| Author | Message | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 931 Registered: 7-2004 |
I've been loosely following a discussion that has been carried on at R/S (where else?) with respect to traditions in the church, and it finally has boiled down to discussing the pros and cons (mostly cons) of women's ordination. Here is the thread: http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=911 Again, I am a pew warmer, not a trained apologist. I also have no particular bent one way or the other, but I'm curious about your feelings in this regard. I can understand Paul giving Timothy the instructions that he did, and with regard to the acceptable offices of the church in the first and second century church traditions. Women, in those days, were for birthing babies and caring for the home. If you go to the Middle East today you will find them veiled and restricted in much the same manner, if not more so. Thus Paul's recommendations regarding women holding offices in the church, and in particular holding teaching roles, were to make it taboo. I also know that it is very easy to take the position of saying that every word of scripture is inspired, and that if it was good enough for the early church, it is good enough for now. I beg that times have changed since then, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. Women are holding many positions of responsibility, and even of power in the corporate world. Even so, in most denominations. I attend a Presbyterian church and the ministers are fairly evenly divided between being men and women. This has allowed the church I attend to expand its ministry exponentially. I am going to venture that Paul's instructions had as much to do with the mores and traditions of his day as they could possibly have had to do with his attitude about women. After all, it was Paul who said that in Christ there is no Jew, nor Gentile, nor man, nor woman ... all are equally blessed by the Gospel. If this is a subject that has already been dealt with here, please forgive me. I bring topics here when I become so frustrated by my lack of voice over at R/S. You people have been wonderfully understanding about this and I thank you for that with my whole heart. The thing that fries me is that Sdazeal keeps bringing up the fact that Paul had cautioned against having women teaching men because some of the women in the Ephesian church had been easily swayed by a false teacher there. He keeps going on and on as though only women can be swayed by a false teacher. Adventism was originated by a false teacher, and that false teacher was a woman, and how many men have gone gaggling after her over the years! Why is it that the Adventist church is so unwilling to ordain women when it was a woman who validated and helped to cement into place every basic plank of their platform?! | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 430 Registered: 7-2004  |
Ordination of women is quite the thorny and divisive issue, so I am certain to step on someone'e toes with my response. This question is highly related to your view of Scripture. If you do not believe in the infallibility of Scripture, then the answer is easy. Do whatever you like. If you do believe in Scriptural infallibility, then you have to address whether there are commands in Scripture that are specific to a culture and time and can be safely ignored now. And if that is the case, which commands can be ignored. My largest concern is what I have seen happen in most of the large church organizations that have concluded that Paul's commands about ordaining women were strictly cultural. Each of the mainline churches has gone further and further down the road of reducing Scripture to a set of fallible human writings. Nearly every one of these churches is now struggling with the question of ordaining homosexuals and defining homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. For a brief article on the pros and cons you might want to look here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg7.htm I would not leave or select a church over the issue of the ordination of women, but their view on Scriptural fallibility would impact my decision. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 400 Registered: 8-2004  |
 There were both men and women 'workers' spreading the Gospel even in Paul's day (for example Aquila and Priscilla who BOTH instructed Apollos), and he commended several women for the work they did for the church. This is not to say that he did not ALSO tell the Corinthian women to keep quiet in church. It's just to say that there's more to the story that a few 'proof texts' on either side. I also think that we sometimes pigeonhole Paul to the cultural strictures that we currently see in the middle east as if that were the way it was in Paul's day too. As a matter of fact, somethings were the same, and some were different! Even 'Bible Times' did not have a consistent, unchanging set of customs. Nor do we fully understand the customs they DID have. Blessings, Mary | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 402 Registered: 8-2004 |
Oh, there's something else I'd like to add. Back when I was in the SDARM's Bible School, a friend and I went to Elmshaven. There, among other shockers (like silver napkinrings, a gorgeous stained glass window, king Arther and his knights marching around the tiles on the fireplace) I saw Ellen White's ministerial license. According to that piece of paper she was a licensed minister. The word 'ordained' had been crossed out, so I asked the helpful lady who was showing us around why that was. She said, IIRC, that was because Ellen was not ordained by humans, but rather set apart by God. The whole visit there gave me MUCH food for thought!! Blessings, Mary | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1275 Registered: 7-2003  |
A former pastor at my church had been requested by the elders to provide guidelines from scripture about the role of women in the church. And so he went through every single reference of women in a particular role. One of the comments he said about the command for women to keep quiet in church, I thought, was quite interesting. This pastor occasionally went to other countries to teach. And in other countries, women are frequently not allowed the education that men are. So, he was speaking in Russia, and he said the women in the congregation kept interrupting with questions. He said sometimes they went off on wild rabbit trails taking him from the message he felt God wanted him to give. So, he likened Paul's comment about keeping quiet in church to that situation...wait until the service is done, then ask your husbands at home without disrupting the message for everyone else. Obviously, he didn't see that statement as one of quieting women per se, just trying to keep order during his sermon. I guess you could get as many opinions as people on those texts, especially as people don't want to unnecessarily seem prejudice. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3355 Registered: 12-2003  |
There is such a division even in evangelical circles between the "complementarians", or "traditionalists", and the "egalitarians". I've been reading a truly fascinating book called Men and Women in the Church by Sarah Sumner, Ph.D., who is head of the ministry department at Azua Pacific University. She earned her doctorate from Trinity Western University and had among her professors the rather well-known Wayne Grudem. One of the things I'm learningówhich I never understood clearly beforeóis the church tradition that assumed that women were mentally inferior to men and therefore ill-equipped to handle the "things of God". Even Augustine wrote about women in this vein. Sarah says that among her undergraduate students at Azusa many young women BELIEVE they are inferior to men and that God prefers His men over His women. While I always knew there were historical concerns over women an chattel, etc., which colored even the church, I never before understood that the church itself has intentionally kept alive a tradition that women were limited in their church involvement not because of Biblical mandates but because of a long religious tradition that both teaches and assumes women are intrinsically unsuited for church leadership. Sarah also points out an interesting thing I'd never considered: as children, boys and girls are equally encouraged to excel in Biblical studies and student/body life leadership. When they reach adulthood, however, this emphasis changes. My SDA heritage kept me somewhat insulated from these historic church traditions. I believe my formative years were more colored by feminism than by Christian tradition. Feminism brings its own bias and warp to the issue. That being said, we are left with the Biblical instructions given by Paul. As Mary pointed out, though, there are clearly Biblical examples of women teaching men informally. Aquilla and Priscilla are mentioned in the same breath as teaching the already-established teacher, Apollos, in their own home. Aquilla and Priscilla were, apparently, the leaders of a house church, and they were both significant in the leadership and teaching of this church. There is both OT and NT mention of prophetesses, and in 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul makes his famous comments about women praying with their heads covered, he says this in the context of women praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered and thus dishonoring their heads. Paul does not hint in this chapter that women thus praying and prophesying are in private. What this chapter seems to be saying, in his discourse on men with uncovered heads and women with covered heads, is that women are to be women and men are to be men. Barclay, in his commentary on this passage, points out that in Paul's culture, only immoral women uncovered their heads in public. He suggested that in their new-found freedom and identities as Christians, women may have thrown off conventions and dived into the life of the church without respect for what their lack of conventions suggested to those around them. I have understood chapter 11, therefore, to be saying essentially: Women, don't barge into church life with no respect for the roles of men and of women. Don't think you can abandon being a modest, respectful woman and be taken seriously. Don't think you can try to be a man in a man's world and be considered credible. You are a woman, and women have their own God-given authority and power and strength. If you resent your feminity and attempt to ignore or abandon it, no one will take you seriously. If you flaunt the conventions, no one will listen to you when you do prophesy and pray. The fact that Paul says all this in the context of women prophesying and praying suggests corporate worship. Women, apparently, were expected to prophesy and pray publicly. Public prayer and prophesy certainly is contributing to both men and women. Paul was simply saying that our identities are God-given, and when we forcefully attempt to throw off the inherent differences between men and women, we lose credibility. We are then play-acting instead of being authentic. Also, respect seems to be in view here. Out of respect for the impression we make on others (or the distractions we might cause), we are to be mutually modest and honoring of social conventions so as not to excite distraction and defensiveness. I personally tend to lean more toward a complementarian view (men and women both have equally signficant roles in church life, but the roles are somewhat different) because I see women and men having significant differences of temperament. I don't see it as "wrong" for women to be pastors, but I personally think it's often more--oh, I don't know the word--efficient, smooth, solid--for men to have the lead/senior pastor roles. Clearly God gives spiritual gifts according to His choice and sovereign will. We are not in a position to thwart what God has given. All this, however, requires us to be first submitted to Jesus Himself and to His word. If we are not individually and collectively submitted to Him alone, we'll have a hard time recognizing His gifting and calling because our own biases will blind us. I don't have a set-in-stone answer even for myself in this area. I'm more comfortable than I used to be, however, with allowing these things to be assigned by God and to allow Him to convict me and others as to His will in individual situations. Yes, I believe that the church was never intended to be "run by women". No, I do not believe men have a corner on God's spiritual gifting or have sole authority to teach and lead. The minute I think I have figured out how God thinks, I discover something that doesn't fit that box. It has been very insteresting to me to see how God has developed Richard and me as we have worked together in ministry over the past 7 or so years. I have watched God develop a true gift of leadership in Richard. Before we really knew Jesus, Richard had a lot of administrative intuition, but he wasn't really a "leader". I've watched God develop a true, deep authority in him that is the outflowing of the Holy Spirit. I've watched Richard become confident and decisive and aware of those he serves. I truly see him as a leader, as someone I trust and on whom I depend for sound counsel and advice, etc. He does not shirk from "taking the helm", so to speak, and he is clearly in charge but in a quiet way with a servant's heart. Conversely, I've always been a teacher, but I've never been a deep Bible student. Since FAF formed as a ministry of Trinity in 1998, God has sovereignly led me in pursuing Bible study, and HE Himself has taught me from His word. I often look at our FAF Bible studies as I work on them and think, "I didn't come up with that." Sometimes I have to re-read them to remember what I actually wrote. God has been sovereignly leading me through the Scriptures and teaching me things that I would normally never have seen. Several months ago Richard and I were talking about our Friday night studies, and I asked him if he wanted to lead Bible study sometimes. He said, "Not really--God has given you the gift of teaching, not me." Yet I totally lean on Richard for structuring not only our evenings with FAF but for the big-picture vision and common sense insight to make this ministry function. I can only speak of my own experience, but I can see God working in us as a couple to do what neither of us could do on our own. God has put His work in front of each of us (Ephe 2:10), and He is personally equipping us to do what He has given us at this moment to do. God does this for us all, and our calling is to learn to trust Him to be the head of the church in His sovereign wisdom and grace. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1301 Registered: 3-2005 |
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Ric_b on this issue. There is actually legitimate scholarly debate on whether 1 Cor. 14 where it says women should keep silent in the churches should really be in the scripture text. There is some evidence that a scribe might have inserted this into the text. Because 1 Cor 14:34 "They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says." Well, I am not sure where the law says that. So for this text, you can be an inerrantist and still question whether this is part of scripture. However, such is not the case with 1 Tim 2:12,13 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man...For Adam was formed first..." Paul here appeals to the order of creation. This is also an airtight case against the ministry of Ellen White. The Biblical principle is that the senior pastor, or the head pastor must be a man, but well qualified women should be allowed to teach in the church, as long as she is under authority of a male pastor. Ric is right. There are almost no truly evangelical churches who accept women head pastors, who really hold to inerrancy, and liberalism is where this always leads. Even in the SDA church, they are even allowing a discussion on whether the marriage institution in Genesis mandates GENDER! Huh??? Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1302 Registered: 3-2005 |
I was posting at the same time as Colleen, but I agree that the FAF Bible study does not violate the Biblical principle, as Colleen is under authority of the church pastor as well as Richard, her husband. It would be a shame to waste the teaching talents of Colleen, because FAF has truly been a blessing to me. Stan | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 577 Registered: 4-2000  |
In my church, an Evangelical Free Church, women can do anything except serving as a Pastor or Elder. Women serve communion, take up offerings, lead small in-home "Life Groups," are interviewed as part of the sermon, baptize their children (usually as a single parent or as the sole Christian parent), do the church banking, serve on committees, children's ministries, adult ministries, run the church office, sing in the choir, lead music, provide special music, etc. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3359 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Dennis--it's the same in our church. Women in charge of children's ministries are also called Pastors of ch. min. Colleen | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 272 Registered: 10-2005 |
I am persuaded to believe this is more due to culture. Is there anywhere in the bible that says this is not to be done? Stan and Ric, I would curiosly like some proof text. I'm not seeing the denominations that I'm aware of that ordain women ordaining homosexuals or leaning in that direction. Ric, I'm wondering where this information you have heard came from, the source, and if you have anything that can show who did these studies. It has been obvious to me that often studies are done to lean towards a particular belief already in place. For example, health studies by Seventh-day Adventists... I am not in any way arguing with the roles of men or women. REV. SUZAN JOHNSON COOK - The first African-American woman to be elected senior pastor of an American Baptist congregation in its 200-year history: http://clinton4.nara.gov/Initiatives/OneAmerica/BIO-SJC.html In honor of Coretta Scott King, here is a picture of her with Rev. Suzan D. Johnson Cook: http://www.dodgeglobe.com/photogallery/011805/pages/page_5.html John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Lynne | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1304 Registered: 3-2005 |
Lynne, Check out 1 Timothy 2:12,13. I posted this text above. Paul clearly appeals to creation order. This is also the text that clearly rules out any possibility of EGW being a prophet. There are a lot of other arguments also, but every liberal denomination started down this road including SDA. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1064 Registered: 10-2004  |
The 1 Timothy text Stan mentioned is quite clear. It says:
Not only does he mention the order of creation, which is not cultural, but he also says that Adam was not deceived but that the woman was deceived--which is also not a cultural issue. Of course, EGW says that Adam WAS deceived along with Eve, so SDAs already don't believe that part of the text! So I guess it's only natural for SDAs to believe in having women pastors. And of course, as Stan said, EGW herself violated this command of Paul's. Stan, you wrote: "Because 1 Cor 14:34 'They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.' Well, I am not sure where the law says that." Paul may be referring to Genesis 3:16 which says that the woman must be in submission to her husband.
Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on February 07, 2006) | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 273 Registered: 10-2005 |
Stan, Every liberal denomination??? Do you have a list of these liberal denominations. The SDAs came out of the Millerite Movement which are legalistic cults or sects. They are not just another denomination that started out liberal. Can you tell me of an evangelical gospel preaching denomination that came out of the Millerite movement (other than WCG now). What about Phoebe who was a church leader in Romans 16 - 1I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a] of the church in Cenchrea. 2I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. And what about Acts 18:24-26 which says: 24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[a] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. According to the above scripture, men can learn from women. Timothy 2:11-15 The text that you gave me does not say that women should not be ordained ministers. I think it is being taken out of context to say that. I don't believe we need to look at that text to determine that Ellen White was not a Prophet. She was not in the bible and she taught a false gospel. In fact, if I see Ellen White in that text, I would see all women in that text. We should all be silent. Acts 10:34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism. Lynne | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1306 Registered: 3-2005 |
Liberal denominations who started out by ordaining women: Methodist--some of these are very liberal on gay marriage Episcopalian--now have officially installed a gay bishop Presbyterian church USA--they have become very liberal on many fronts Evangelical Lutheran--very liberal If you don't think the SDA church is liberal, then I would refer you to the Spectrum forum where they talk about gay marriage where the Sabbath School commentary is allowing for the fact that gender was not an issue in marriage in Genesis. All the groups mentioned above deny inerrancy of scripture, and have many other errors as well. The great denominations do not allow women head pastors and are following the Biblical model such as Lutheran churches--Wisconsin and missouri synods, Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterian church, EV free, Southern Baptist, United Reformed. What other way is there to interpret that text Jeremy posted above in 1 Tim 2:11-15? Those examples Lynne that you gave, not one were examples of women being in authority. When Paul spells out the criteria for deacons, bishops, and elders, he always says it should be a man. These are definitive statements. There is nothing cultural at all about the rationale that Adam was created first, and Eve was deceived. But liberal churches always find a way to get around what is fairly clear in order to cow-tow to the culture. The church doesn't lead anymore by example, but it just follows the world and becomes like the world. Stan | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 268 Registered: 6-2001  |
My church is Free Methodist, which is not the same as the more liberal United Methodist. My church doesn't have a woman pastor, but we have woman preach sometimes, since we have women in our church studying to be pastors (I live near the only Free Methodist university). I admit to being skeptical at first of the women pastors, and I don't know what a woman head pastor would be like, but the sermons the women give are ones that men could never give. (Of course, thinking back on the thread that Christianity is too feminine, that may not a be an argument in its favor) I guess I would have to judge a woman-led church by its fruit before making a decision one way or another. Personally I don't think it is wrong, but it is hard to imagine all these women going to seminary if they don't feel the call to preach. On the other topic, I don't see the Free Methodist church heading towards ordaining homosexuals. Openly, Hannah | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 425 Registered: 7-2000 |
Let me add some others to Stans list of liberal denominations: The UCC---one of the most liberal and extreme denominations. The Disciples of Christ. But, there is the other end of the spectrum and Hannahs' post illustrates the problems on that end. The other end are those charasmatic/pentecostal/non-denominational types that emphasize the 'gifts', the 'calling' or the 'fruit'. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to examine a church by its' fruit. Individuals yes, but not a corporate body. Corporate bodies you examine doctrinally and there is no basis for women as elders/lead or teaching pastors. As for the 'calling', if the Bible says that women are not to occupy these positions---then who would be behind that supposed call? Or that supposed gift? I have never seen a church or denomination with women elders or ordained pastors that didn't teach serious Biblical errors. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1307 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree Loneviking. Lynne, that link you gave us above about Rev. Suzan Cook of the American Baptists. This illustrates our point so well. Here is another denomination that has gone very liberal. Inerrancy means absolutely nothing if 1 Timothy 2:11-15 can just be so lightly dismissed as having no meaning with respect to Paul's appealing to the order of Creation. The criteria for a Bishop as described by Paul in 1 Tim.3 "An overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (notice not the wife of one husband) and there are so many other examples of this. Stan | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 269 Registered: 6-2001 |
"I have never seen a church or denomination with women elders or ordained pastors that didn't teach serious Biblical errors." Please let me know what you see to be serious Biblical errors in my church. (other than that they are a little conservative when it comes to alcohol, and they half-heartedly hold to the idea of a Sunday Sabbath) http://www.freemethodistchurch.org Curiously, Hannah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3362 Registered: 12-2003 |
The problem, of course, with these questions is that in human terms, these ideas are "fighting words". I believe that in a natural human setting, the idea of submission, male headship, etc. actually has the potential to be dangerous. Part of Eve's curse in Genesis 3 was that her desire would be for her husband, but he would rule over her. That word "desire" is used only three times in the OT: one is here, one is when God tells Cain that sin is crouching at his door and desires to have him, and one is in Song of Solomon. The Hebrew underlying this word has sexual, overpowering, controlling connotations. Part of Eve's curse was to desire to "own" or control her husband. The flip side of this curse was that her husband would "rule over" her. So, the age-old power struggle between men and women, with women's micro-management of their men being counter-balanced by men's brute force cowing their women, began. In Christ that curse is undone. But unless we are in Christ, the reality of wives submitting and husbands loving sacrificially makes no sense. It sounds sniveling and self-abnegating. Similarly, the Biblical idea of male headship in the church sounds arbitrary and chauvenistic. And, in terms of natural man not born from above, it would play out as chauvenism and power struggles. The problem I see in trying to come up with solutions to these disagreements (which, by the way, nowhere seem to be "testing truths" that should divide the body in themselves) is that we tend to analyze the idea logically (which we must) without necessarily also applying the spiritual truth of the Word. When we submit ourselves to the truth of God's Word instead of merely addressing the problem of women's leadership, we find that we must be humble before these Biblical passages. I agree with Stan and Loneviking in that I can't ignore the passages that clearly teach women have a different leadership role than men. In recognizing that fact, my response should not be either passive giving in nor fighting for my rights. Instead, my job is to ask God how to live as a true Christ-follower within the boundaries of His Word. The issue for me is not primarily which churches are teaching truth or error. Even churches that have clean, Biblical statements of faith can have deep brokenness and corruption inside. The issue for me is being willing to allow the authority of God's Spirit to equip me in the ways He chooses and to give me the grace to honor the leadership He puts in place. In accepting the words of Scripture, there is much humbling that must happen. Not only do women have to acknowledge that in Christ we have no business trying to control the men (and other women) in our lives, but men must humble themselves before the fact that in their leadership they must be willing to be personally sacrificed in their love for and dedication to facilitating the holiness and cleansing of those they serve (see Ephesians 5:25-27). These Biblical truths only have true power in our lives when we submit to God, offer ourselves as living sacrifices, and allow His Word to convict and transformm our hearts. We can't talk about these ideas as impersonal principles. They are personal calls to humility. Colleen |
