Amen Rachel, boyee my wife would like you lol.
And hey, Julie, thanks for explaining. I mean, I’m symphathetic to what you’re saying, I really am. I can understand where you’re coming from with that situation you’re in. However…
Is it not a sin to steal bread for your starving and dying family if you cannot afford to buy it?
Just playing devils advocate here…
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Tomorrow we should all debate baptism of the dead. Pro or Con?
1Co 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
November 17th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Will,
I understand that chapter breaks were not inserted by the author. By reading the chapter Paul’s train of thought is clear. Earlier in chapter four he is addressing how Christians should walk since we have truth in Christ. He begins how we should relate as brothers and sisters in Christ, as husbands and wives, as children and parents, and as slaves and masters.
Julie,
Yes I am young and have many things to learn. But I think age is irrelevant when it comes to the truth of Scripture.
“Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.”
-1 Timothy 4:12
While I am sure you are “one up” on me in many life truths and experiences, age doesn’t always mean superiority when it comes to knowledge of Scriptures. I am not insinuating that I have greater knowledge than you, but I think truth is truth no matter who it comes from. My age is irrelevant if I am rightly dividing Scripture. No, I am not married. No, I have not had to deal with the many frustrations of submitting to a husband. But whether or not I have experienced it yet has nothing to do with the godly and Biblical standard that is set for wives. It has nothing to do with experience, but with the Bible.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Joe,
Thank you, I am sure that is a compliment. I do not claim perfection or the idea that I will be a perfect little wife.
My future fiancee knows better than that, I can promise you. I’m sure he would attest to my outspokenness and stubbornness. But my shortcomings do not change the standards of Scripture and how I should strive to be. I can only pray that by God’s grace I will be a virtuous wife and blessing to my husband.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Dude…you mormon you.
Read it carefully. He’s not condoning it, he’s saying since there are these people who do this dead baptism thing…why would they do it unless they believed in a ressurection?
It’s like me arguing that stop lights exist, and then using an example like: “Hey, if there are no stoplights, then why do people run the red lights all the time and get busted?”
I’m not condoning the blowing of the red light.
Rough metaphor, you get what I’m saying. Man the mormons drive me crazy with their proof texting eisogesis from 1 verse that they mistranslate to fit their crazy doctrines. lol, I’m kidding about calling you a mormon.
I have a feeling you weren’t being serious though. But still, if it’s to draw contrast….the women teacher/leader issue has WAY more verses.
Next you’ll be saying, lets debate purgatory based on 1 Cor. 3 and Maccabees. LOL!!!
Love,
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Hey Rachel,
Just a side note. Don’t let your age discourage you at all. My wife and I were 19/20 respectively when we got married. Don’t let anyone discourage you from living in purity and doing the right thing. Marriage is wonderful. I think you’re doing the right thing, getting married young is wonderful, if you can do it. Plus, my 18 year old sister can kick my butt with the Bible sometimes, and I accept her correction too. Never be defeated by your age, though since you quoted from Timothy, I suppose you know that already! lol.
Okay…I’m going to BED NOW….we ALL SHOULD GO TO SLEEP….thanks for the awesome talk guys.
Love,
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 3:27 am
Julie, I just now saw your previous post directed towards me and my comment to Joe. I sincerely apologize for any sarcasm and if I was holding up a double-standard.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:30 am
I second that, Joe. It’s almost 4 a.m. down here in Florida, and like I said earlier, I’ve got a paper to write tomorrow. I’m actually writing it on the Great Awakening and Calvinism in America….gosh. Maybe I shouldn’t have said the “C” word. There’s been enough controversy for one night!
Note: The above comment was good-hearted jesting. No sarcasm intended!
I wish everyone a good night and thanks for the Bible exercise!
November 17th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Rachel,
I was engaged (and I am not telling you what in) when I was 18 and married by nineteen… and have been with my wife for the last… 23 years… (24 total).
So many fail in seeing that it is not about authority, but mutual respect out of love for one another… we are to be “rooted and established in love, ” which is in chapter 3 of Ephesians as Paul is building toward something… and that we are New Creations. And even chapter 5 we are to “love” our wife”… not wield authority over her… so the context and at least one of the major themes is love in Ephesians… not authority.
be blessed,
iggy
November 17th, 2007 at 6:05 am
[it said that the traditional interpretation of the woman as a “helper†was not exactly accurate in the way we think of a helper, but that it was more like a equal level where one needed the other as much - basically, both were as essential as the other to each other]
Julie,
i have never meant to mean that ‘helper’ is a degradatory term at all. Its actually more of an appointment and something that carries no negative connotation. I respect women highly - i open doors for them, pull up the chairs for them to sit, give up my seats on the train, help them carry things. It believe it christ-like to do these things.
I totally agree that men need women and women need men as you have mentioned. Still, God appoints the leaders as men because at the end of the day, he is basing on that definition when he demands accountability. Helper is simply to me, a term that means ‘not leader’.
[Lance, many of North Dakota’s churches were started by women missionaries. It’s an interesting history — many of the churches back east where they were from did not want to bother starting churches on the plains for the Native Americans and Homesteaders. These would be traditional churches, led by men. So, the women, feeling the burden to be missionaries, came up and did it. Many died, but there were also many successes. Of course, once the church was firmly established and growing…the churches back east sent men to take over.
But, without these women who were willing to do that very hard work (and it was extremely hard) — North Dakota has a rich spiritual heritage now. That would be so different had they not obeyed.]
If you see the account, they let the men take over. Hence in their minds, they had fully acknowledged the positioning set by God in this matter - attitude matters in service. this means they were obedient with respect to 1tim2:14 et al. so its no wonder that the ministry was successful.
Even if they failed (a hypothesis), they were obedient and that matters the most. Not saved lives.
I enjoyed the mini-history lesson you gave.
An aside from the topic,
Human beings love to measure things by what they see. When they find a successful ministry, they look at numbers. When they want a successful church, they look at its wealth and turnover. To human beings, success must be quantified.
David slept with Bathsheba, a big sin, but it was necessary to bring about a period of peace eventuallly through Solomon. this does not mean we approve the act that brought about the goodness.
Success in the eyes of man does not equate with success in God.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:01 am
I am 55 years old so what does that say? God uses women in a male role when the circumstances dictate (i.e. Deborah) so I do not discount women starting and even pastoring churches when there are no godly men available. Hence Phoebe was either a servant in general or a deacon in the absence of godly men.
But this is a matter of literally translating the qualifications for elders. It also seems that men and women are constructed differently, and although equal, men are to be both leaders in their home and leaders in the church. Single women should submit to either their fathers, or a brother, or an elder in the church. It is not an issue of superiority but of God’s design (will).
November 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am
God created woman as a “helpmeet”, which is not simply a “helper”, but an indispensable partner in Creation. Like you, Julie, I’ve heard a couple really good contextual studies on this aspect, which - for the life of me - I can’t remember the source…
On emotion vs. passion: When Tim or Rick or I are passionate about a subject, it is rare that we are accused of being emotional about (the difference being that ‘emotional’ implies a lack of rationality). However, Julie has chosen a topic she has a level of passion for (or else she wouldn’t have written it), and all the sudden she is (I am guessing, because of her gender) being treated as “emotional” on the topic. This is a subtle form of ad homenim treatment of her, and it is a rather sad commentary on our attitudes….
Going back to Paul’s writing about their being no distinctions in Christ, this is part of where I was going last night. I can see that the full complementarian stance may be more on a misunderstanding of Paul’s role and his writing, which is often combined with subtle chauvinism.
Somehow I doubt that, were I to go to Rick’s (or Merry’s, or Rachel’s, or Mark Driscoll’s) church, that I would find all the women required to have long hair and hair coverings, the men greeting each other with holy kisses, and none of the men having hair beneath their ears. On the contrary, at some level they have recognized that some of Paul’s writing is contextual advice to a specific audience to whom he was writing. But what determines when Paul is writing with which “hat on”, so to speak?
1) Paul frequently gives teaching based directly on the Hebrew scriptures (which we call the Old Testament) and the principles engendered in them. In these cases, Paul is showing a continuation of principle, connecting the old to the new. Some examples of this are with sexual sins (including homosexuality), idolatry, and false witness.
2) Paul frequently gives teaching which brings in Christ to create a “new” teaching, where an old concept has been altered. An example of this is that “in Christ” there is no Jew or Gentile - which is a departure from OT teaching.
3) Paul also gives contextual advice to those to whom he writes, which are instructions with specific situations from individual (telling Timothy to take some wine for his stomach problems) to community (telling women not to braid their hair).
In case #3, it is important for us to determine “what is the underlying principle Paul is trying to get at here?” With braiding of hair, it is that we shouldn’t dress in ways that suggest we’re sexually available.
So, the question becomes - is Paul’s instruction on women in the church (primarily addressed to the church in Ephesus) #1, #2 or #3. In examination, it is definitely not #1 - which is what chad seems to be trying to make it. In my study and meditation on scripture, I still do not know for certain if it is #2 or #3.
The churches I have attended have generally held the position that it is #2 (with varying degrees of certainty), and because the elders of the church have the authority over that community, we all submit to that ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ of scripture.
I know of churches where the elders have determined that it is more likely #3, and have allowed women in leadership positions. Again, because they have authority over the community, I believe that the members of that church should submit to their ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’.
I will say that I have known a number of women who have been, for lack of a better term, ‘militant’ in demanding their “rights” within the church, and it is their very attitude which, in my mind, has disqualified them and led me to comment “I don’t so much have a problem with the idea of women in leadership as I do with YOU in leadership.” I also know men who have no clue what ’submission’ means, and that if you must demand submission, you’ve missed the point and failed to lead.
Julie - once again, I commend you for tacking such a difficult and delicate issue - particularly in light of the culture within the church.
Blessings,
Chris
November 17th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Well, I’ll take another shot. It was about 2AM when I posted last night, and I had just gotten back from one of our ministry events.
When looking at this issue, I tend to start with how Jesus treated women. He broke all kinds of social and religious norms concerning women when He was on earth. There was a group of women that traveled with Him who were rather close, He talked to women directly (including a Samaritan woman), and it was women who first saw Him after the resurrection. There are other things I could add to the list. The point is that Jesus did many things that went against the core of the patriarchal structure He was born into.
As far as Paul goes, I would say that the directives in Corinth have to be looked at from a cultural perspective. We are willing to ignore the command for women needing to wear head coverings and Paul’s injuction to greet one another with a holy kiss, but somehow we don’t use the same standard for the issue dealing with women speaking.
I also think a good case can be made that in 1 Timothy, Paul was dealing with an isolated issue with the women Ephesus. The reason is that there are other case where Paul mention women in ministry positions. I don’t think Paul was contradicting himself.
I would agree with Chris L.’s assertion that some women have been wrong in demanding their rights. I think Scripture is very clear in the fact that we need to consider ourselves lower than others. This goes for men also. I think a big part of the problem comes from the fact that we consider this issue from the top-down, as in who has authority over whom. It seems much more helpful to think of it as an issue of serving. To be a minister is to serve others. If a women is called by God to serve others, I don’t see a convincing argument that we should prevent her.
BTW, here is the position paper from the A/G on this issue. This is one issue where I actually think they have it right.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am
In defense of Julie…
who care if she is “emotional”?
Does that make her experience any less valid?
When people come roaring back at her with accusations of “feminist agenda” it muddies the waters and reveals an emotionality in the reaction.
Cuts both ways.
If there is anger, emotion, hurt, whatever instead of ducking the issue so you don’t have to face the problems with your own position, ask yourself…
how have people (right or wrong) hurt others in the living out of their understanding of scripture?
In my experience Christians accuse people of being angry, emotional, etc. as some kind of “problem” when they should ask, “Why is my brother/sister angry?” “How have people contributed to their hurt?”
Not making their emotions a problem…
that itself reveals a deep problem with modernism…the elevation of the cognitive/rational mind to the point that passion, emotions, etc. are suspect.
Never mind that people very emotionally defend their literalist readings.
bottom line,
godly people disagree…people with far more theological education than any of us here on this issue…
When did this become such a deal breaker?
Just because Wayne Grudem and some others claim this issue is the linchpin for biblical fidelity doesn’t make it so..
November 17th, 2007 at 11:07 am
For the record I said “emotional edge” and Tim has been accused of that many times. I meant no offense.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I wasn’t concerned with you, Rick.
You have the gravitas, restraint and respect of a real pastor.
I was more responding to the reactions of others toward Julie.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Julie, there you go, again, making a presumption that the scriptures didn’t take with me. I went to bed at midnight or thereabouts. I had no opportunity to rebut those scriptures. And since many have rebutted the scriptures given in the same way I would, I need not repeat them now. There has yet been any scriptures showing women as pastors that would negate the qualifications given in 1 Timothy. Personally, I think that women could outshine men as pastors. Guess what? That means nothing to God what my opinions are. His Word is the authority. And, there you go again, being emotional. You say that everyone at Old Truth was calling you a “fool,blind,dog,pig,unredeemed,an adversary,…” Really? Come on! I hope this remark of yours will incite your readers to click to the link you provided so they can see it for themselves! One thing I know, no one has who is on your side-lol! Go ahead and try the link yourself, Julie. BTW, I haven’t yet read what they wrote, so don’t accuse me of being on their side. I can be a thorn in their side at times, too. But I would be careful not to accuse them of such things as you did! Stick to scriptures and drop the emotionalism so that you will be more credible, please. And knock it off with the presumptions!
November 17th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Rachel, I was not getting after you because of your age or implying you knew less because of it. I was responding to your advice that because I was unmarried I should go “see an elder.” My point being that, by age 34, though you advice likely well-meaning and kindly meant, was a moot point. By this time I have likely done what I think I should do as it came to me in my late teens, early 20’s, mid-20’s, and early 30’s. The paragraph on your age had nothing to do with your smarts or ability to use scripture, but was only a direct response to that statement which, at age 18 and likely engaged, you really do not understand the place in life I’m at and what it feels like. That’s OK. We’re just at different places and points in life in that regard.
Joe: “Is it not a sin to steal bread for your starving and dying family if you cannot afford to buy it?” I’m not sure I get what you’re saying here, at least as it applies to this discussion. You’d have to clarify that before I could respond.
Lance, the women didn’t necessarily happily let the men take over once the church was established. The men took over, period. The women, in some cases, were forced out and into more “appropriate” jobs like secretary or Sunday school teacher, even though they had done the hard work previously.
I’d write more, but I try not to type too much on Saturdays because, after last night’s round of excessive typing, my hands are a bit numb and I need them to play the piano at church tomorrow. So…good conversation all. See you later.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Just a note on the questions posed by Chad at the start of your post, I thought them a bit inane. Then again, I haven’t read the post at Old Truth.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am
One more thing — heh.
Interesting comment, Lance. I am reading a book that talks about that, the Americanized “success = numbers” and how pastors are often like CEOs now. I think you might find it interesting — “The Great Giveaway” by David Fitch. He gently but directly addresses some of the foolish ways we think of “success” in ministry, pragmatism, etc.
Sherry, you’re saying they never said that but also say you haven’t read what they wrote? How would you know, then? I do not believe I’ll respond to you any further. Your comments seem irrational or illogical and are difficult for me to make any sense of. If people would like to go to the Old Truth post, they can. They can also visit my own post, linked to above, where I have excerpted the comments in question and where they can see Jim’s response on my blog as well as my response to Jim. Thanks for joining in — I hope you continue to do so. I will no longer address your comments, however.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:50 am
[Lance, the women didn’t necessarily happily let the men take over once the church was established. The men took over, period. The women, in some cases, were forced out and into more “appropriate†jobs like secretary or Sunday school teacher, even though they had done the hard work previously.]
Goodness. Its pity that the men had to force and the women were unwilling to give up. In view this such disobedience, i’m sorry to say that N. dakota ministry was not as successful as i thought it was. Once should give cheerfully, whether to God or otherwise, especially when it is scripural to do so, for when one gives, its not only to man, but to God. God loves a cheerful giver. Yet the men should not have lorded over the flock and forced them. Sighz.
I hope you are not belittling the work of a sunday school teacher or a secretary, because i am sensing that you esteem a pastor more highly than you would a sunday school teacher.
As long as a person does his allocated job/ministry (assuming its scriptural) properly, it is the equivalent of a high profile job e.g. elder or pastor. I’m sure you know the verses on how some people need to be the eyes and others ears and other hands. All are important.
Julie, kudos to an excellent handling of this highly sensitive subject.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I have just read Chris L.’s comment about Julie’s zeal for this subject as emotionalism. I have been reproved. Thanks. Julie, forgive me, please. I would rather see you exegete from scripture your position in the matter. Yoiu have brought up this subject and have yet to exegete from scripture where women can be pastors. You brought up exceptions to the rule, but you have yet to show it is anything more than an exception. I am waiting for that to change my mind.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Julie,
The only reason I included that bit of seeking an elder was because of this statement made by you:
“I am not married. Shall I live as a mute and without learning until, or if ever, that should occur? There would be a case where an “exception†or a strict adherence to your interpretation is actually impossible for me.”
I was only trying to answer your question, but I’m guessing now that you meant it to be rhetorical. I was not trying to give you advice because I know you or your life story. I was trying to give my honest opinion of a question I thought you had asked.
“The paragraph on your age had nothing to do with your smarts or ability to use scripture, but was only a direct response to that statement which, at age 18 and likely engaged, you really do not understand the place in life I’m at and what it feels like. That’s OK. We’re just at different places and points in life in that regard.”
I’m not quite sure what this phrase is directed at. If it’s in regard to my “advice” I gave you, I think I covered that above. If it’s in regards to our disagreement on Scripture, what place you’re at in life has nothing to do with what the Bible says. Again, I’m not sure of your intended meaning, so I don’t want to read too far into it.
With regards to what Joe said (“Is it not a sin to steal bread for your starving and dying family if you cannot afford to buy it?”), I’m assuming that he’s building upon the “obedience is better than sacrifice” deal. You seem to deem a female pastorate acceptable if there are not men to do the job, even though the Bible strictly forbids it. You think God’ is okay with “exceptions” when the situation demands it. I think Joe’s point is to say is stealing an exception if you have a starving family to provide for? Although the Scripture explicitly teaches against stealing, wouldn’t God be okay with it because of my circumstances? God would understand that my family is most important, therefore, stealing must be okay in this situation. Joe, if I’m wrong in that hypothetical scenario, correct me, but I’m pretty sure this was the intent of that statement. Julie, it is never okay to sin, no matter what “exceptions” we think we’re owed. The Bible forbids woman to pastor…period. The Bible forbids stealing…period.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Sherry,
I too have been disappointed at the lack of Scriptural basis for this discussion. The only verse that has been thrown out there was one where Paul commended Phoebe. To even get this verse to prove their point is a huge stretch of interpretation and guesswork with Greek words. As you said, as of yet there has not been any Biblical exegesis on their side.
One thing I appreciate of Jim and Chad is their lack of emotionally-based arguments. When I read over there, I know I’m going to get tons of Scripture.
People have yet to adequately refute the passages that I have brought into question, such as Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3. These speak of the submission of the wife to the husband in general. This is private spiritual authority. Neither have the passages mentioned in 1 Timothy been adequately refuted that deal with women and public spiritual authority.
Like I said before, interpret Scripture in light of Scripture. Until that is done, I think this post is useless babbling. We could throw our opinions all day, but in the end the Word of God is the only authority and it is on this truth I stand, not hypothetical situations, exceptions, and emotions.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
here’s an answer born out by the scholarship of the last 150 years, sadly rejected for ideological reasons…
Paul didn’t write I Timothy.
At least that’s what some think…
Again, godly people far wiser than any of us disagree on this issue. And they all use scriptures…
anyway
November 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Paul wrote thirteen epistles (fourteen if Hebrews) and every one of them began with the same word.
Paul.
Settled.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Julie,
I thought the bread question was very applicable to this conversation.
You said in a bad situation, where no men could lead, can a woman lead without it being a sin?
I said, in a bad situation, is it a sin for a man to steal bread for his starving and dying family, since they can’t afford bread. Is it still stealing? Is it then still a sin?
Like I said, it was more to make us think, about what sin is, and what is black and white, or not. I didn’t mean it as a hard cutting point. Devil’s advocate. That’s all
Love,
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Rick,
I’m not quite sure what you’re implying by your post. Surely you don’t mean that Paul’s epistles are any less inspired that the rest of God’s Word?
I surely hope this is not what you mean.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I hear you, Rick.
But what about the regular practice in the Near East of writing “in the name of” a teacher with authority?
Even non-canonical books in the Christian tradition bear some of these traits.
What about redaction criticism, or the possibility that things could be added, etc. as things are translated and copied–for a variety of reasons?
Obviously this gets to people’s understanding of the construction of Scripture, etc.
Probably something to talk about via email…
but a fascinating conversation nonetheless…
Best to you today, Rick
November 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Rachel said:
Well, I guess we should all quit talking about it, then.
Nice try. It seems to me that if we equate this issue with a moral issue like stealing then it is inevitable that people’s feelings are going to be hurt. If one side thinks it’s 100% right, then there really isn’t any point trying to discuss it.
I just think that we can’t take an issue that is so laden with cultural underpinnings and say that it directly applies today. If we are going to be consistent with not allowing a woman to have authority over a man, then we should go all the way. Women shouldn’t be a school teacher unless it’s an all girl school. The shouldn’t supervise men at the workplace. All authority has some spiritual aspect to it. To imply there’s this great spiritual/secular divide is putting a template on the Bible that the authors wouldn’t have recognized.
Personally, I have known too many great female pastors and seen the fruits of their ministry to believe they are going against God’s will. I also think that the Church has convinced many women that they are only good for two things - having children and keeping a house (not that these aren’t important). I’ve known many women who just don’t fit in that mold and feel like they are forced to be outsiders in church culture. The fact is many of them will just leave and go somewhere their gifts are appreciated.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Sherry, Rachel, and Joe.
Stealing is wrong and is a sin. This post is me saying I do not think it a sin for a woman to be a pastor, a leader, or even a Sunday School teacher (no Lance, I dont’ hold those jobs in disrespect - I have those jobs myself) because there are times when she has to step up to the plate. I do not believe God would make being obedience to his call a sin, and there are times when, because of the situation, a woman finds herself in a position where she must take a leadership role. Whether or not it is ideal or preferred is not the point here. The point is: is it a sin? And I say, no. Maybe Paul didn’t not permit a woman to lead. Maybe it would be better if she didn’t — the point is whether or not it is a sin.
That’s a lovely little analogy, about the bread and stealing, but it is a trap. It doesn’t “make us think” but it is a logical trap. It’s not the same.
God never asks us to steal, but he does ask women to lead and teach. Women are often reluctant to do so, for reasons of personality or nature or because they know they will get people like you who react to them in this way.* I was very reluctant to teach and frequently hope to find ways to get out of it, but that doesn’t seem to be what God has planned and I actually find Him dragging me, kicking and screaming, into positions of leadership that I don’t really want.
So again: do we say, across the board, that women as pastors or leaders or teachers of adult males is always wrong, i.e. a sin, or not? People shrug off the OT examples of Deborah, or even the things that other women like Abigail did (not consulting her husband Nabal and taking matters into her own hands for the good of everyone, including David). Those little “exceptions” to what you see as a hard and fast “rule.” But — those stories exist and they are part of the Bible and they are real and they are relevant! Why do you dismiss the OT and hang on a few verses by Paul? I say, take it all into consideration and decide: is it a sin?
You keep getting after me for not providing scripture. We all know there is no scripture in which Paul directly turns around and says “I sometimes permit women to have authority over me.” The scriptures you are using as your proof are the ones I would also list and say “I think there is some interpretation on this.” The reason I didn’t list them again is because:
1. Others have already done so.
2. Others have done a fine job saying what I’d say.
3. Chris has done a very good job in his comment, as usual.
4. My examples from the OT have not been good enough for you, leading me to believe that you somehow think the New Covenant makes the OT a little less of an authority except, perhaps, when you want to use the law against someone.
5. NT examples of women who might throw a wrench in the gears (Phoebe, for example) were dismissed by you as you said you interpreted it differently.
Well! Isn’t that the key? You see the Phoebe issue as such and such, and others disagree. And then, vice versa on these other verses. People interpret those passages differently! Any effort made to show that a different way of looking at a passage or a different consideration could be made was rebuffed with “show me more scripture!” I say, you show me more scripture, other than what Paul wrote. Pick me lots of scripture that prove women leading is a sin. You show me some.
Show me something more than the submitting to husbands, for those of us not married. Show me something more than Paul saying I do not permit women to do this. Show me that, across the board, bread-stealing aside, women leading is a sin. That is the point of this post. It somehow got lost in people trying to decipher my emotional makeup, my intention, and my abilities as a Bible scholar to “divide” and prove.
There is no reason to further this discussion and I leave with the same statement I made at the beginning, made from the experience I’ve had in such discussions on the website gleaned from my few extra years of living past 18, and state: there is no changing minds on this topic. Most of us have come with a set of notions and are here to “divide by scripture” and take no prisoners.
Done. At this point, I would say my emotional barometer, since it seems so important to note, is as follows: fairly ticked off and wishing I had not written the post because, as usual, it is the women who attack a fellow woman worse than the men, completely disrespectful and full of character assumptions, leading me to wonder if maybe that isn’t the proof that women shouldn’t be in charge of things and wondering at the irony of that lesson. And reminding me why I prefer to hang around men rather than women, who tend to have longer claws.
My hands are totally numb at this point. Swell.
*Chris L. is right in that women demanding some weird kind of rights is wrong. I agree. I also find it repugnant when men do so. Demanding leadership and rights is not what Jesus Christ was about. Not one of us has “rights” and should expect personal glory and accolades. There is no place for craving power or control in God’s Kingdom. We are to serve, and if asked to lead, obey. Humbly.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Good Heavens, has everyone been up all night commenting on this post? Get some sleep! Lol.
Rachel,
you happen to be around the same age I am. Please take your time getting married. You are still very young. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman being single no matter how old she is. Sometimes singleness is God’s will for one’s life. I have no scipture verses for you at the moment, but I’ve never read anywhere in the Bible that says ‘women MUST get married!!!!’
Julie,
Unlike some I don’t think you’ve ever sounded emotional. You’ve got a great sense of humor. Keep it up.
I have NO idea where I stand on the topic of women being pastors, except some of the nicest women I know ARE pastors, and it’s not like I have a right to just go up to them and tell them their sinning, you know? I’m so confused . . .
November 17th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Phil,
My feelings aren’t hurt at all. I have to admit after this discussion I have been more apt to righteous indignation than hurt feelings. Sometimes I wonder why God allows people to twist and contort His holy words into something that is culturally relevent and unbiblical. But I do not know his purposes and why he delays judgment on the church, but I do know that one day all will give an account and every careless word spoken will be brought to light.
Honestly, I don’t give a rip about being culturally relevent. There is nothing we can do to the gospel to make it “more relevent” or more attractive. Unregenerate men hate Christ and His word and the gospel is an aroma of death to those who are perishing. I’m not going to try and rearrange the Bible, explain away Scripture, and contort God’s word to make it culturally relevent.
“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being decieved. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
-2 Timothy 3:12-17
Also, women in the workplace was completely irrelevant to this discussion. Proverbs 31 completely wipes out your argument anyway. A woman who works and manages her affairs and household well honors her husband. Paul is strictly addressing spiritual authority, and that is the subject at hand, not women in the secular workplace.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Rachel,
You’re missing my point though. All authority is spiritual to some extent. Romans 13 says that God has established the authorities and we are to submit ourselves to them. If there is a woman in a governmental position, men are called to submit to her. It is a type of spiritual submission.
You are falling into the Platonic thinking so typical in western culture that separates the soul and spirit from the body. It creates a false dichotomy thinking that our spiritual lives are separate from our everyday working, going to school, hanging out, etc. lives. God made us to be whole people.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Woa Julie…
I understand you’re upset…but the attack wasn’t necessary. I think you’ll go back and look at your post in an hour and maybe go “oops, I over did it”.
I brought up the stealing thing NOT as a trap! I just brought it up, no strings attatched. I wanted to use it to make us think. To think about sin, maybe a woman teaching men ISN’T a sin.
I am not “people like you” (how rude??) and I DON’T ‘react that way’ when a woman wants to teach. We let women teach in our Bible study, which by all intents and purposes is “church”, but you wouldn’t know that, you just seemed to see the worst in me. You don’t know me and that’s presumptuous of you. But it’s okay, really, you’ve taken A LOT of flak in this thread and I can understand you’re upset and trying to settle accounts. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the whole time, and believe it or not…I am inclined to agree with you on some things here. For example, I LIKE your OT examples, and I find them valid. When there’s no one to do the job, there’re exceptions. If God told you to kill, is it murder t God? Of course not, because God told you to do it. This happens all the time in Scripture, but we ignore that. If God has called you to teach, then TEACH. “We must obey God rather than obey men”.
As for the true or false quiz…
It is not a sin if God, and ONLY GOD, has put a woman in a position of leadership. It is a sin if she has presumed that she should lead and be in that position, as that would, as some comments have said, miss the point of ’servant leadership’.
And I think to relegate the verses brought up in this forum to TOTALLY being culturally derived is also wrong. But I’m not sure anyone did that.
Anyways, I hope that clears the air between us Julie. Thanks for the talk.
Love,
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Julie,
I think the Old Testament law goes even farther into to whole “submission” thing than you’d like to, but since you asked, I’ll give examples.
In the Old Testament, the husband of a woman had the right to nullify any oath she had made before asking his permission.
“If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound herself.
And if she vowed in her husband’s house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath, and her husband heard of it and said nothing to her and did not oppose her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand. But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her. Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.”
Numbers 30:6-8, 10-13
I think this passage explicitly states that in OT times, under the law, men had complete control over women. They could even go so far as to nullify commitments made to God.
I wonder what this does to you, “But God called me, who are you to question that” argument.
I’m sorry that you equate correction/rebuke and attack to be the same. They most surely are not.
This statement: “There is no reason to further this discussion and I leave with the same statement I made at the beginning, made from the experience I’ve had in such discussions on the website gleaned from my few extra years of living past 18″ is clearly a cut at me, but I will not take offense. As stated before, truth is truth no matter how old you are. Biblical truth has nothing to do with how old I am. The Bible is the Bible. It’s God’s Words, not mine. (Actually you would argue that they are Paul’s words…it sounds like you and many other people are under the impression that Paul’s words weren’t divinely inspired and ‘God breathed’.)
Merry,
I never ever stated that the Bible says you must get married. I never stated that I thought it was wrong to be single. I have absolutely nothing against single women. I do not plan on getting married because I must. I plan on getting married because I want to.
Is it so foreign that a woman may actually look forward to lovingly serving under her husband, honoring and cherishing him, and participating in the greatest relationship God has instituted on this earth? A godly marriage is a represenation of Christ and his bride.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Rachel…
The Levitical Law is for Jews who seek to be saved by that very law and their own ability to obey that. The one of the purposes of The Gospel, is to show us we can’t keep that law, and that law is inferior to the new covenant. I don’t think an argument from Numbers holds water in this discussion, I’m sorry.
If you’re gonna bring it up, lets break out the clothing requirements, sacrificial requirements, slavery requirements…etc etc etc. Or rather, let’s not.
I don’t think it’s a good argument, because it holds no bearing on our lives as Christians saved by Grace and not works. Not the Law. Those rules were for a specific time and specific place, and were a shadow of what was to come. Don’t take more out of it than we need to.
Or, you can go around wearing clothes of same matching fabric all day if you want to. LOL!!!
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Submission to governmental authorities is spiritual submission to God, not to the woman president.
Please don’t assume that I fall into the category of “western thinking” that says I separate the spiritual from the secular. That is a completely untrue and irresponsible statement, and I take offense to your insinuation that I compartmentalize my faith and “secular” life.
If you would like to know my opinion of Biblical womanhood, I think it is a woman’s place to stay at home with her family, care for her husband, and train her children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This, however, is not what I’m debating. The topic at hand is the exercise of women’s spiritual authority over men.
I have no problem with women participating in Biblical discussion, Bible study, etc. The point in question is women pastoring a church. I don’t know why we can’t stick to the subject at hand.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I was not saying that I adhere to the Levitical law. I was responding to Julie’s plea for OT Scriptures from the law.
“My examples from the OT have not been good enough for you, leading me to believe that you somehow think the New Covenant makes the OT a little less of an authority except, perhaps, when you want to use the law against someone.”
I was saying to Julie if she thinks that the OT law is more favorable to Paul’s NT instructions, she might want to think again.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Rachel,
I also find it somewhat ironic that in this whole conversation about women submitting to men that you are spending most of your energies trying to correct men. You are pointing out Bible verses and in a real sense trying to “teach” us.
Where would you draw the line and why?
I’m not trying play a game of “gotcha”. I’m just trying to see some consistency in a view opposite mine.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Lol! Calm down, Rachel! I wasn’t trying to attack you! It’s just that some of your comment to Julie regarding marriage (or her not being married) have been interesting, to say the least, that’s all. I’m glad your excited to get married! I was just saying you don’t have to rush into anything, is all. If you were offended, I am sincerely sorry.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I would also add that all Christians are pastors whether they admit it or not. We all have been given the ministry of reconciliation and we are part of the priesthood of believers.
I know that there is some room for distinction between the actual “office” of the pastorate (a term I am coming more and more to hate) and the work of the ministry, but I believe a lot of that is just kind of practical stuff that churches have to do because of dealing with large groups of people in an orderly way. I don’t think the Bible gives explicit direction as to how church governence needs to take place. It seems there is substantial authority given to groups of believers to set these rules up as the Holy Spirit leads them.
Overall, my point is this. I don’t have a huge problem with a local church setting a rule that forbids women pastors or elders, but I think they are not availing themselves to God-given resources. I would probably not be associated with a Church that made it a huge issue. I do have a problem with blanket statements that try to make rules for the universal Church that have very weak support in Scripture.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Phil,
This is a discussion. Once again, no one will stick to the subject at hand, which is women PASTORING CHURCHES. Paul’s instructions concern women being overseers, deacons, or elders in church.
I never said that women are not permitted to say a word to a man. However if we were in a church setting and you were teaching something false, Biblically I would not be able to stand up and rebuke you. That would be my husband’s job.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I’m suprised you’re saying we’re the ones who have weak support in Scripture. This is all very backwards.
Merry,
I didn’t take any offense to your post. I was merely clarifying I had nothing against single women.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Rachel,
You are cool with me.
We all need to live by our convictions. I may not agree with some of yours or you some of mine, but I cannot fault someone for trying to live as they see God He desires them to live is a good thing.
Now, these convictions can change over the years and things that were so important at one time will diminish.
For example,
I was one that believed and taught one could lose their salvation. Then I began to understand grace, and taught that one could never…
Now I say that if one is even asking that question they have an issue somewhere in their faith that is error.
About women I was pretty strict as it was in the AoG of old.
Yet, I have seen women can “pastor” such as with children and other women. I ahve seen powerful female ministers that have taught me many things… with out lording over me or usurping power from anyone.
The issue is not can they teach? but it is about power… I see the issue is if a woman lords or tries to take the power from the leadership for her own desires.
The creation gender issue to me is not an issue as both Genesis and Jesus states “God created them male and female”… mankind is both… and though man was created first, woman was created out of man…
If you took time to think about this, Adam died (put in a deep sleep) so that Eve could live. And just as Jesus came out of the tomb, woman come out of Adam’s side, is this new creation (woman) represent the church… for out of the tomb Jesus came and from that the New Creation came… and the Kingdom was ushered in.
Be blessed,
iggy
November 17th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Iggy,
I also have absolutely no issue with women teaching other women and children. In fact, Paul commands the older women to teach the younger women.
The issue at hand is pastoring, shepherding the flock, etc, which women are strictly forbidden to do. I have absolutely no qualms about women giving Biblical input, having Biblical discussion with men, or holding ministry positions in a church. Women are not to shepherd a flock, regardless of how “called” they feel they are. It is against God’s revealed will. I get wary when people say “well if God called me” or “if I have good results” then it’s okay.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ wil enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ ”
Matthew 7:21-23
November 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Rachel,
So you are really condemning all women pastors to Hell? I think you are entitled to your opinion, but I think to make it an issue of salvation is going to an extreme. It is certainly not something I think we can turn into a primary issue.
I think it easy to take a stand on these issues when it doesn’t affect you. I will admit I am biased in this issue. My wife and I both serve as campus pastors right now. She is also finishing up her PhD in microbiology this semester. She could easily go and take a job for 100K a year. Yet, she feels called to the ministry we are at. Next semester she is going on “full time” on staff as the campus pastor at our church. I will still be pastoring with her, but she will be serving in the official sense. So I know this whole issue of obeying God even though it seems like the impractical thing to do is something that we have talked about a lot recently. Yet we feel that for us to leave, and for her not to do this would be going against God’s will for us right now.
So again it is a personal issue. It always is. I find that for men who take the strongest stand on this issue it’s usually because they have some deep-seated resentment. It could be an overly controlling mother or wife.
To make this into a black-and-white issue just doesn’t work.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I didn’t condemn anyone to hell. I merely stated that there will be multitudes of people standing before Jesus who surely felt “called”. People who prophesyed in Christ’s name, cast out demons in his name, and did many works in His name. Jesus said those who will enter the kingdom of heaven is He who does the will of my Father. It is not God’s revealed will for women to shepherd the flock of God. I believe this is a sin. Those who continue in it without repentence should be fearful, as with any sin, in any person.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Please note that I did not pass judgment on anyone’s salvation. I merely brought a passage into light that should refute the “if I feel called” or “If I do good deeds” argument.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Rachel,
All I can say is that I am glad that we are not all beholden to your narrow interpretation of Scripture on this issue. This may be a personal conviction of yours, but making it a sin issue for everyone, you are condemning a lot of people whether you intend to or not.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Scripture says what it says. Your beef isn’t with me.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I find it a little bit tiring when we try to determine “sides” of a discussion and gauge it by “who uses the most scripture”. I normally do not quote chapter and verse, rather choosing to quote parts of the whole, with the assumption that the readers have read the passage I’m referencing (like with Paul’s commenting about there being no Jew or Greek, man or woman, etc. in Christ).
There are multiple examples of Jesus and others weaving scripture into their commentary.
Rachel - one key point of debate in this argument is the nature of scriptural interpretation - it is always literal, and if not, when is it not literal? Why are comments to an audience about braiding hair seen as cultural and not literally in effect for Christians today, but comments about women’s roles in that church are taken to be blanket commands for all churches?
What is the hermeneutical standard you are using?
If you can’t lay this out, the Bible becomes either a free-for-all or a literally untenable rulebook becoming irrelevant to us in either case.
As for it being a personal issue for me - I have no skin in this game. My wife is much more of a complementarian than I am, and I don’t have friends/family with axes to grind. I just find that quite a bit of self-righteousness in this topic whenever it’s brought up - and I appreciate Julie’s handling of it…
November 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
If you don’t understand how to read, interpret and apply scripture beyond literalism (which you’ve been making rather evident in this discussion), then actually, his beef is with you, and not scripture.
Is a chainsaw good for cutting trees? Certainly. If you hold it by the wrong end, though, you’re in for a world of hurt…
November 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I find it a little bit tiring when we try to determine “sides†of a discussion and gauge it by “who uses the most scriptureâ€
That comment is a bit disturbing to me. Isn’t the presence Scripture the determining factor? Or lack thereof?
I can’t waste anymore time on this, at least today. I have a term paper due next week that I am nowhere near finished with and haven’t accomplished anything this morning because of commenting back and forth.
This post is going nowhere and I’m beginning to think I’m being a poor steward of my time. It would best be spent elsewhere.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
You’ve misinterpreted what I said. I didn’t write it as clearly as I could have, perhaps.
I was not saying that OT law is more favorable — my last sentence was saying that it appeared you were negating the value of OT examples and I foolishly threw in the reference to people who do that except when they want to pull out OT law and use it as a weapon in such discussions.
What I was saying is that we should look at the stories of OT women who, despite the very male-orientated culture they lived in (which I mentioned in an earlier comment, and as you pointed out) managed to still obey God and found themselves in positions of leadership. In that way, it is similar to today where we find a male-orientated part of Christianity who would have women do no such thing but God still uses them anyway. He makes modern Deborahs and Abigails and Hannahs in spite of the otherwise godly men insisting that they are sinning, damned, against scripture, and going to hell.
Be careful, Rachel. This is the beginning of a way of thinking that I’ve found myself in too many times in life. It’s a kind of religious arrogance that is so close to being good and holy yet just as close to being very much in danger of blindness. The Word of God has been revealed to people throughout the centuries but not all in the same way.
Your interpretation on this issue faces impossibilities as already shown in history and in different cultures around the world. You say you are not captive of the western mindset, but I think you may be more than you think. My own opinions on this matter have changed over the years — I once would have written exactly as you did — but experiences doing missions work in other cultures and in other situations forced me to rethink the way I apply the Word.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
So why did you keep demanding more scripture of me? I got the impression that you and Sherry would have no respect or reason to hear me unless I could meet some kind of scripture quota.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Julie, those are certainly not my words. I was quoting Chris L. I forgot to put the quotation marks. My apologies.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
And you’re right. I have no respects for arguments which are not backed up by Scripture.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Rachel - as noted - chapter and verse are not required to “quote scripture”, and quantity has no necessary correlation with “correct interpretation”. And now, for the second time, you seem to be completely missing this point.
To my question - what heremeneutical principle are you using to determine that Paul’s instructions on women speaking/leading in church that are commandments for the entire church, but that his instructions on other items (drinking wine for your stomach, women not braiding their hair, men not wearing long hair, men greeting each other with a holy kiss) are culturally contextual?
November 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Julie, please don’t make the assumption that you know me, or my experiences. You say that you correctly interpret Scripture because of missions and exposure to other cultures.
I have been on foreign mission to Peru, Sri Lanka, and Israel. I’ve been on home mission to Mississippi after hurricane Katrina. I still see how this is irrelevant to application of the Bible. We do not interpret Scripture based on life-experiences and emotional feelings. Herein lies the problem. I’m sorry you find me arrogant and self-righteous because I’m firm in my stance of Sola Scriptura. The issue of women’s role in church is not full of difficult symbolism and mysteries like the study of the Revelation. It is clearly stated that a women should not pastor a church. I do not deny that women are allowed positions of ministry.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Then you’ve wasted my time.
I provided some scripture in my original post, responding to Chad’s scripture.
Not good enough.
“Show me more different scripture!”
Then Will and Chris L. and others began doing that, so I said — “Others are doing that, and using/saying the exact same thing I would.”
Not good enough.
“Show me more different scripture!”
I could copy and past what they’ve said, attach my name to it, and hopefully earn your respect for my argument.
But frankly, I don’t really feel the need. I am not going to pander to a fine young woman with more than a touch of arrogance who won’t hear what I say in the manner of speaking in which I say things. For it must be how you like it in order to be considered, it seems, no allowance for a different method of approaching debate.
Much of this discussion has been excellent: Lance, Joe — great points there, and in the way they handled themselves. Please learn from them, as will I.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Rachel,
Julie’s contention can easily be backed by by Paul’s rather direct comments (to quote chapter/verse):
There is no differentiating factor between any of these in Christ. So, is Paul being double-minded when he then gives different gender roles in leadership, or is he taking culture into context? The latter seems to be a reasonable interpretation.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Rachel - what is your primary hermeneutical method of interpreting scripture?
November 17th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Rachel,
I think it all comes down to what is a “pastor”. I think good arguments can be made that in the first century, a pastor and an elder were one in the same. That person likely oversaw a group that met in a home. It appears that this was most likely men, but Scripture does not rule out that women could have fulfilled this role in some cases.
When we talk of a pastor today we are superimposing a bunch of hierarchal structure that just wasn’t there when Paul was writing. Sola Scriptura is fine in principle, but hard in practice.
Also, one thing I would interject in this discussion is that we seem to talk of this whole notion of being a “pastor” as if it’s some sort of promotion or place of honor. Being a pastor is about serving others. It is not a about being at the top of the pyramid. Again, the thinking of it being equivalent to a CEO or president is a western construct. I’ve known pastors who are in love with the positional authority the title gives them, and they are almost always ineffective. I also know pastors who realize that their authority only comes from serving others, and not lording power over people.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I am not assuming. I’m stating how missions has affected me and why I found I needed to rethink my earlier positions when it came down to applying some of what I thought were absolute rules in the Bible. It was an explanation as to why my mind changed on some things, not on why yours has or has not, or will or will not. I find it mildly surprising and saddening that you have retained your absolute self-assurance that you have nailed scripture down correctly end-of-discussion despite your experiences, and are heroically and resolutely unmoved. There are some storms ahead of you.
Ah. The mention of the Solas.
You are right. This conversation is over. I’m not a five-pointer, and there’s nothing to be done about it.
But I don’t think you’re sorry. Nor should you be. I said arrogant, not self-righteous. I’ve noticed that the five Solas sometimes/often have a sixth: arrogance.
Sola arrogance.
That sola, I’m afraid to admit, I have a wee bit of myself.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Rachel,
Then if a husband lets his wife have a leadership position, is she not able to do it?
Also the verse you quoted, Matthew 7:21-23 states that we are to do the “will of the Father” which is believe on Christ Jesus… so you are using this verse a bit out of context. So, if a woman lords over a man, and yet she believes in Jesus, according to you she is not saved? Would then any “sin” we do as “sin is lawlessness” put us outside of the Kingdom?
I think what you are missing is that we cannot do works to enter so we also cannot do works to be cast out. One is cast out becasue Jesus “never knew you” not because of what we do or do not do… for then it is not by grace through faith but works.
blessings,
iggy
November 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Julie,
One more bible reference– 2 Timothy 2:11-15. Don’t know if it was already mentioned in the incredible tangle of comments above. These verses must be where Chad was coming from. Reading them made me say “ouch.” Very confusing. It’s easy to interpret as saying women aren’t saved unless they have children (???)
November 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Yes, those are interesting verses. I’ve heard stories of missionaries who went to countries (I think it was Romania, now that I think about it) where the women were very literally interpreting verse 15 and were difficult to teach or preach to because they believed as long as they had a child at some point, they were saved. This led to the sad case of women feeling like having no children would mean they weren’t saved, so childless women were particularly in a bad position, and some women were going out getting pregnant so that they might be saved.
There is an example of taking Paul’s supposedly clear words and admonitions, and definitely using it wrongly. It was also an interesting story as the missionary told how he, when he explained that differently, the room just grew deathly quiet and the women got stony looks on their faces. They’d kind of had this “salvation by having children” card to use against their husbands for years.
Fascinating story…
November 17th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Scripture has to back things up.
Sure.
I prefer “rightly understood by proper translation, Scripture, in its context, should inform our understanding”.
The issue in Timothy hinges on translation…
November 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Wow. That’s sad.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Someone said they believe Paul’s admonition that he does not permit women to pastoring over menwas a cultural issue of that time. Paul mentions the cause and effect of the Fall as his reason. The Fall is not for any particular time or culture. It permeates them all. So Paul’s admonition is for all of the Church Age. Only once did Paul state his own opinion in a matter of which he clarified it was just his opinion. Not permitting a woman to teach with spiritual authority over men is not that instance. Everyone wants to say that we all have different interpretations of scriptures. But what matters is the Author’s intent of meaning.And you keep on making presumptions, Julie. I did not require a bunch of scriptures from you on your position about women pastors being in sin. All I need is one that would utterly wipe out what is taught in 1 Timothy. If only one scripture is needed, here it is:1 Timothy 2:12 “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to keep silence.” Now, find a scripture verse that makes that null and void in the NT.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Chris - the verse you quoted is about saints within the body of Christ not to the exclusion of gender roles in leadership. Would Paul’s teaching about the husband being head over his wife be cultural and therefore not absolute?
November 17th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I already said that there isn’t one that is blatant, and that the difference in your take and my take is in how we interpret that original scripture - the “proof” you require is impossible because it is in our interpretations of it that this supposed “proof” exists. Chris L. and others have touched on the variances in interpretations. Again, I’ve said this all before. Numerous times.
Were you there, when the author wrote it? How do you know you have the correct intent of the meaning? Really. How do you know? Does God tell you that? Do you think I’m willing to settle for anything less than the same, and that perhaps God doesn’t always reveal his Word to us all in the same way. (This, again, is something I already said before.)
Regarding presumptions, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but yes, we’re all making presumptions, if you don’t want to put too fine a point on it. None of use really knows each other. We’re working this out with the typed word. We’re presuming we’re correct and sincere in our belief and some of us are wrongly assuming that, because we are sincere and know our own hearts, surely the others must be wrong.
No.
I do not feel that I am wrong or going against God in my stance on this issue. I do not have flagrant attitudes nor guilt. But I also grant that there are going to be others with just the same sincerity and direction from God who differ and I am OK with that as long as you, for example, do not keep coming at me in a way that first says I’m emotional, then throws out some statements with difficult logic that I have a hard time following, all the while demanding I respond to you in the way you want me to respond while I feel like it’s already been taken care of. And then repeating this times ten.
Why? I mean, why? Why NT? Why “null and void”? Is that how it works? Find me some NT scripture that negates, oh, I don’t know, what Will said about Phoebe. Find me some NT scripture that proves to me you know exactly the intent of Paul in your interpretation here. Find me some NT scripture that proves those Romanian women wrong in their interpretation, and then provide an explanation as to how they could be so wrong when they took Paul’s words so literally. Find me some NT scripture that proves Paul was speaking literally for all cultures and times in this case, while some of the other admonitions that he suggested that do not happen are OK to drop on the side of the road.
Actually, don’t. There’s nothing you can point out that I haven’t already considered, prayed about, heard, read or thought about. And yet, the conclusion I came to after all of that is not your conclusion, but a different one. Oh my.
Regarding my apparently insufficient use of scripture in the standard, acceptable way in which I would garner respect if I were to do it right, here is my explanation.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
What Will said about Pheobe doesn’t make the case for her being a pastor. Due to what is said by Paul about it, I highly doubt that she was. The definitions given were many for the word “servant”. That does not mean that she was all of them. She was not a pastor. Servant, yes. If she were a pastor then how did she fulfill the requirements in 1 Timothy 3? Only men can do that. What an odd question to ask about how I was taught about that verse in Timothy. Funny, it is plain to even one who is unregenerate. However, we have no need that any should teach us for we have the Holy Spirit. Truth is eternal and is all that will matter in the end of all things. If simple scriptures like this one is is hard to understand, then we are in big trouble. I find your “God” to be a schizophrenic God if His Word can mean many different things according to one’s interpretation! What does the Author mean? is a crucial key to studying the Word of God so that we are not ensnared in heresy. When you mock sola scriptura, you are mocking God and His Word. You are incredible!
November 17th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
1 Timothy 2:15
In Ephesus, the patron goddess of the city was Artemis (Diana), and it is estimated the 250,000+ women came each year to the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (one of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World), to the Tree of Life (two intertwined linden trees) in the Paradise (garden) of Artemis. Their reason for coming to this temple was to be kept safe during childbirth (30-40% of women during the first century died during childbirth or due to complications from childbirth).
Here, Paul is writing to Timothy (in Ephesus) to advise the women in the church that it is Jesus who will keep them safe - in life and death - during childbirth, and not Artemis. How tempting do you think it would have been in that culture where everyone believes that Artemis and her priests could keep you safe during childbirth to NOT go to that temple to protect yourself and your child during birth.
Ephesus had huge issues with power and sexual roles. According to the legends of the city, it was founded by the Amazon warriors - giant women who cut off one of their breasts so that they could best shoot a bow. Women held the positions of power in the Buliteriat (sp?), the council which ran the city. Artemis - a fertility goddess - was the key source of worship there prior to (and during) the reign of the Caesars.
Paul’s comments come against this backdrop, which is why these passages are often seen as contextual rather than literal prohibitions.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Well, no. When you question “sola scriptura” you are questioning a human systematic theology which is open to a wide number of interpretations. The only “god” you are questioning is the false one men set up to worship in the form of man-made theological systems, and not the God of the universe…
November 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Chris L.– thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I wasn’t mocking scripture, Sherry. Nor was I mocking God. I would never do that.
I don’t think I’m incredible.
Exactly — well put. I think I mentioned numerous times that the Spirit is vital in revealing scripture. That is what I rely upon, the Spirit to reveal the meaning to me, since I do not have a lot of scholarly background. That’s very much it.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Sola Scriptura does not mean there is one “correct” interpretation of Scripture that is given to us from some authority and we all walk lock-step with it. If that were the case, Luther fought Rome for nothing. Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is self-authenticating and that each believer can read it and be led by the Spirit while reading. To say there is one “correct” interpretation given from the Church or some authority is basically what the RCC believes.
That is why Christians can disagree on these secondary issues. We can all read the Scripture and with the Spirit’s leading, we come to our own conclusions. There is room for these issues for “binding and loosing” within communities. In a sense, just like politics, all theology is local too.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Sherry C,
You do a good Jesus impression, you just need a big white throne and it’ll be complete.
So, let’s get over the woman pastoring thing, because apparently if you think women can pastor, you’re going to hell. Let’s use your same standard then, instead of Jesus Righteousness for us.
Eschatology. Pretribbers, are they out? What about preterists, because you know, they don’t see any future prophecy coming to pass like a millenium guy would? What if I believed that Islam’s end time prophecy anti-parallells Christian eschatology, and that their Messiah to come will be our AntiChrist? Am I out? Because that’s a pretty ‘fresh view’ comparitavely.
So, God knows exactly what He means in His Word, so He knows exactly what is going to happen in the End of The Age, so who’s right? Are the people who aren’t right going to hell? Are they worshipping a different ‘god’? I mean, eschatology….pretty clear verses, you know, and LOTS of em too? So those who ’screw it up’ they must not have the Holy Spirit I guess.
Where do you stop the judgment on peoples’ souls? Not just woman pastoralship, but you have to go to everything. Eschatology, Angels, Spiritual Warfare, how often you must read the Word, swearing, Arminism, Calvinism, and so on and so on. We’d have to judge everything, and condemn everyone.
But wait…I’m not the one with many crowns, and “THE WORD OF GOD” is not written on me.
So lets not tell a BROTHER OR SISTER “you worship a false god”, especially when you don’t know them, at all. Thank you.
Guess we need to “hold on to what is good and get rid of everything evil” and “love each other as I have love you”.
But surely, you can be wrong. You’re just not willing to be wrong on this, and you might not be wrong, but your unwillingness to give grace to others, even the grace enough to say “you are my brother, my sister” says something VERY serious about your heart. Give much thought and prayer to this.
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Many scriptures can have two meanings to them (I don’t think I have heard of any more than that per certain scriptures) but there are no scriptures that can have a wrong meaning to them. On eschatology we learn in part. It is revealed more and more. And many passages aren’t as yet that clear cut. But what is unclear with 1 Timothy 2:12? Only that you want to take licence with it and say it was for the culture at that time. Yes, it was for them and the culture had alot to do with Paul saying it. However, when Paul mentions the cause and effect of the Fall with his statement about women pastors, I take it to mean that that is for the whole church age. The Fall’s consequences permeates all cultures of all time. And I have a problem with anyone loosing what the apostles bound, and vice versa. That mandate was given to Peter, an apostle of the new Church. God’s Word is complete and there are no addendums to this verse having been changed. Heresies always gain a foothold when one looses and binds in opposition to the Apostles’ inspired teachings.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I agree Sherry. But to some people, Eschatology is just as ‘clear’ as these verses about women. Who’s the judge?
So do you repent of slandering your brothers and sisters though? You didn’t address that.
Joe
November 17th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Let me clarify something. A church can be solidly evangelical and have a woman pastor. Although I feel strongly about it that does not pronounce Ichabod on that church. Let us not assign heaven and hell to every issue, and let us also realize that in things like this God is not “all or nothing”.
Are we saying that if a woman preaches the core truth in a church that God will not empower her even though it is unscriptural? It is not one of the cardinal doctrines of the faith. I would sit under an orthodox woman preacher rather than a liberal male. It is not a salvation issue, but it still is important.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
My last words on this topic are simply these:
Mercy and Grace.
If we, as followers of Jesus Christ, cannot show each other a little mercy and grace when we disagree, then we are at best ineffectual in our witness to the world and at worst a stumbling block for those seeking the Prince of Peace.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:47 am
This may seem burdensome to you guys, but I have been following this thread, and both sides of the issue seem to be muddled under a lot of bickering, insinuations, and unclear logic, with some “gasp”…..emotion in there too……though I do not have much of a problem with emotion because it is just a hyper-extension of the will of a being and all of us engage in it to a point, It would at least benefit me, if you guys are still keeping up with this blog, to lay out the sides of each with scriptures and we could try to work through the meanings together. Our God is not a schizophrenic God who reveals different “truths” to a different child of his. He is consistent and his Word does not hold contradictions, we must find the true Biblical position. Though I am waiting to further engage in discussion of my beliefs on the subject until someone can concisely describe the arguement at hand, I am willing to continue this discussion. Please let me know if you guys are still interested in discussion.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Chris N,
Like you, I read the entire thread and comments at the weekend. I do not think it is so much a matter of God revealing different truths to different children; rather the problem lies with us, His children. I am sure Chris L can very concisely summarize the state of the “argument†in a new post for discussion because he does that kind of thing well (even when he includes pot shots at either of the Clintons ;
November 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Chris N,
Like you, I read the entire thread and comments at the weekend. I do not think it is so much a matter of God revealing different truths to different children; rather the problem lies with us, His children. I am sure Chris L can very concisely summarize the state of the “argument†in a new post for discussion because he does that kind of thing well (even when he includes pot shots at either of the Clintons
but what will that achieve?
The issue of women Pastors or women in “spiritual authority†over men has been debated ad infinitum. I actually find the term “spiritual authority†vague and subjective. Most people come to this particular discussion with already formed opinions, quote their verses and maintain their positions. This is a general statement and I am not accusing anyone of doing that on this thread. I have never actually seen anyone change their point of view in the course of a blog comment thread. For me personally, Priscilla, Phoebe and maybe Junias (whose gender I have seen hotly disputed on a similar discussion at another blog) plus the fact that in the culture I grew up as a Christian, I encountered many women missionaries and Bible teachers almost completely settles the issue for me. I am still willing to learn, though I believe this is a secondary issue.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Comment from Robbo:-
For me personally, Priscilla, Phoebe and maybe Junias (whose gender I have seen hotly disputed on a similar discussion at another blog) plus the fact that in the culture I grew up as a Christian, I encountered many women missionaries and Bible teachers almost completely settles the issue for me. I am still willing to learn, though I believe this is a secondary issue.
Me too….
November 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
[...] I don’t know too many people who don’t have the “Conviction that I am Right” disease (including, of course, yours truly). Recent comments (now at 153 and counting) on a post by Julie on the blog CRN.Info and Analysis readily illustrate this. Of course, people can actually be correct in their convictions, but some of the problems that accompany this disease are arrogance, self-righteousness, Phariseeism and the elevating one’s self while simultaneously denigrating others. These problems are all in evidence in the comments on the post mentioned above. [...]