| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2199 Registered: 3-2005 |
I am sorry to see the macgregor ministry supporting this aberrant teaching. Mwh, Just look at every reference in the New Testament that speaks of elders in Timothy and Titus, and every time it is very specific that an elder should be a man. Here is just one example in 1 Timothy where an elder is referred to as an overseer: 1"The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil." Notice it is not the wife of one husband that is to be an overseer. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2200 Registered: 3-2005 |
The reason Wayne Grudem has chosen not to try to refute the teachings of the DVD in question, is because he has already refuted their teachings in his articles and books and he just came out with a new book referenced here: http://albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-10-23 How can he refute any teaching more clearly than come out with a new book? Stan | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 480 Registered: 7-2000 |
The reason Wayne Grudem has chosen not to try to refute the teachings of the DVD in question, is because he has already refuted their teachings in his articles and books and he just came out with a new book referenced here: --------------------------------- Also, how do you refute something to someone (or a group) that has already decided that the clear instructions of the Bible are to be ignored? Even worse, they construct arguments that sure look and sound much like what one can find in Adventism to support their views. I won't debate these folks about this issue as there is nothing to be debated. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 435 Registered: 10-2002  |
"Can women be pastors?" To answer that question, maybe we should ask another question: "Can a woman become Pope?" Before anyone thinks the comparison of the two questions irreverent, I'd like you to consider and examine the foundation of our questions. Sometimes we get into great debates about things that are built on foundations, which, after examining, may render a lot of our debates somewhat unnecessary. The problem with the Pope question, of course, is that the papal institution is not Biblical in the least. So to ask if a woman can be "pope" is a moot point. Howabout "pastor"? Well, the word "pastor" is mentioned only ONE time in the entire New Testament (and once in the OT in Jeremiah). Yet today it is the dominant ministry and we argue dogmatically about who can and cannot be a "pastor". In the one NT occurance of the word, it is listed alongside (or rather at the tail end of) apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher, and then finally, pastor. Again, "pastor" is dominant today. We do see evangelists (but usually we expect them to have "pastoral credentials"). And we do see teachers, but they are not usually recognized in the sense of a spiritual calling. The first two listed, apostles & prophets, are contentiously debated about -- although they have much, much more mention in the NT than "pastors" do. If we look carefully, we'll see that our idea of "church" is not Biblical. In the Bible, "church" is not a building. Nor is it a "service". It is either 1) an identity, or 2) an assembly of the church. The meaning of "church" is "the called-out ONES". onfiltered= people. A "church service" as it exists today is NOT a God-ordained thing. It is not like the services that went on in the Tabernacle or the Temple, which had specific instructions and specific ministers. NOT LIKE THE LEVITES. We need to think about that, because the way we argue about ministers today sounds much like we think there is a modern equivalent to a Levitical priesthood in the church. We are still holding onto an Old Covenant idea of "church" (we transplanted the Tabernacle/Temple idea and called it "Church"), and I believe we are also holding onto an Old Covenant idea of "clergy" and "leadership". I'm not saying to "do away" with our churches, but we do need to recognize that our churches & services are TRADITIONS, not divinely decreed institutions. The Church (the called-out ones) itself does often exist within churches, and She does often "go to church" on the weekends. But She is the Bride, the Church. She is the reality, She is the divine institution. Who you are has been divinely instituted. Our church buildings & services have mostly not been divinely instituted. Therefore, Colossians 2:8 applies fully: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." We have all taught and forced people to do this and that in church, and believed they must or mustn't do such & such. We have often been quite passionate about these things, and we even cite Bible verses to support what we're saying! But if they are not divine decrees, then what we are actually doing is binding people to traditions. Or forbidding them from participating in TRADITIONS. Human traditions. Of course not all these traditions are bad, but we must recognize they are indeed TRADITIONS. When we use the Word of God to forbid certain people from participating in what we SAY is "the service of God's House" but is actually human tradition, then we are misusing His Word. We are then putting people in bondage. We are taking them captive to human traditions. Similar things were done with the Word of God throughout history. Notably, in America during slavery and during segregation. The staunchest supporters of these two institutions used the Word of God to prove their positions. But their positions were based on tradition, not the Bible. Because they mistook their traditions for divine decree, they felt like they were engaging in a battle of Biblical principles. Finally people were set free from the human traditions. When we argue about how much women can and can't do "in church", we are arguing about how much we should or shouldn't keep women in bondage to our human tradition -- the church service & building. God is setting women free! Yes, there are those passages in the NT about women in the church. But until we shed our human tradition blinders and see "church" through God's eyes, we will continue to misunderstand and misuse these Scriptures. We have known how to meet "for church", but we need to start learning to meet "as the Church" instead. I don't claim to understand each of those NT passages about women. But I do understand what the Church is. And let me tell you, WE are the Church. Not just in wherever we are, but all of us who gather here on the FAF Forum! We meet the description and do all the things that the Biblical "Church" did with the exception of being able to receive the Lord's Supper together. (Although we clearly do feed on His body and blood together spiritually!!) Now, who wants to start arguing about how much women can and cannot do here---here among the Church? For one, Colleen has been like a pastor here. She has been a true shepherd, giving exhortation, encouragement, care and advice. I am so thankful that God put her here and gave her wisdom in caring, loving, and teaching others. Although her husband is the administrator, Richard does not do as much posting as Colleen does. The practical pastoring ("pastoring" means "shepherding") is done by Colleen. And when Richard needs to step in, he does. Now who wants to say that women must be silent here---here in the Church? I am further blessed by all the women who comment here regularly. Raven, Honestwitness, Mary, Grace, Snowboardingmom, Aliza, etc. One thing I have noticed here and throughout the Body wherever I've gone on the earth is that some of the most loving and persistent prayer warriors are ...women. I hate to think what would become of our "prayer ministries" if we subjugated our women from participating in that meeting of the Church. Yes, men and women are different, and beautifully so! (I've enjoyed a few books from Ransomed Heart Ministries about the differences). But we should never ever use that as an excuse for keeping them in bondage through subjugation to certain roles in human traditions. We need to get free of the Old Covenant! Today our "Levites" are generally said to have to be men. And these men have to wear a white shirt, tie, and suit jacket. We are very careful about who we let speak behind the pulpit. Have you noticed that we look at and treat this position of leadership like the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle? I pray that we begin to see what the Church is... that we are the Church. I pray we begin to see our identity in Christ and that we become the Temple of God instead of thinking it's the building we meet in. I pray that we stop looking at our service like the Old Covenant Tabernacle. I pray we stop treating our leaders like Levites. And I pray that we stop keeping each other in bondage to our traditions! Women are the largest group of people on earth who have been held down in this bondage, and it's time for them to be set free. In order for that to happen, we need to ask Him to set us free from the Old Covenant. He has called to women and to us to come out into freedom because He loves us and wants to hear from us! "My dove in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places on the mountainside, show me your face, let me hear your voice; for your voice is sweet, and your face is lovely." (Song of Songs 2:14) | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 223 Registered: 4-2006  |
"Does the DVD you refer to answer Wayne Grudem's six key questions as posted in this article?: http://www.the-highway.com/Openletter.html", Riverfonz I asked the author and here is her response: --- I will summarize his questions from Wayne Grudem's questions: 1. kephal: Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the head of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim that head can mean source without authority. Can you show us any evidence? The answer to this one is in 1 Corinthians 11:10. In 1 Cor. 11, head means source but the authority is clearly in the woman's hands in verse 10. The words "a symbol of" are not in the original language and the word for authority (exousia) 100% always means that the person themselves is in authority and never means that they are under the authority of someone else. Perhaps Mr. Grudem could give even an example of where the New Testament uses this word to mean that the person is under someone else's authority. Even CBMW admits that this word always means the person has authority so the evidence that is being asked for is clearly shown in 1 Cor. 11:10. See "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" for a full understanding of this passage where the exegesis is clear and without contradiction. 2. hypotass_: In every example we can find, when person A is said to be subject to person B, person B has a unique authority which person A does not have. In other words, hypotass_ always implies a one-directional submission to someone in authority. This is a smoke screen question implying an authority that the bible does not give to the husband alone. In contrast the bible shows an equal authority and never once gives a unique authority to the man alone. For example the man has authority over his wife's body, yet she too has authority over his - 1 Cor. 7:4. This was unheard of in that culture where polytheism was rampant. A Jewish man was allowed to take on additional wives without his wife's consent and she did not have any authority over his body or any rights to stop him from taking on additional wives nor did she have any authority to stop him from divorcing her. In Christianity both the husband and wife were given equal authority over each other's bodies. In 1 Cor. 7:33, 34 the man's concern is to please his wife just as her concern is to please her husband. This is equal submission due to an equal desire to please their mate. I think that question #2 will deserved to be answered when Mr. Grudem can give one verse that directly says that the husband has an authority over his wife that she does not have. If he cannot provide a verse (which he cannot) then he has no right to demand that egalitarians provide a source for hypotass that is two-directional. Other words are clearly used in scripture as I have quoted that are very clearly two-directional and not even one verse ever gives a man the right to take authority over his wife. 3. or (Greek h): Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for or (h) is used in rhetorical questions to show that the writer is denying what has just been said? The answer to this question is provided in "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" and is well documented there. 4. authente: Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where the verb authente means what you claim, namely, misuse authority or domineer (or even instigate violence)? The answer to this question is found in the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's own Journal. On page 44-59 of CBMW's Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Albert Wolters has an article on authentÈō and its derivatives. This family of words is said to mean kin-murder on page 45 of the Journal and on page 46 the main meanings are said to be murderer and master. Also on this same page the word is said to mean someone who murders with his own hands or as someone who murders himself (suicide). In the "...ancient versions of Wis. 12.6. The author...was sufficiently literate to be able to use (this term) in its correct Attic sense of 'kin-murderer'- in this case referring specifically to Canaanite parents who killed their own offspring in child sacrifice." page 46. authente "is clearly a denominative verb, related to (the noun)... Like the other derivatives of this noun, the denominative verb is dependent for its meaning on (the noun)." The Journal goes on to admit on page 52 that authente (the verb form) was used to mean murder "in a medieval scholion on Aeschylus" by Dio Cassius. "Dio Cassius, the Roman historian of the third century AD" is the one who is documented to use the word this way, although they say that Byzantine scholars who read Aeschylus might have been puzzled by the use of authente to mean 'murder.'" (page 54). So CBMW's own literature proves that the family that this Greek word comes from can mean kin-murderer and they give an example of the verb used to mean murder. 5. neither X nor Y: So we wonder how your interpretation can claim that verb 1 (teach) is a concept that is viewed positively but verb 2 ("have authority") is a negative concept (domineer, usurp authority, or instigate violence). Both verbs are used in a negative way. The word "teach" means to instruct and it takes the view of what is taught. If what is taught is deception, then the teaching is negative. The woman is clearly teaching deception because she is compared to the deceived Eve. 6. Women teaching false doctrine at Ephesus: Our problem in understanding the basis for your claim is that we see no evidence inside or outside the Bible that tells us that any women were teaching false doctrine in the church at Ephesus. But there is clear evidence that at least one woman was teaching false doctrine. In 1 Timothy 1:3 the word for "some" people is the Greek word #5100 tis. This is a generic word meaning male or female. If Paul wanted to say that only men were the false deceived teachers he would have used the Greek word that means males only, but he didn't. Secondly the connection of "a woman" to the deception of Eve is clear that she was deceived and therefore he teaching was in error. Thirdly Paul talks about "her" (singular feminine) salvation in verse 15. You cannot get a single female from verse 15 (Paul says "she" and "they") unless verse 12 refers to a single deceived woman. There are many challenges in "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" that CBMW has not answered. In fact they have only said that they will agree to disagree and have given me not even one response to my exegesis. Perhaps Mr. Grudem would like to explain why. --- Riverfonz, If you have any questions on Women in Ministry I urge you to direct them directly to her, she has study this issue for years. You can get in tuch with her via her blog: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/ Jesus you are God allmighty! | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 481 Registered: 7-2000 |
Women do have a place in the church. Their role is complementary to that of the men. However, they are not to be elders, or pastors or whatever term you wish to use to refer to the spiritual leadership of a church. Agapetos, your arguments are exactly why Wayne Grudem wrote his article. | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 224 Registered: 4-2006 |
"Notice it is not the wife of one husband that is to be an overseer." Riverfonz Whats the requirenment for being a deacon? "Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything." 1 tim 3:8-11 "In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect". Can a Women be a deacon? "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea." Romans 16:1 Yes, servant and deacon are translations of the same greek. Its the same requirenment for a deacon and pastor for their wife. That doesnt mean that a deacon or a pastor has to be a man. Anyways, this question is adressed on the DVD Set, please have a look at it and you will be enlightened. | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 225 Registered: 4-2006 |
"The reason Wayne Grudem has chosen not to try to refute the teachings of the DVD in question, is because he has already refuted their teachings in his articles and books" Riverfonz Is this true? I think not. CBMW has only said that they will agree to disagree and have given her not even one response to her exegesis. Why? °Jesus I'm in love with you! | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 226 Registered: 4-2006 |
I have a question for you, Loneviking and Riverfonz, if you really believe that women should not teach men, are you then ready to tell the women here on this forum, that they should stop teaching us men here, the men of the Church of Jesus Christ? Are we not church here?, comming together in the name of Jesus Christ, are we not his body? Are the women not teaching us? °Oh Jes™s my Lord and saviour, please guide us into all truth and know you better! | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 227 Registered: 4-2006 |
Forgot the issue of the Journal: Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (JBMW) 11/1 (Spring 2006). | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4857 Registered: 12-2003  |
I hesitate to get involved in this discussion because, again, I see a certain amount of paradox in this issue as taught in the Bible. I'll tell you how I've come to terms with this issueóalthough I may change as time goes on. First, I actually do see the NT being clear that church administration and top leadership be male. The whole issue of headship is clear that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the church, and husbands are the heads of wives. This idea of "headship" does not translate into "leader"óit translates into a metaphorical understanding of women actually being their husbands' bodies, and men actually being the heads. The church is ACTUALLY Christ's body, and He is the head. One cannot separate the head from the body; the body supports and nurtures the head, and the head cares for and in a true sense protects the body. (Think of a literal, physical body here to "get" what this means.) Husbands are instructed to care for their wives as the weaker vesselsónot emotionally or spiritually weaker, but literally weaker. Wives need the protection and support of their husbands. It's interesting, though, to notice that nowhere does the Bible instruct men in general to be head over women in general. Unmarried women are directly under the headship of Christ as are men. Married women also, as members of the body of Christ, are under the headship of Christ, subject to His protection and care and authorityóas men likewise are. Marriage and its somewhat mysterious head/body relationship is a picture of Christ and the church. (See Ephsians 5:20-26) According to 1 Timothy and Titusóand also according to the example of Jesus and His apostles who founded the churchómen are to assume the leadership roles in church. Now, the NT also does record women who had some instructive roles in the church. Pricsilla, for example, along with her husband Aquilla taught Apollos the true gospel (Acts 18:24-26). As has been previously mentioned, Phillip's daughters were prophetesses. Also, 1 Corinthians 11 discusses women's propriety in worship. Paul is saying here that they are to observe the societal standards of decency in dress and propriety in order not to bring dishonor on themselves. He says, "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her headóit is just as though her head were shaved." He went on to say her head-covering was a "sign of authority". (1 Corinthians 11:5-10) In verses 11-12, Paul goes on to say that men and women are not independent of each other. I understand Paul to mean, here, that women will both pray and prophecyóand prophecy, Paul explains elsewhere in the book, is for the building up of the church. But in order to be taken seriously, she must behave in submission to authority and be feminine as opposed to brazen or demanding/loud or wresting attention or control. Women have their own unique strengths, and when a woman tries to be "as good as any man", she loses what God has given her as a woman. So, at this point this is how I understand the issue. I am actually on the complementarian side rather than the egalitarian, because I believe that God established the church and humanity in such a way that men are to have authority under Christ in church leadership. However, I also see that God gifts women with pastoral and teaching gifts. He also brings to them the work He wishes for them to do. I believe there are venues for women to teachóbut I believe they need to be under the authority of a male leader who stands before God as the protector and spiritual mentor of those under his care. For example, at our church, which operates on the complementarian model, Elizabeth Inrig teaches some Sunday classes in Bible study. Yet she is under the authority of the pastor in charge of of small groups, and she's under the authority also of the senior pastor who happens to be her husband. God has gifted her with gifts of teaching. Elizabeth herself, however, will not speak to the church at worship from the pulpit. She will not, even in other churches as a guest, function as a pulpit pastor. Here on FAF, even though most of you don't know Richard and me personally or observe us, I do what I do under his authority. Shortly after the beginning of this forum, when I was teaching full time, I began spending time here because Richard asked me to. I felt "too busy" to take the time, but He asked me repeatedly to PLEASE come online and answer people. Because He asked, I did, and I have been greatly blessed by becoming part of this branch of Christ's body. But even today, I turn to Richard when I feel overwhelmed or concerned or just want insight or another opinion. Frequently I have him read my posts before I push "post". At our weekly FAF meetings at church, Richard is the leaderóand he asks me to teach the Bible study portion of the evening. We are both under the authority of our pastor there. So, yesóI am a complementarianóbut I believe God does give women gifts of teaching, and in fellowship settings, He provides Godly male elders or overseers who hold up the umbrella of protection and care over them. This model is also why Richard and I always advise people who want to start an FAF group that they will be much more stable, protected, and secure if they can find a local church that will take them on as a ministry with a pastor who will provide pastoral asisstance when needed. Colleen | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 228 Registered: 4-2006 |
"I am sorry to see the macgregor ministry supporting this aberrant teaching." Riverfonz Here is a response to that quote: --- This is an interesting comment because MacGregor Ministries is foundationally build on the teaching work of Lorri MacGregor. CBMW says that Lorri is not allowed to teach men. This is the point of contention. If Lorri cannot teach men, then MacGregor Ministries would not exist. Lorri MacGregor has worked hard to expose the cults and aberrant movements and her work has helped countless men and women find freedom in Christ. Yet CBMW says that women like her who teach men are in sin. Riverfonz you need to rethink what you have said. Is it a sin for Lorri to teach men? If it is then you should not support any woman in ministry who does not discriminate against men. In other words CMBW says that God does not allow a woman to teach doctrine to men in any place, in any circumstance or at any time. Is this correct biblical teaching or are the restrictions on women that CBMW teaches a faulty tradition? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that Lorri has done a good job in writing the script for "Seventh-day Adventism the spirit behind the Church" and helped many men and women come out of that false doctrine and at the same time agree with CBMW that she is in sin because she has taught men and corrected their doctrine. Also regarding WIM, the teaching in this DVD has not been refuted in any of CBMW's books. They have previously said that no egalitarian has ever explained why Paul connected the creation account with the prohibition from 1 Timothy 2:12. WIM clearly explains why the Holy Spirit shows how Adam's first creation is so important to the reason why Adam was not deceived. CBMW has seen this and to this date they have no answer to the material presented in WIM. They now know that egalitarians do have an answer. I have asked them to show me my error if I am wrong. They have neither shown me my error nor have they refuted any of the teaching in the DVD and that material is not found in their books. I told them how disappointed I was in their attitude. Surely they could show me where I am wrong if indeed I am in error. Tradition will always keep people's eyes closed from viewing the other side. There is a fear in having man's tradition challenged. I fully understand that and I pray that my brothers in Christ will one day be open to testing all things. They are my brothers in Christ and I love them as such. I wished they cared as much about me. Cheryl --- Now I must say, thats a powerful response!!! In Christ | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 316 Registered: 6-2001  |
I think I would feel uncomfortable having a woman as a senior pastor for many of the same reasons that Colleen mentioned. I also think Agapetos made some very good points. My church has a female assistant pastor (actually the wife of the pastor) and female "pastoral candidates" (we live near a denominational university) preach from time to time. I think having this format still allows the women to submit to authority and exercise their pastoral gifts. I have found that women preach sermons from a unique female perspective that men cannot. How really can a man preach from Proverbs 31 anyway? I think much of the vagueness of the Bible over females in teaching positions has to do with culture more than anything. Certain things were just "assumed" and from those assumptions, we form doctrine. Helpfully, Hannah | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 439 Registered: 10-2002 |
I had a challenging thought after posting what I did last time here. But first I hope no one misses the point of what I wrote --- "can a woman be pastor in a church?" is somewhat similar to asking "can a woman be pope?" because our ideas of "church" and "pastor" are not quite Biblical. Therefore our restrictions of women "in church" often fulfill Colossians 2:8. Instead of working to set people free in Christ, we legalistically point to Scripture to restrict. I believe we--the Church--need to repent for what we have done to women, and the way we have used Scripture to suppress them in our traditions. All too often, like the segregationalists & slave-holders of the past, we find ourselves thumping the Bible while picketing on the wrong side of the fence. Moving on... In the Old Testament we see Deborah, a prophet-leader. And we see numerous prophetesses. So I want to ask a question: Did women have more freedom to work for God under the Old Covenant than the New Covenant? The way that people argue about what women cannot do "in church", you would think the answer was "yes"! (By the way, fun trivia: a female apostle is listed in Romans 16:7. Hmm...) (Message edited by agapetos on October 27, 2006) | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 230 Registered: 4-2006 |
Windmotion, you say you are uncomfortable having a woman leading men, I think that comes from being stuck in tradition, rather than firmly grounded in the word of God. I urge you to study the DVD Set, and then reevaluate your position. In Christ's love! | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 231 Registered: 4-2006 |
Also, I think the middle ground of yes a woman can teach men, if they are under authority of another man, is a workaround. Its like finding loop hols in the law for not paying taxes or something like that. Either a woman is allowed to teach men or she's not. I would compare it to the sabbath issue, either the commandment is for sure or it isn't. The view that it has been transferred to Sunday is just faulty or that man needs to rest one day a week, but he can just choose the day of his liking. It doesn't make sense. "There is ìno lawî to counteract, or negate, the fruits of the Spirit" Gal. 5:23 | ||
| 91steps Registered user Username: 91steps Post Number: 121 Registered: 8-2005  |
I used to buy into the whole women shouldn't be Pastors/Elders, etc. But I have known some very devoted women who would make EXCELLENT pastors or elders. My former church, where my wife still attends, had put her up for vote to be an elder. But 3 of their so called elders threw a fit!!!!!!!!!!! The elders in question are sooooooooooooooooooooo worried about losing their powerbase that they oppose anyone other then them. I was supposed to have been made an "elder in training" 5-6 years ago but these 3 opposed it very strongly to the pastor. I have no problem with a woman leader, as long as she preaches from the Bible and the Bible alone. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2206 Registered: 3-2005 |
Mwh, I basically support Colleen's position on this. I have the opportunity of attending the Bible study she teaches from time to time,(probably have attended about forty classes,) I can say in that time I have hardly ever disagreed with her teaching on the part of the book of Romans we were studying. I understand the possible inconsistency and loophole you are talking about, as someone like John MacArthur would flatly say that women should not be teaching a mixed Bible study at all. As long as there is a male senior pastor figure who is the authority, then I see no real problem. But Mwh, let's say that the Christian Reformed church you mentioned allowed women elders, but do they allow women senior pastors? This is where I would draw a line in the sand. I could never attend a church that had a woman senior pastorette. That would by definition be a church that is unbiblical. Just as I could not support a church that teaches that you can lose your salvation, neither would I support a church that allows senior pastors. Adventism, at least in So Cal teaches both. Stan | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 317 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mwh, I suppose I would not actually be "horrified" nor would I judge people who attend a church that has a woman as a senior pastor, but neither would I feel comfortable being a member of that church, just like I would not feel comfortable being a member of a church that worships in the African-American style. Tradition is a very difficult thing to change. Do you think that if archeologists somehow found out that Jesus was without a doubt born in the summer that all Christians would start celebrating Christmas in the summer? Quizzicly, Hannah | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 163 Registered: 7-2005  |
A true leader leads in such a way that those who are led fully exercise their unique God-given skills and abilities to fulfill their unique God-given callings, all the while not even being necessarily fully aware they are being led. Women are really in charge, don't you see? We're just so good at leading that men believe it is they who are holding the positions of real leadership. Honestwitness |
