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 o